Opinion
No. C2-96-595.
Filed August 27, 1996.
Appeal from the District Court, Hennepin County, File No. PI958452.
George H. Smith, Trawick Smith, P.A., (for Appellant)
Marcia C. Taylor, Brian Stofferahn, (for Respondent)
Considered and decided by Lansing, Presiding Judge, Kalitowski, Judge, and Willis, Judge.
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § subd. 3 (1994).
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Nabil Ali appeals from the district court's order denying his motion to vacate an arbitration award and order for judgment, arguing that (1) Minn.R.Civ.P. 6.05 applies when calculating the time for filing a request for trial de novo after an arbitrator's award and (2) where a party fails to file a timely request for trial de novo of an arbitrator's award, the district court can vacate the award pursuant to Minn.R.Civ.P. 60.02. We affirm.
FACTS
This appeal arises from an arbitration award in a personal injury case brought by appellant Ali against respondent Dawn Roath. The arbitrator filed an award in Roath's favor on December 18, 1995. On January 10, 1996, the twenty-third day after the filing of the arbitration award, Ali filed a request for trial de novo. The district court refused to accept the filing because it was late. Ali then moved to vacate the arbitration award. The district court denied Ali's motion and entered judgment in favor of Roath. This appeal followed.
DECISION 1. Deadline for Filing a Request for Trial De Novo
Minnesota General Rule of Practice 114.09(e)(1) provides that
[w]ithin 20 days after the arbitrator files the decision with the court, any party may request a trial by filing a request for trial with the court, along with proof of service upon all other parties. This 20-day period shall not be extended .
(Emphasis added). Ali argues that he timely filed his request for trial de novo because Minn.R.Civ.P. 6.05 grants him an extra three days to file. The applicability of a procedural rule is a question of law reviewed de novo by this court. See State v. Johnson , 514 N.W.2d 551, 553 (Minn. 1994). Rule 6.05 provides that
[w]henever a party has the right or is required to act within a prescribed period after the service of a notice or other paper upon the party, or whenever such service is required to be made a prescribed period before a specified event, and the notice or paper is served by mail, three days shall be added to the prescribed period.
(Emphasis added). Ali argues that because he received notice of filing of the arbitrator's award by mail, he should receive an additional three days to file his request for trial de novo under rule 114.09(e)(1).
Ali's argument that rule 6.05 applies to this case fails for two reasons: First, rule 6.05 grants an additional three days only when the deadline runs from the time of service and service is made by mail. The 20-day deadline in rule 114.09(e)(1) runs from the filing of the arbitrator's award. As stated in one treatise on Minnesota law,
[i]t is important to understand that Rule 6.05 extends the applicable time period only if that time is calculated from the date of service of a notice or other document or if service is required a specified number of days before an event. If a time period runs from the date of filing or date of judgment, then Rule 6.05 does not serve to extend the time period.
1 David F. Herr Roger S. Haydock, Minnesota Practice § 6.8 (1985). Second, the plain language of rule 114.09(e)(1) prohibits any extension of the 20-day period. The rule, therefore, imposes a "strict 20-day deadline for requests for trial de novo." Nguyen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 546 N.W.2d 37, 39 (Minn.App. 1996), review granted (Minn. June 7, 1996). Because rule 6.05 does not extend the time period during which Ali could have filed a request for trial de novo, his request, which was filed 23 days after filing of the arbitrator's award, was not timely.
2. Vacation of the Arbitration Award Under Minn.R.Civ.P. 60.02
Ali argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to vacate the arbitration award pursuant to Minn.R.Civ.P. 60.02. In Nguyen , this court directly addressed the arguments raised by Ali and held that "a judgment entered under general practice rule 114.09 may not be vacated under civil rule 60.02." 546 N.W.2d at 40.
Nguyen governs Ali's rule 60.02 argument in this case, even though the supreme court has granted review. Ali's argument, therefore, fails.