Cited by

See, (finding relief not warranted where 3 LAVEEN MEADOWS v. MEJIA Opinion of the Court defendant “personally knew of the suit, and apparently merely neglected to act accordingly”).

While the law favors deciding cases on the merits, the “principle of finality in proceedings” must also “be recognized and given effect.”

-59 (1984); Richas, 133 Ariz. at 514.

at 332, and the lawyer reasonably relied on his legal assistant, having no reason to distrust her based on past performance or prior “inefficiency or undependability,” Coconino Pulp & (“[C]lerical and secretarial errors .

(“[W]e presume that the legislature, when it passes a statute, knows the existing laws.”).

See, e.g. , Gonzalez v. Nguyen , , 534 ¶ 12, , 1166 (2018) ("[W]e have consistently bounded a trial court's discretion under [Civil Rule 60(b)(6)] by requiring a defendant to assert a meritorious defense."); Daou v. Harris , , 358-59, , 939-40 (1984) (stating that Civil Rule 60(b) requires a showing of a meritorious defense); Hirsch v. Nat'l Van Lines, Inc. , , 309, , 54 (1983) (requiring a meritorious defense when alleging excusable neglect under Civil Rule 60(b)(1)); DeHoney v. Hernandez , 122

The joint pretrial statement supersedes the pleadings and “controls the subsequent course of the litigation.”

See City of Phoenix v. Glenayre Elecs., Inc., ¶ 19 (2017) (“[W]e presume that the legislature, when it passes a statute, knows the existing laws.” ()).

(when legislature creates substantive right, court may not diminish that right by procedural rule); ("Any rule of court that operates to lessen or eliminate the right is of no legal force.").

See Daou v. Harris , , 358, , 939 (1984) (when legislature creates substantive right, court may not diminish that right by procedural rule); Marsin v. Udall , , 312, , 723 (1955) ("Any rule of court that operates to lessen or eliminate the right is of no legal force.").

“Rather, the test of what is excusable is whether the neglect or inadvertence is such as might be the act of a reasonably prudent person under similar circumstances.”

(“[W]e presume that the legislature, when it passes a statute, knows the existing laws.”); see also Siete I, 2015 WL 8620672, at *4, n.4 (“Indeed, the legislature is aware of its power to make tax statutes retroactive, and has done so on many occasions when amending laws regarding the valuation of property

First, the “law favors resolution on the merits, and therefore if the trial court has doubt about whether to vacate a default judgment, it should rule in favor of the moving party.”

¶ 19 (App. 2007) (“The pretrial statement controls the subsequent course of the litigation.” ()).

“The pretrial statement controls the subsequent course of the litigation.” ¶ 19 (App. 2007) ().

see also Searchtoppers.com, -42, ¶¶ 22-23 (App. 2012) (determining that the defendant failed to demonstrate excusable neglect in regard to its failure to timely answer the complaint by offering evidence that it intended to forward the complaint to counsel, but fa

(“The pretrial statement controls the subsequent course of the litigation .

Ct., (neglect was excusable because an attorney’s office was following procedures designed to respond timely or when a clerical error occurred); (“[I]gnorance of the rules of procedure is not the type of excuse contemplated in rule 60(c) .

Assuming without deciding this is correct, “the test of what is excusable is whether the neglect or inadvertence is such as might be the act of a reasonably prudent person under similar circumstances.”

(stating “we presume that the legislature, when it passes a statute, knows the existing laws”).