Martinez v. Binsfield

• Decision Date: 09 March 1999
• Docket Number: No. 1 CA-CV 98-0544., No. 1 CA-CV 98-0302
• Citation: 195 Ariz. 446,990 P.2d 647
• Parties: Victoria Elizabeth MARTINEZ, a single person, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mary Patricia BINSFIELD and John Doe Binsfield, wife and husband; Jeannette Theresa Shultz and Walter Schultz, wife and husband, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: Arizona Court of Appeals

990 P.2d 647

195 Ariz. 446

Victoria Elizabeth MARTINEZ, a single person, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mary Patricia BINSFIELD and John Doe Binsfield, wife and husband; Jeannette Theresa Shultz and Walter Schultz, wife and husband, Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. -0302, -0544.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department E.

March 9, 1999.

Review Granted October 26, 1999.

Warnock, MacKinlay & Associates, P.L.L.C. by Brian R. Warnock, Jay MacKinlay, Phoenix, Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Law Offices of Joseph A. Kula by Robert R. Byrne, Phoenix, Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees, Binsfield. Jones, Skelton & Hochuli by Christine R. Taradash, Ronald R. Collett, Phoenix, Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees, Shultz.

OPINION

LANKFORD, Judge.

¶ 1 This appeal by plaintiff Victoria Martinez raises a novel question: Must a civil action referred to arbitration proceed under the timetable for civil trials or under the schedule for civil actions referred to arbitration? Plaintiff appeals from the trial court's refusal to vacate its order of dismissal of her case for failure to prosecute. Because the court misapplied the civil trial timetable to an arbitration, we reverse and remand.

¶ 2 The facts are as follows. Martinez was injured in an automobile accident involving defendants Binsfield and Shultz on September 6, 1994. Martinez filed a complaint in superior court on August 29, 1995. She certified the case as subject to compulsory arbitration. See Unif. R.P. Arbitration ("Arbitration Rules") 1(e).

¶ 3 For a variety of reasons, the case stumbled along the arbitration track, taking longer than contemplated by the Arbitration Rules. Not all of the delay is attributable to the parties. For example, the superior court did not promptly initiate the process for appointment of an arbitrator. See Arbitration Rule 2. The arbitrator also continued the scheduled hearing dates several times at the request of the parties, or at the unopposed request of plaintiff.¹

¶ 4 On July 23, 1997, nearly two years after the case had been set on the arbitration track, the court administrator issued a form order, placing the case on the trial court's inactive calendar, pursuant to Rule V(e), Uniform Rules of Practice of the Superior Court of Arizona ("Practice Rules").² The order stated that the case would be dismissed September 21, 1997, unless: (1) a motion to set and certificate of readiness was filed; (2) a final judgment was entered; or (3) the case was continued pursuant to Practice Rule V(e)(2). At the time the order was filed, no arbitration hearing had been held.

¶ 5 In response to the court administrator's order, the parties stipulated to extend the Practice Rule V deadlines to "avert the premature filing of Lists of Witnesses and Exhibits" and to allow completion of the arbitration process. The court administrator subsequently vacated the July 23, 1997 minute entry. On September 23, however, the court administrator issued yet another form order, virtually identical to the previous one, placing the case on the inactive calendar and setting a dismissal date of November 22, 1997.

¶ 6 Meanwhile, on September 29, 1997, the arbitrator scheduled an arbitration hearing for October 21. Several days later, on October 3, the superior court judge to whom the case had been assigned prior to the arbitration referral issued a minute entry. He treated the parties' stipulation to extend the Practice Rule V deadlines as a joint motion to continue. The judge concluded that the stipulation "failed to state good cause for such a continuance." However, he allowed the parties to submit an amended stipulation showing good cause to continue and specifically "detail[ing] why no arbitration ha[d] occurred to date."

¶ 7 Plaintiff Martinez filed a motion in response to the trial judge's minute entry, explaining why the arbitration had not occurred.³ In the motion, Martinez noted that the arbitration hearing would take place "[a]t the very least ... within the next thirty (30) days." The parties later filed another stipulation to extend the deadlines imposed by the trial court's minute entry. On November 13, the arbitrator ruled on this stipulation. Finding good cause for an extension, he ordered that the Practice Rule V date for dismissal be extended until April 15, 1998, "to allow the parties to complete the arbitration process."

¶ 8 Nevertheless, the judge ordered the case dismissed by minute entry order dated December 11. He decided that Martinez had "failed to demonstrate good cause to continue this ... case once again." Subsequently, on January 20, 1998, the court administrator issued a form order of dismissal pursuant to Practice Rule V(e).

¶ 9 On January 28, 1998, Martinez filed a motion for reinstatement, arguing that the case should not have been dismissed because she had been "actively pursuing her claim."⁴ On March 10, 1998, the judge ruled on Martinez' motion. Although the judge noted that when he dismissed the case he was unaware of both the parties' stipulation to extend the deadlines and the arbitrator's order continuing the case, he denied the motion for reinstatement. The judge's order explained:

The arbitrator had no inherent authority to continue matters on the Court's administrative calendar. Furthermore, it was inappropriate for Plaintiff's counsel to submit a stipulation and order to continue the case on the inactive calendar to the arbitrator, knowing that this Court had previously denied a motion to continue on the inactive calendar (September 29, 1997), and knowing that a motion to continue dated October 20, 1997 was pending before this court.

¶ 10 Martinez appeals from the denial of her motion. The Shultz Appellees have contested the appeal and filed an answering brief; the Binsfield Appellees have not. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated ("A.R.S.") section 12-2101(C) (1994).

¶ 11 Plaintiff's motion for reinstatement was in effect a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(c), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure ("Civil Rules"). It sought to vacate the dismissal and reinstate the case.⁵ Accordingly, we review the trial court's denial of the motion with deference, and we review only for an abuse of discretion. See Gorman v. City of Phoenix, 152 Ariz. 179, 182, 731 P.2d 74, 77 (1987)

; Copeland v. Arizona Veterans Mem'l Coliseum, 176 Ariz. 86, 89, 859 P.2d 196, 199 (App.1993). It is an abuse of discretion for the court to misapply the law or to apply the wrong legal standards or principles. See City of Phoenix v. Geyler, 144 Ariz. 323, 328-29, 697 P.2d 1073, 1078-79 (1985) (trial court's discretion under Civil Rule 60(c) does not enable it to misapply the law or legal principles). The rules themselves answer this question and compel the conclusion. We hold that the Arbitration Rules govern cases referred to arbitration. Because the superior court erroneously applied the Practice Rules instead, we reverse.

¶ 12 The Practice Rules shed only a little light on the issue. Practice Rule V(b) requires a motion to set and certificate of readiness in "every civil case." A civil case that is subject to compulsory arbitration is still a civil case. However, Practice Rule V does not specifically address cases that have been referred to arbitration.⁶ And the title of Practice Rule V refers to the setting of cases for "trial." The Practice Rules thus do not indicate that matters referred to arbitration are subject to the directives of Practice Rule V.

¶ 13 The Arbitration Rules are more helpful. Arbitration Rule 7(a) reveals how and when an arbitration case interacts with Practice Rule V. A modified motion to set is filed after an arbitration award is entered and appealed to the court for a trial de novo. Arbitration Rule 7(a) specifically provides for a procedure that supplants Practice Rule V:

The notice of appeal shall be entitled "Appeal From Arbitration and Motion to Set for Trial" and shall request that the case be set for trial in the Superior Court.... The Appeal From Arbitration and Motion to Set for Trial shall serve in place of a Motion to Set and Certificate of Readiness under Rule V(b), Uniform Rules of Practice.

(Emphasis added). Arbitration Rule 7(g) also describes how discovery and the exchange of lists of witnesses and exhibits shall be conducted after filing the notice of appeal. This is a different procedure than that prescribed by Practice Rule V(a) for non-arbitration cases. In short, Arbitration Rule 7 specifically adapts and supplants Practice Rule V to a case that has already proceeded to arbitration. Arbitration Rule 7 governs such a case, not Practice Rule V.

¶ 14 The Arbitration Rules also reveal that while the case is in arbitration, its progress is controlled exclusively by the Arbitration Rules. The rules set forth detailed time requirements, including Arbitration Rule 4(a), which states:

The arbitrator shall fix a time for hearing, which hearing shall commence no more than one hundred twenty (120) days after the appointment of the arbitrator. The arbitrator shall, unless waived by the parties, give at least thirty days' notice in writing to the parties of the time and place of the hearing. The arbitrator may shorten or extend these time periods for good cause.

(Emphasis added). See also Arbitration Rules 2(d) (assignment of case to arbitrator); 4(d) (prehearing statement); 5(a) (10 days from completion of hearing to notice of decision); 7(a) (20 days from filing award to file notice of appeal requesting superior court trial). Arbitration Rule 4(a) thus gives the arbitrator authority over the timing of the arbitration. That authority is confirmed by Arbitration Rule 3, which states that "the arbitrator shall make all legal rulings, including rulings on motions."⁷ ¶ 15 Accordingly, we hold that the time in which an arbitration proceeds is governed by the Arbitration Rules, not by Practice Rule V. The Schultz Appellees argue that this cannot be so, for it would...