§83.6 Analysis

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§83.6 ANALYSIS

There are several ways to challenge a local rule or a ruling issued based on the operation of a local rule. First, determine whether the rule has been enacted by a maj ority of the local bench and properly filed with the Administrator for the Courts. Second, assess whether the rule is in conflict with the civil rules or simply adds an additional requirement. Courts have invalidated local rules because they violated the spirit of the civil rules. The civil rules require that the court adjudicate the substance of issues before them and not simply rule on issues of form. In Wilson v. Olivetti North America, Inc.,85 Wn.App. 804, 810, 934P.2d1231, review denied,133 Wn.2d 1017 (1997), one reason for invalidating a Spokane County local rule requiring service of a jury demand on opponents was that it "exalt[ed] form over substance." Finally, analyze the local rule to see if it deprives your client of a valuable constitutional or statutory right, such as a right to a jury trial, as in Olivetti, or the right to meaningful access to the courts by imprisoned pro se litigants, as in Whitney v. Buckner,107 Wn.2d 861, 868-69, 734 P.2d 485 (1987). In Sorenson v. Dahlen,136 Wn.App. 844, 854-55, 149 P.3d 394 (2006), Division II of the Court of Appeals reversed a ruling that barred a party from requesting a trial de novo because of an overly technical application of local rules. In that case, which concerned a commercial debt, the parties submitted the matter to mandatory arbitration, and the defendant filed a request for trial de novo. Id. at 848. Defendant complied with the local Kitsap County rule and filed and served a notice for trial setting at the same time. Id. The notice of trial setting had a typographical error, noting it for a Wednesday rather than Friday, when such settings are conducted. Id. at 849. In Kitsap County, setting the trial date is strictly administrative, with no appearance by the parties. Id. at 852. The clerk simply did not place the case on any docket and failed to inform the defendant of the error. Id. at 849. The court then dismissed the request for trial de novo and entered judgment for the plaintiff. Id. The Court of Appeals reversed. There were three reasons for reversal: (1) strict compliance with the local rule was not required; substantial compliance was sufficient; (2) the clerk had a duty to perform the ministerial duty of setting a trial date, and no local rule relieved them of that duty; and (3) the dismissal of the appeal for a small technical fault was much too severe a sanction.

Case law refines several of these criteria. First, a local rule is "inconsistent" with a civil rule when it is so antithetical to the state rule that both cannot be effective. Heaney v. Seattle Mun. Court,35 Wn.App. 150, 155, 665 P.2d 918 (1983), review denied, 101 Wn.2d 1004 (1984). Heaney dealt with the speedy trial rule imposed by JCrR...