Alaska Employment Law

Fees and costs:  After U. S. Judge John Sedwick dismissed a state tort claim (asbestos-related injury) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the defendant moved for fees and costs.  As to costs, Sedwick first held that the defendant was not a “prevailing party” under Civil Rule 54(d), and then examined the more lenient standard of 28 USC § 1919, which permits the court to award “just costs” without regard to prevailing party status.  Sedwick denied § 1919 costs.  As to Rule 82 fees, Sedwick denied such, because the dismissal on subject matter jurisdictional grounds required no resolution of state law.

Gentemann v. NANA Dev. Corp., 2009 WL 2486040 (D.Alaska Aug. 12, 2009).  Out-of-state counsel represented the plaintiffs.  James Torgerson and Yvonne Lamoureux of the Anchorage office of Stoel Rives represented the defendant.  

Forum selection clause and remand:  A state prisoner sued Corrections Corporation of America in state court for unconstitutional denial of medical treatment.  When CCA removed to federal court, the prisoner moved to remand, citing a clause in the CCA-State of Alaska contract that provided that the contract was governed by Alaska law and could be enforced only in state Superior Court, and that disclaimed any intention to benefit third parties.  Sedwick enforced the limitation on third-party benefits, and denied the motion to remand.

Gartin v. Corrections Corp. of America, 2009 WL 2486133 (D.Alaska Aug. 12, 2009).  The plaintiff is pro se.  Craig Howard of Richmond & Quinn in Anchorage represents CCA.