CIVIL PROCEDURE
Supreme Court of Alaska (2023)
Shaun Thompson
In BBFM Engineers, Inc. v. McDonald, 530 P.3d 352 (Alaska 2023), the supreme court held that pro se status alone was insufficiently compelling to relax the 30-day period to file a motion for relief from judgment. (Id. at 358). McDonald, representing himself, filed an unsigned motion for continuance and opposition to the proposed order to settle his negligence claim against BBFM three days after the superior court’s deadline to file. (Id. at 354–55). This motion was returned as deficient, and the superior court granted BBFM’s motion to enforce a settlement agreement. (Id. at 355). McDonald re-filed his motion for continuance days later, which the superior court denied, finding that McDonald failed to show good cause to excuse delay. (Id.). Almost one year later, McDonald filed a motion for relief from judgment, arguing that his settlement was forced and that his lengthy delay in filing was due to the effort he expended while researching his case and fashioning his argument. (Id. at 355–56). The superior court granted McDonald’s motion, finding that McDonald’s motion in opposition to BBFM’s motion to enforce settlement had been timely filed. (Id. at 356). The supreme court reversed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that McDonald’s motion for relief from judgment was not timely because it was not filed within a reasonable time of 30 days after judgment under Civil Rule 60(b). (Id. at 356–57). The supreme court further reasoned that while compelling circumstances may permit relaxation of the 30-day filing period, McDonald’s pro se status alone was not a compelling reason for failing to file within the 30-day reasonable filing period. (Id. at 358). Reversing the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that pro se status alone was insufficiently compelling to relax the 30-day period to file a motion for relief from judgment. (Id.)
