[WSBARP] Informal Judicial Preference?

[Paul Neumiller]

The continuance allowed Plaintiff to avoid a mandatory dismissal.  Thanks
for your input. 

 

 

 

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
[mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Richard Holland
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 10:49 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Informal Judicial Preference?

 

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>
[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
<mailto: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:  <mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>
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:  <mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com> 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/20160512/9fc814ed/attachment.html>