GR 9 COVER SHEET

Suggested Amendment to WASHINGTON STATE COURT RULES:

CIVIL RULES FOR COURTS OF LIMITED JURISDICTION

CRLJ 55 DEFAULT

A.                 Name of Proponent: District & Municipal Courts Judges’ Association

(DMCJA)

B.                 Spokesperson:           Judge Michael J. Finkle, Member, DMCJA Rules Committee

C.                 Purpose:         CRLJ 55(f) sets out the procedures for a motion for default judgment when the defendant has not appeared and more than one year has elapsed from the date of service of the summons and complaint. The current court rule only references service of the summons. The current version of the rule does not expressly state that a motion for default judgment under that subsection must be noted for hearing. CRLJ 55(f)(2)(iv), applicable if the plaintiff initially served process by publication, clearly requires the plaintiff to note the motion for a hearing. This could have been an oversight on the original drafters part or intentional as service by publication under CRLJ 55 (b)(3) requires an examination upon oath. Nevertheless, the absence of such a clear requirement in CRLJ 55(f)(2)(i)-(iii) can cause confusion.

There are two reasons for the request. First, the way the rule is currently drafted can cause counsel and/or judges to avoid setting motions for default for a hearing when more than one year has passed since personal service. King County District Court recently received approximately 8 motions (all from the same law firm) seeking default judgments without a hearing. This spurred several hours of research by the judge handling the matter. That could have been avoided with a simple rule change. Second, King County Superior Court has seen fit to adopt a local rule (LCR 55(a)(1) that expressly requires a nearing. If CR 55 (similar to CRLJ

55) was clear, the local rule would be unnecessary.

The proposed amendment to CRLJ 55(f)(1) would not change the existing rule; it would only make it clear. King County’s local rule can only be considered valid if it clarifies the state rule. If it changes it, then it is invalid. While passage of a Superior Court local rule is not binding authority, it is a good indicator that the proposed clarification would be consistent with the current rule.

The only two cases that the DMCJA is aware of that remotely discuss this issue mention that the plaintiffs noted hearings, but do not say whether a hearing was required. Those cases are: Brooks v. University City, Inc., 154 Wn.App. 474 (2010); and Dubois v. Kapuni, 71 Wn.App. 621 (1993). The two cases certainly support the notion that a hearing is necessary, but they are not directly on point.

For the foregoing reasons, the DMCJA is requesting that the Supreme Court amends CRLJ 55(f)(1) to clarify the process for seeking a default judgment when service occurred more than one year before.

D.                 Hearing: A hearing is not recommended.

E.                 Expedited Consideration: Expedited consideration is not requested.