Christopher English v. State Of Washington, Dept Of Corrections
50031-1
Wash. Ct. App.Jun 6, 2017Background
- In 2011 Christopher English was seriously injured while helping DSHS employee Dennis Buss dismantle a trailer; English sued DSHS and DOC in 2014 (did not name Buss as an individual defendant) and served only the agencies.
- Investigations by DSHS and the State Ethics Board found Buss acted negligently and had conflicts, but Buss resigned in 2012; he received no notice of English’s 2014 complaint.
- Ten weeks before trial (Sept. 2015) English moved to amend his complaint to add Buss individually and asked that the amendment relate back under CR 15(c); DSHS and DOC did not oppose and Judge Hogan granted the amendment and relation-back on Oct. 2, 2015.
- English served Buss on Oct. 13, 2015 (after Judge Hogan’s relation-back ruling); Buss moved to challenge the relation-back and for summary judgment on statute-of-limitations grounds and filed a CR 60 motion; the matter was transferred to Judge Murphy.
- Judge Murphy concluded Buss was denied due process (he had no notice before the relation-back ruling), struck the relation-back language, found CR 15(c) requirements unmet, and granted summary judgment for Buss because the individual claim was time-barred; English appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Judge Murphy violated PCLR 7(c)(5) by revisiting Judge Hogan’s order | English: PCLR forbids reargument to a different judge without required showing | Buss: Court may address post-order relief; PCLR not argued below | Court: Issue not preserved on appeal; declined to review |
| Whether CR 60(b) is a proper vehicle to review/vacate an interlocutory CR 15(c) relation-back order | English: CR 60(b) applies only to final judgments; cannot be used to revisit interlocutory amendment rulings | Buss: Needed some procedural vehicle to avoid a foreclosed statute-of-limitations defense | Court: CR 60(b) does not apply to interlocutory CR 15(c) orders; to extent Murphy relied on CR 60 he erred legally |
| Whether Judge Murphy had authority to review the relation-back order on due process grounds | English: Reconsideration was improper; Buss should have appealed after final judgment | Buss: He was denied meaningful notice and opportunity to be heard before relation-back ruling | Court: Judge Murphy properly exercised authority to correct interlocutory error when due process (notice and opportunity to be heard) was denied |
| Whether CR 15(c) relation-back requirements were met (notice, knowledge, inexcusable neglect) so claim against Buss was timely | English: Buss had actual/constructive notice (investigations, mentions in complaint, community of interest) | Buss: Had no notice within limitations, was prejudiced, and the amendment was delayed to avoid Title 51 immunity | Court: English failed to prove notice or lack of prejudice; CR 15(c) elements unmet; summary judgment affirmed as statute of limitations barred the claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Washburn v. Beatt Equip. Co., 120 Wn.2d 246 (Wash. 1993) (CR 60(b) applies to final orders; not proper for interlocutory orders)
- Martin v. Dematic, 182 Wn.2d 281 (Wash. 2015) (CR 15(c) relation-back textual requirements and judicially added inexcusable-neglect element)
- Beal v. City of Seattle, 134 Wn.2d 769 (Wash. 1998) (notice for relation back may be actual or constructive)
- Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 of Klickitat County v. Walbrook Ins. Co., 115 Wn.2d 339 (Wash. 1990) (relation-back must meet minimal due process: timely notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Conner v. Universal Utils., 105 Wn.2d 168 (Wash. 1986) (due process requires notice reasonably calculated to inform and opportunity to be heard)
- Alwood v. Harper, 94 Wn. App. 396 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999) (trial courts may correct interlocutory mistakes before final judgment to serve judicial economy)