Summary
The Washington Supreme Court held that an objection to a party’s failure to timely file proof of service of a request for trial de novo under MAR 7.1(a) is not jurisdictional and may be waived. Because the plaintiffs knew of the procedural defect but proceeded through trial and objected only after receiving less favorable jury verdicts than the arbitration awards, they waived the objection. The court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decisions upholding the jury verdicts in Haywood v. Aranda and Creso v. Philips.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether failure to timely file proof of service of a request for trial de novo under MAR 7.1(a) deprives the superior court of jurisdiction to conduct the trial de novo.
- Whether an objection to that filing defect may be waived when the opposing party knew or should have known of the defect but failed to object before the trial de novo.
- Whether the plaintiffs' post-verdict motions could be resolved on estoppel or laches grounds.
Holdings
- Failure to timely file proof of service of a request for trial de novo under MAR 7.1(a) does not deprive the superior court of jurisdiction to conduct the trial de novo.
- A party waives an objection to the opposing party's failure to timely file proof of service of a request for trial de novo if the objection is not raised before the trial de novo begins.
Key quotations
“We affirm the Court of Appeals, concluding that an objection to a party’s failure to file proof of service of a request for trial de novo is “waived” if not raised before the trial de novo.” (233)
“In sum, by not objecting to defendants’ failure to file proof of service of their trial de novo requests before the trial de novo, the plaintiffs waived any objection that they had to the trial de novo on those grounds.” (241)
Factual background
In each consolidated case, a plaintiff brought a personal-injury action arising from an automobile accident in Pierce County Superior Court. The cases were transferred to mandatory arbitration, and the arbitrators awarded damages to the plaintiffs. The defendants timely requested trials de novo and served the requests within 20 days, but neither defendant timely filed proof of service with the request as required by MAR 7.1(a). The plaintiffs knew or should have known of the filing defect before trial, but waited until after receiving jury verdicts smaller than the arbitration awards to object.
Procedural history
The plaintiffs filed personal-injury actions that were transferred to mandatory arbitration. After arbitrators awarded damages to the plaintiffs, the defendants timely requested trials de novo and served the requests, but did not timely file proof of service as required by MAR 7.1(a). The cases proceeded to jury trials, which produced verdicts smaller than the arbitration awards. Plaintiffs then moved to vacate the verdicts, arguing that the defendants' failure to file proof of service deprived the superior courts of authority to conduct the trials. The superior courts denied the motions, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.