*1 Gibbons, Dickerson, 0. Johnny Ashley M. Inc., Anchorage, appellant. for FORD, Appellant, Jewell Williams, Birch, Horton, Bitt- D. Kevin Cherot, Anchorage, appellee. ner & for MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE, Appellee. RABINOWITZ, C.J., Before BURKE, MATTHEWS, COMPTON and MOORE, JJ. OPINION 1991. COMPTON, Justice. single
This case involves a issue: does 16.1(g)provide the exclu- procedure sive for “fast-track” prosecute, failure to cases for trial court dismiss a fast-track case 41(e). 16.1(g)provides Civil Rule will transfer a ease to fast-track a motion to within is not filed after service of complaint. plain- the summons and If the tiff still does move to set trial and fails the court that convince cause exists to continue the case on the inactive dar, will dismiss the case days on the inactive calendar. Here, superior trans- failed to suit to the fer Ford’s inactive calendar. year passed any pro- More than ceedings, so the court dismissed the 41(e). pursuant to Rule We conclude that entitles the in a fast- track case notification of transfer of the case to the calendar. Since the court dismissed Ford’s such notification, we vacate the dismissal and remand to for transfer to the inactive calendar.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND injured Ford was Jewell an accident involving bus filed a She personal injury against action the Munici- pality Anchorage (city) on October 1985. On Ford filed a Memorandum Set Civil Case Trial. according general- quire court classifies cases less of trial time to a case-characterization form plaintiff. ly Judge Douglas Serdahely, fast-track cases. 16.1(b)(2). In the District, An- Judge, Presiding Third Judicial Order courts, chorage trial civil cases non-domestic 24, 1986). (February relatively simple and re- which involve issues *2 III. DISCUSSION memorandum rejected the The trial court a case-charac- Ford had not filed because the argues that trial court Ford no further ac- Ford took terization form. in action pursuant her to erred date was set. tion and trial 41(e).3 agree. Rule city the moved for On June provides: of dismissing Ford’s claim for want order set trial and certifi- Where a motion to in filed a Memorandum prosecution. Ford days not been filed within 270 cate have to Dismiss. She Opposition to the Motion after the service of the summons and realize that the argued that she did not complaint, the case shall be transferred rejected her to set memorandum court by clerk to the inactive calendar the of trial court denied the date. The trial promptly the court. The clerk shall noti- city’s motion to dismiss. writing in the All fy counsel of transfer. 12, 1988, Judge Rene the On cases which remain on requested reassignment the days of dis- Gonzalez dar for more shall be (1) Judge missed, period: C. the fast-track. Brian within that case to unless request reas- approved this and trial certificate proper Shortell motion and filed; Judge (2) M. Katz. signed the case to Joan the court on motion for is or on good cause orders a continued a sec- On the filed October specified for a addi- of Prose- ond Motion Dismiss for Want period Notwithstanding of time. tional granted court the cution. 41(b), the dismissal does not Civil prej- the and dismissed upon adjudication the mer- operate as an unsuccessfully moved for re- Ford udice. previous dismissal has been its unless a the Order of Dismissal. consideration of rule, by the court under this or entered January appeal this on She filed parties Civil by the under 41(a)(1). If under a case dismissed OF II. STANDARD REVIEW again, may this rule is payment the of make such order for interpre the Since this case involves previously as of the case dismissed costs rule, we our inde tation of a civil exercise may proper, may stay and the it deem We are not bound pendent judgment. party in case until the proceedings the questions court’s resolution of the with the order. complied has law, adopt must the rule of of instead 16.1(m) provisions of in persuasive light law most which Ha, provisions of other reason, supersede 16.1 policy. Guin v. precedent, (Alaska 1979).2 conflict exists.4 n. rules civil proceedings have been taken for argue appropriate in which no parties stan- 2. Both year, court shall hold call trial court abused more than one of review is whether the dard granting abuse or the clerk shall send notice its dismissal. The of calendar discretion in writing parties why appropriate if cause in would be show of discretion standard good If cause existed for not be dismissed. were whether the action should issue prosecution. contrary at a call in This is not shown of cause relationship interpret requires the court or within 30 of distribution the calendar 16.1(g). notice, Questions and Rule between shall dismiss ac- of the law; interpretation questions of may of rule therefore, clerk dismiss actions tion. The independent opposed we our party exercise paragraph if a has not this prosecu- ment. of A dismissal for want dismissal. prejudice unless the court tion is without 41(e) provides: dismissed order that the case is states in the 3. Rule prejudice. pending been in a which have Actions any proceed- than one for more 16.1(m) provides: 4.Rule having as a ings taken be dismissed been invoked, has been course, in which this rule In cases want of of matter supersede provisions shall of this rule on of a on motion or motion its own civil rule those other all party The clerk shall review to the action. provision of this rule in which a semi-annually cases instances pending all cases normally rely will not conflict with Ford is entitled to on the If the trial court transfers a case to the inactive calendar 270 REVERSED REMANDED. *3 complaint, service of the summons and year case is forced to a resolution before a BURKE, Justice, dissenting. passes. In this bar, In the case at strict adherence to the necessary court failed to make the trans- Rules of Civil Procedure leads to a result fer.5 unjust. that is both absurd and manifestly 94,1 authority Under the of Civil Rule I litigant penalized should be for the would relax the rules and affirm the 16.1(g) court’s error. Rule establishes a ment below.2 particular procedure for dismissal of inac- Although tive fast-track cases. Ford failed form,
to file a case-characterization assigned specifically her case to the Therefore,
fast-track. Ford was entitled to procedures outlined in Rule agree purpose We with the LORD, Appellant, Robert William 41(e) behind both Rule 16.1 and Rule is to litigation delay. reduce recognize v. in this case Rule 16.1 acts to excuse Ford’s WILCOX, Walter Zoran Yankovich and delay, contrary continual purpose (Sgt. John Doe Robert response In city’s to the Stokley), Appellees. dismiss, Ford’s counsel offered ex- justify cuse to
none is obvious from the record. Nor did attorney any steps prosecute
Ford’s take response the action in motion.
Nevertheless, 16.1(g) (m) provides that the rule is the exclu-
sive means to dismiss fast-track cases.
provision
41(e)
conflict, however,
conflicts with a
of another civil
conflict. Such
instances, however,
imagined
rule.
In all other
more
than real.
provisions of all other civil rules shall remain
allows the dismissal of cases not
in full force and effect.
prosecuted
year.
16.1(g) for one
whereby
a mechanism
fast track cases can be
Gilo,
(Alaska 1989),
5. In Evron v.