30 Carlstrom v. Hanline, 98 Wn. App 780, 789-90, 990 P.2d 986 (2000). See also U.S. Const, amend. XIV, § 1. 31 See MAR 7.1. 32 Thomas-Kerr’s decision not to file her own request appears to be tactical. Her brief states: “Mrs. Kerr was intending to file a Request for Trial De Novo as she felt aggrieved by the arbitration award but frankly was hoping that Allstate would follow their pattern of routinely requesting a trial de novo so that she would not be the party at risk for being assessed fees and costs under MAR 7.3.” 33 MAR 7.1(a). 34 See MAR 6.3. 35 MAR 1.3(b)(4) states, “The arbitrator shall have the power to dismiss an action, under the same conditions and with the same effect as set forth in CR 41(a), at any time prior to the filing of an award.” 36 Cf. Pybas, 73 Wn. App. at 398 (<HOLDING>). 37 MAR 6.3 reads: If within 20 days after the
holding that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to review the weight of evidence   holding that the standard of review under rule 60 is abuse of discretion holding that it had jurisdiction to review denial of motions under rules 59 and 60 that were filed and denied after the entry of judgment under rule 54b holding that cr 60 cannot be used merely to circumvent the time constraints of other rules holding that prejudice cannot merely be alleged it must be affirmatively proved