Erica G. v. Taylor Taxi, Inc., 357 P.3d 783

Erica G. sued Taylor Taxi and related entities alleging a taxi driver sexually assaulted her and that the companies were negligent in hiring, training, and supervising him.
Taylor Taxi moved for summary judgment arguing the driver was an independent contractor and the municipality handled licensing/background checks and driver training.
Erica’s opposition was due Feb 28, 2014; no opposition or timely extension was filed. The superior court granted unopposed summary judgment on March 4, 2014.
On March 4 Erica’s counsel filed a late motion for an extension of time (supported by affidavits citing the client’s personal difficulties, a criminal trial for counsel, an office move/mail disruptions, and heavy caseload). The court denied the motion for failure to show excusable neglect and entered final judgment with fees/costs.
Erica filed a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment (recharacterized by the court from a reconsideration motion); the court denied relief. Erica appealed, arguing counsel’s excuses amounted to excusable neglect and that relief was warranted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel’s late motion to enlarge time to oppose summary judgment showed “excusable neglect” under Alaska R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2)	Counsel asserted client unavailability (trauma/personal crises), counsel’s criminal-trial obligations, mail/office move disruptions, and heavy caseload justified the late motion	No causal nexus shown between the stated circumstances and the failure to timely seek an extension; explanations inconsistent and insufficient to establish excusable neglect	Court affirmed denial: explanations lacked a causal link to the missed deadline and were internally inconsistent; no excusable neglect shown
Whether relief from final judgment under Alaska R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) was warranted for mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect	Same factual grounds urged as basis for Rule 60(b)(1) relief; counsel urged the court to look to overall justice of the case	Even if excuses were considered, plaintiff failed to show they caused the default or that relief would avoid injustice; plaintiff also failed to address merits of summary-judgment defenses	Court affirmed denial of Rule 60(b) relief: abuse of discretion not shown; plaintiff failed burden to prove entitlement to relief

ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. v. Williams Alaska Petroleum, Inc., 322 P.3d 114 (Alaska 2014) (abuse of discretion review for enlarging time)
Young v. Kelly, 334 P.3d 153 (Alaska 2014) (review standard for Rule 60(b) motions)
Dickerson v. Williams, 956 P.2d 458 (Alaska 1998) (discussing burden and standards for excusable neglect in Rule 60(b) context)
Shea v. State, Dep’t of Admin., Div. of Ret. & Benefits, 204 P.3d 1023 (Alaska 2009) (preference to decide cases on merits)
LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1995) (describing "excusable neglect" as an elastic concept covering inadvertence or mistake when delay is short and no prejudice or bad faith exists)
Sandoval v. Sandoval, 915 P.2d 1222 (Alaska 1996) (party moving for relief from judgment bears burden of proving entitlement)
Farrell ex rel. Farrell v. Dome Labs., a Div. of Miles Labs., Inc., 650 P.2d 380 (Alaska 1982) (discussing grounds for relief to prevent injustice)
M.D. Markland v. City of Fairbanks, 513 P.2d 658 (Alaska 1973) (burden of proof for relief from judgment)