Alaska Employment Law

“Amount in controversy” in employment matters with diversity jurisdiction:  The $75,000 “amount-in-controversy” excludes interest and costs, but includes not only damages and attorney fees (at least when they are not statutorily defined as part of the “costs”), but also “the back payment of health benefits and taxes” and the costs of any “accounting” that plaintiff seeks to impose on defendant.  Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 2007 WL 2916193 (9th Cir. Oct. 9, 2007).   Also - it seems that a plaintiff seeking to thwart diversity-based removal by alleging less than $75,000 in controversy should (must?) include that disclaimer in its Prayer for Relief as well as in the body of the Complaint.

9th Circuit judges and legal blogs: The Circuit librarian prepares a daily summary of legal news, including blog commentary on pending and issued 9th Circuit cases, according to Court of Appeals Judge Michael Hawkins,

Every morning when I turn on my computer, our circuit librarian puts up a thing called New and Noteworthy, and it will have, from New York Times, Washington Post, [Los Angeles] Times, papers all across the country, with comments on cases that we’ve decided, or cases that are upcoming. But it’s also interspersed with blogs, and it will have blog commentary on a case that’s coming, or a case that’s been decided.

Hawkins does suggest that he discounts - at least doublechecks - blog entries from authors associated with a case.

If 9th Circuit practice is typical, parties must be ready to address arguments raised by credible bloggers as well as opposing parties.  Judicial attention to blogs may also  accelerate the current trend to reject amicus briefs.

H/T: UCL Practitioner. 

The “Ear” column in the Anchorage Daily News: In the course of reviewing various media coverage of the VECO scandal, in his decision in U. S. v. Kohring, 2007 WL 2949528 (D.Alaska Oct. 9, 2007)(reported below), Judge John Sedwick says:

The [”Ear”] column is not intended to be a factual account of events.  Indeed, the gossip/humor columnist in question is known for a phrase which sometimes appears in her column, “The truth can be so limiting.”  While Ms. Toomey may be a bit too humble about the potential impact of her writing on public perception, it is unlikely that a significant number of readers would accept what is published in “the Ear” seriously enought to affect their judgment about something of so much consequence as resolution of the pending charges.