(Alaska 1991). 6 . Dickerson does not specify on appeal the subsection of Rule 60(b) under which she is entitled to relief. She was similarly noncommittal in the superior court. We assume Rule 60(b)(1) comes closest to fitting her claim. 7 . Harris v. Westfall, 90 P.3d 167, 174-75 (Alaska 2 r & Mary Kay Kane. Federal Practice and Procedure § 1430 (3d ed.1998) (reporting on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(f), which is essentially identical to Alaska Civil Rule 13(f)). 15 . Dickerson raises two other points in the appeal of the second case that we determine summarily against her. The first is that the court erred in refusing to relax the rules under Civil Rule 94. We find no abuse of discretion. See Jerrel v. Kenai Peninsula Borough Sch. Dist., 567 P.2d 760, 764-65 (Alaska 1977) (<HOLDING>). Second, Dickerson argues that application of
holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow the withdrawal of the juiy trial waiver holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to relax the civil rules and hear a motion that was essentially a filing long overdue holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that a tenmonth delay in filing a dismissal motion was reasonable holding that trial court had discretion to relax the thirtyday rule in the interests of justice holding trial court abused its discretion by refusing to conduct hearing and render decision on motion