5 NICS App. 53, WILLIAMS v. TULALIP CASINO (May 1998)
IN THE TULALIP TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS
TULALIP INDIAN RESERVATION
MARYSVILLE, WASHINGTON
Arthur Hank Williams, Appellant/Defendant,
v.
The Tulalip Casino, Respondent/Plaintiff.
No. TUL-Emp-6/97-805 (May 29, 1998)
SUMMARY
Appeals arising under Human Resources Ordinance 84 have a specific appeal period which overrides the more general appeal period contained in the Tulalip Court Rules. Following the clear and unambiguous language of the HRO, we deny the appeal for lack of timely filing and affirm the trial court decision.
FULL TEXT
Before: Charles R. Hostnik, Chief Justice; Lisa Brodoff, Justice; Rose E. Purser, Justice.
Hostnik, J.:
This matter came before the Court pursuant to the request of counsel for the Appellant. By letter dated March 25, 1998, Appellant’s counsel requested the Appellate Court to initially determine the time frame for the filing of an appeal in connection with this case.
The final decision of the trial court in this matter was dated and filed on Thursday, March 12, 1998. The following day the Order was mailed by the court clerk to Appellant’s counsel. Appellant’s counsel is located in Trinidad, California, and he contends he did not receive that court Order until Tuesday, March 17, 1998. The Notice of Appeal is dated and was faxed on March 25, 1998 at 10:29 p.m. It was filed in the Tulalip Tribal Court on March 26, 1998. Accompanying that Notice of Appeal was a declaration of service by fax and by mail to opposing counsel indicating that the Notice of Appeal was filed by fax with opposing counsel on March 25, and placed in the U.S. mail to opposing counsel on the same date.
This case arises as an appeal from an Employment Court decision under the provisions of Tulalip Human Resources Ordinance 84 (hereinafter HRO 84). The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals is specifically defined by HRO 84, §X(B)(10). The appeals procedure is also identified in that section:
5 NICS App. 53, WILLIAMS v. TULALIP CASINO (May 1998) p. 54
Any party to an Employment Court proceeding may have any appeal on the record to the Tulalip Court of Appeals of any final decision of the Employment Court. The appeal shall be taken by filing a written notice of appeal with the clerk of the tribal court within ten calendar days from the date of final decision of the Employment Court....
HRO 84, §X(B)(10).
We note that there are two other appeal time frames which exist in the Tulalip Code. Under Tulalip Code §1.11.2(a) a person who wishes to appeal the judgment in tribal court is to notify the clerk, in writing, within ten days after the judgment is final. In contrast, Rule 4.43.1 indicates that an appeal is to be perfected within 20 days after entry of a final judgment, by filing the notice of appeal, serving a copy on the adverse party, and filing a $100.00 bond.
The Court has reviewed Rule 4.43.1. to determine whether the 20 day appeal period applies to this particular case. The Court has determined that it does not for two reasons.
First, this case arises under HRO 84. That ordinance has a specific appeal period. That specific appeal period therefore governs Employment Court appeals, rather than the more general appeal period contained in Tulalip Court Rules.
Second, Rule 4.43.1 requires that not only the notice of appeal be filed within 20 days, but the $100.00 appeal fee must also be filed within that 20 day time frame. The record indicates that the $100.00 fee has not yet been paid. The 20 day appeal period has expired. Therefore, even if Rule 4.43.1 applied to permit the Appellant to file an appeal within 20 days, Appellant has not fully complied with the rule and, therefore, the appeal would be deemed untimely.
Under §X(B)(10) of HRO 84, the ten calendar day appeal period runs from the date of final decision of the Employment Court. In this case, the date of the final decision is the same date that the decision was filed with the tribal court; therefore, the date of the final decision in this case was March 12, 1998. Although a situation might arise in which the date of the final decision differed from the date of filing, that issue is not before us.
Having established that the ten day appeal period runs from March 12, we exclude that date, and begin calculating the days of the appeal period on the following day. HRO 84 is specific that the ten day period is to be ten calendar days. HRO 84, §X(B)(10). Excluding the date of the decision means that the tenth calendar day within which the appeal could have been filed was Sunday, March 22, 1998.1
5 NICS App. 53, WILLIAMS v. TULALIP CASINO (May 1998) p. 55
It is acknowledged that the appeal was received by Appellant’s counsel on March 17. There is no affidavit nor facts alleged by Appellant to explain why it took eight days from the date of receipt for Appellant’s counsel to file the Notice of Appeal.
This Court has no choice but to abide by the clear, unambiguous language of § X(B)(10) of HRO 84 and deny this appeal for failure to file a Notice of Appeal within ten calendar days from the date of final decision of the Employment Court. This Court has no authority or jurisdiction to extend the appellate deadline by an additional three days to allow this appeal to be considered timely.
Based upon the foregoing, the appeal filed on behalf of Arthur Hank Williams on March 26, 1998, is deemed untimely and, therefore, denied. As a result, the trial court opinion is affirmed.
Justices Brodoff and Purser concur.
We recognize that Sunday is not a day in which the court clerk’s office is routinely open for business. An issue arises arises as to whether an appeal, to be considered timely, must be filed on or before the last business day preceding a weekend expiration of the appeal period (Friday) or whether the appeal period is automatically extended to the next business day that the clerk’s office is routinely open (Monday). Since deciding that issue is irrelevant within the confines of this case, we leave that issue open to be decided in a future case.