Craig Brazell v. James Snodgrass

• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington
• Decided: July 15, 2025
• Docket: 39837-4
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED JULY 15, 2025 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division III

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE

CRAIG BRAZELL, an individual; ) CCB DISTRIBUTING, LLC, a ) No. 39837-4-III Washington Limited Liability Company, ) ) Respondents, ) ) v. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) JAMES SNODGRASS, an individual; ) NEXUS ONE, LLC, a Washington ) Limited Liability Company, ) ) Appellants. )

COONEY, J. — James Snodgrass and Nexus One, LLC, (collectively, “Mr.

Snodgrass”) appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration. We dismiss

his appeal as untimely.

BACKGROUND

Craig Brazell and CCB Distributing, LLC, (collectively, “Mr. Brazell”) filed suit

against Mr. Snodgrass seeking declaratory relief, dissociation, breach of fiduciary duty, No. 39837-4-III Brazell v. Snodgrass

judicial dissolution, and an injunction. Thereafter, the parties reached a settlement,

formalized under “CR2A” (Agreement). Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 220-22. The Agreement

provided that “any dispute as to the terms of his agreement . . . shall be subject to

mandatory arbitration.” CP at 222.

Mr. Brazell later alleged that Mr. Snodgrass had breached the Agreement and

moved to compel arbitration. Arbitration was held, resulting in an award in favor of

Mr. Brazell. Mr. Brazell then moved for an order confirming the arbitration award. The

superior court granted the motion and entered an order confirming the arbitration award

on April 28, 2023.

Mr. Snodgrass e-mailed a “Motion for Reconsideration with Exhibits” to the

Benton County Superior Court administrator on May 8, 2023. CP at 118. However, he

“failed to timely file the Motion for Reconsideration.” Id. Nevertheless, the superior

court “exercise[d] its discretion and consider[ed] the Defendant’s Motion for

Reconsideration.” Id. The superior court subsequently denied Mr. Snodgrass’ motion in

a 22-page letter decision dated June 5, 2023. On June 22, 2023, Mr. Snodgrass filed a

notice of appeal, challenging the superior court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration.

ANALYSIS

A motion for reconsideration is addressed at the sound discretion of the trial court,

and will not be reversed absent a showing of manifest abuse of discretion. Lund v.

Benham, 109 Wn. App. 263, 266, 34 P.3d 902 (2001). An abuse of discretion occurs

2 No. 39837-4-III Brazell v. Snodgrass

when the trial court’s decision rests on untenable grounds or untenable reasons. State ex

rel. Carroll v. Junker, 79 Wn.2d 12, 26, 482 P.2d 775 (1971).

The RAPs provide that a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after

entry of the decision the appellant wants reviewed or 30 days after entry of an order

deciding a timely motion for reconsideration of the decision the appellant wants

reviewed. RAP 5.2(a), (e). Under CR 59(b), a motion for “reconsideration shall be filed

not later than 10 days after the entry of the judgment, order, or other decision.” In

general, the word “shall” imposes a mandatory requirement. Erection Co. v. Dep’t of

Labor & Indus., 121 Wn.2d 513, 518, 852 P.2d 288 (1993). Consequently, a trial court

lacks the authority to extend the time period for filing a motion for reconsideration. Metz

v. Sarandos, 91 Wn. App. 357, 360, 957 P.2d 795 (1998).

Here, Mr. Snodgrass did not appeal the April 28 order confirming the arbitration

award. Instead, he e-mailed a CR 59 motion for reconsideration to the court

administrator. For this court to reach the merits of Mr. Snodgrass’ appeal, his CR 59

motion must have been timely filed. It was not.

First, Mr. Snodgrass does not challenge the superior court’s finding that his

motion for reconsideration was untimely. This finding is a verity on appeal. In re

Welfare of A.L.C., 8 Wn. App. 2d 864, 871, 439 P.3d 694 (2019). Second, the record

lacks any indication that Mr. Snodgrass filed his motion with the clerk of the court within

10 days of the court’s order confirming the arbitration award. Because Mr. Snodgrass’

3 No. 39837-4-III Brazell v. Snodgrass

motion for reconsideration was untimely, the trial court abused its discretion in

reconsidering its April 28 order and judgment.

The commencement date for Mr. Snodgrass to initiate an appeal was April 28,

2023. His appeal was not filed until June 22, 2023, well beyond the 30-day time

limitation. We therefore dismiss this appeal as untimely.

A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in

the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to

RCW 2.06.040.

Cooney, J.

WE CONCUR:

Lawrence-Berrey, C.J.

Staab, J.