GR 9 COVER SHEET

Suggested Amendments to

WASHINGTON STATE CIVIL RULE 55

A. Name of Proponent:

Washington Superior Court Judges Association (SCJA)

B. Spokesperson:

Judge Kristin Ferrera, Superior Court Judges’ Association President

C. Purpose:

CR 55(a)(3) essentially provides that non-appearing parties who have been properly served with original process are not entitled to notice before a default may be entered “except as provided in rule 55(f)(2)(A).” However, while that quoted language suggests that there are instances when prior notice is required, the subsection referenced in (a)(3) does not address when a party is entitled to such notice but rather how such notice is to be given (i.e. by service on the attorney of record). Thus, the subsection cited in subsection (a)(3) appears misplaced.

Additionally, the seemingly errant subsection reference appears to create an internal conflict within the rule. Subsection (f)(1) requires prior notice to a non-appearing party in default if more than 1 year has elapsed between when they are served with original process and when default is sought, and (f)(2) provides three methods for serving such notice. However, the subsection cited in (a)(3) provides only one method for effecting such service (i.e. by service on the attorney of record). Thus, the citation in (a)(3) appears inconsistent with (f)(2) in terms of the number of available methods of service. Moreover, as (a)(3) currently provides only for service on the attorney of record, it also appears inconsistent with (f)(1) which requires notice be given to the party in default; as while serving the attorney may be fine if the party is represented, how does one serve notice on a party in default who is pro se if (a)(3) only provides for service on an attorney of record?

In our view, the above issues could be resolved by simply changing the subsection referenced in the final clause of (a)(3) from “55(f)(2)(A)” to “55(f).” Note too that while this GR 9 is limited to suggested changes to CR 55(a)(3), a comparable issue also appears in CRLJ 55(a)(3).

D. Hearing:

A hearing is not requested.

E. Expedited Consideration:

Yes. Proponent believes it appropriate to consider this proposal expeditiously with the change effective immediately upon publication if adopted as (a) the suggested amendment is merely a technical adjustment to add clarity and consistency to the rule and to make it consistent with historic and common practice, and (b) proponent does not anticipate the suggested amendment to be particularly controversial.

F. Supporting Materials:

Not Applicable.