[WSBARP] Informal Judicial Preference?

[Richard Holland]

I have had a similar experience before Court Commissioners in Island County.  It is particularly frustrating because you are not necessarily choosing to go before a Commissioner.  That just happens to be who is there that day.  In Island - in my limited experience - you actually need to get the calendar of the judges and make sure that the judge on your case is going to be in court that day - or you can easily find that your matter got bumped to the Commissioner.  At the same time, a retired judge on another case I was involved with had no issue ruling on something.  I didn't have the same result you did, but it was the better part of a wasted day and client funds to have the Commissioner say essentially "I won't rule on this".

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Paul Neumiller
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 10:28 AM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Informal Judicial Preference?

Island County.  Situation:  Plaintiffs brought a condemnation action for private right of way. After two years of nothing, I brought a CR 41(b)(1) motion to dismiss for want of prosecution.  All Plaintiff had to do was file and serve a notice of trial setting prior to the hearing.  Hearing was held by a court commissioner who, at Plaintiff's request, continued the hearing to the following week stating the assigned judge (who was out of town) should hear the matter.  Yep, you guessed it. Plaintiff filed and served the notice for trial setting after the first hearing with the court commissioner but before the hearing with the assigned judge.  Judge ruled that the matter in front of him was "the hearing" (and not a continuance of the hearing) and that Plaintiffs complied with CR 41.  So, my client, who was entitled to full dismissal at the first hearing, was extremely prejudiced by the continuance to allow the "assigned judge" to hear the case because the extra week gave the Plaintiffs time to comply with CR 41.

Feel free to answer off line if you prefer with any advice.


From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of G. Geoffrey Gibbs
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 9:57 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Informal Judicial Preference?

Paul:      What county ? GGG

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Paul Neumiller
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 9:43 AM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Informal Judicial Preference?

I have heard a local judge say that "dispositive civil motions should be heard by the assigned judge" yet I cannot find anything in the superior court rules or our local court rules.  Is this idea written down somewhere? Thanks Thanks Thanks.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20160512/d952a830/attachment.html>