Alaska Supreme & Appellate Court Headnotes from 3.27.2017

Alaska Supreme & Appellate Court Headnotes from 3.27.2017

Alaska Supreme Court Headnotes

PETER HAINES, APPELLANT, V. COMFORT KEEPERS, INC. and LUWANA WITZLEBEN, APPELLEES. Alaska Supreme Court

When there are multiple defendants, final judgment will not be entered against one defendant until all the claims are resolved as to all defendants.

Civil law – Final judgment

 

PETER HAINES, APPELLANT, V. COMFORT KEEPERS, INC. and LUWANA WITZLEBEN, APPELLEES. Alaska Supreme Court

Unjust enrichment is a prerequisite to recovering under the doctrine of restitution.

Civil law – Unjust enrichment – Restitution

 

PETER HAINES, APPELLANT, V. COMFORT KEEPERS, INC. and LUWANA WITZLEBEN, APPELLEES. Alaska Supreme Court

Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim was properly dismissed because there was an adequate remedy at law and restitution, as an equitable remedy, was not warranted.

Civil law – Unjust enrichment

 

PETER HAINES, APPELLANT, V. COMFORT KEEPERS, INC. and LUWANA WITZLEBEN, APPELLEES. Alaska Supreme Court

Damages for the loss of personal property will not be calculated by determining the defendant’s financial gain. Rather, it will be determined in three possible ways: fair market value, actual monetary loss or sentimental value.

Civil law – Damages

 

PETER HAINES, APPELLANT, V. COMFORT KEEPERS, INC. and LUWANA WITZLEBEN, APPELLEES. Alaska Supreme Court

Defendant’s motion to strike damages did not qualify as a motion to dismiss because it was not directed toward a cause of action.

Civil law – Motion to dismiss – Motion to strike damages

 

PETER HAINES, APPELLANT, V. COMFORT KEEPERS, INC. and LUWANA WITZLEBEN, APPELLEES. Alaska Supreme Court

The trial court enjoys broad discretion in deciding whether to impose discovery sanctions and it did not abuse this discretion when it declined to impose discovery sanctions against the pro se defendant.

Civil law – Discovery sanctions

 

PETER HAINES, APPELLANT, V. COMFORT KEEPERS, INC. and LUWANA WITZLEBEN, APPELLEES. Alaska Supreme Court

A trial court’s ruling will not be deemed an abuse of discretion unless it is arbitrary, capricious, manifestly unreasonable or comes from an improper motive.

Civil law – Abuse of discretion

 

PETER HAINES, APPELLANT, V. COMFORT KEEPERS, INC. and LUWANA WITZLEBEN, APPELLEES. Alaska Supreme Court

Because plaintiff’s application for default was specifically conditioned on having a jury trial to determine damages, the trial court erred by granting the entry of default, but denying a jury trial to determine damages.

Civil law – Demand for jury trial – Entry of default

 

PETER HAINES, APPELLANT, V. COMFORT KEEPERS, INC. and LUWANA WITZLEBEN, APPELLEES. Alaska Supreme Court

Neither the Alaska Constitution nor Alaska statutory law require a jury trial on damages after an entry of default is granted.

Civil law – Demand for jury trial – Entry of default

 

PETER HAINES, APPELLANT, V. COMFORT KEEPERS, INC. and LUWANA WITZLEBEN, APPELLEES. Alaska Supreme Court

By accepting an entry of default, a court must accept the well pleaded allegations of the complaint, unless an exception applies. Because no exception applied and therefore plaintiff’s pain and suffering allegations were to be taken as true, the trial court erred in not awarding plaintiff general damages.

Civil law – Entry of default – Damages – General damages

 

PETER HAINES, APPELLANT, V. COMFORT KEEPERS, INC. and LUWANA WITZLEBEN, APPELLEES. Alaska Supreme Court

An award of punitive damages is within the discretion of the trial court and may be awarded if the plaintiff can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s conduct was malicious, outrageous, done with bad motives or was done recklessly.

Civil law – Damages – Punitive damages

 

PETER HAINES, APPELLANT, V. COMFORT KEEPERS, INC. and LUWANA WITZLEBEN, APPELLEES. Alaska Supreme Court

Punitive damages are still possible even though no compensatory damages are awarded.

Civil law – Damages – Punitive damages

PETER HAINES, APPELLANT, V. COMFORT KEEPERS, INC. and LUWANA WITZLEBEN, APPELLEES. Alaska Supreme Court

The plaintiff was entitled to the recovery of attorney’s fees because his claimed damages were the result of defendant’s serious criminal offense.

Civil law – Attorney’s fees

 

RECREATIONAL DATA SERVICES, INC., APPELLANT, V. TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LIMITED, APPELLEE. Alaska Supreme Court

Even though the business venture was not fully developed and had several requirements that had to be met before it could succeed, looking at the evidence in a light that is most favorable to the plaintiff, plaintiff could prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant caused plaintiff to lose profits.

Civil law – Judgment notwithstanding the verdict – Causation – Lost profits

 

RECREATIONAL DATA SERVICES, INC., APPELLANT, V. TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LIMITED, APPELLEE. Alaska Supreme Court

Plaintiff could prove causation in its misrepresentation claim as long as it demonstrated that the misrepresentations caused at least some monetary loss.

Civil law – Misrepresentation – Causation

 

RECREATIONAL DATA SERVICES, INC., APPELLANT, V. TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LIMITED, APPELLEE. Alaska Supreme Court

Damages may be recovered in a breach of contract action only if they are foreseeable.

Civil law – Breach of contract – Damages

 

RECREATIONAL DATA SERVICES, INC., APPELLANT, V. TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LIMITED, APPELLEE. Alaska Supreme Court

Damages may be foreseeable as long as a party had reason to know, through the ordinary course of events, that damages may exist.

Civil law – Breach of contract – Damages – Foreseeability

 

RECREATIONAL DATA SERVICES, INC., APPELLANT, V. TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LIMITED, APPELLEE. Alaska Supreme Court

The elements of a tort cause of action must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

Civil law – Burden of proof – Elements of a tort cause of action

 

RECREATIONAL DATA SERVICES, INC., APPELLANT, V. TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LIMITED, APPELLEE. Alaska Supreme Court

The amount of damages must be proven to a reasonable certainty, based on sufficient information where a court or jury can estimate the amount of damages.

Civil law – Burden of proof – Damages

 

RECREATIONAL DATA SERVICES, INC., APPELLANT, V. TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LIMITED, APPELLEE. Alaska Supreme Court

Judgment notwithstanding the verdict may be granted if a reasonable jury, examining the record in the most favorable light to the non-moving party, can find in the moving party’s favor.

Civil law – Judgment notwithstanding the verdict

 

RECREATIONAL DATA SERVICES, INC., APPELLANT, V. TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LIMITED, APPELLEE. Alaska Supreme Court

In order to prove fraudulent misrepresentation, the plaintiff must prove the following five elements: misrepresentation of fact or intention, scienter, an intention to induce another to act in reliance, justifiable reliance and a resulting loss caused by the fraudulent misrepresentation.

Civil law – Fraudulent misrepresentation

 

RECREATIONAL DATA SERVICES, INC., APPELLANT, V. TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LIMITED, APPELLEE. Alaska Supreme Court

The contents of an e-mail were effectively deemed confidential and subject to the nondisclosure agreement because of the addition of a confidentiality notice at the end of the e-mail.

Commercial law – Breach of contract – Nondisclosure agreement

 

RECREATIONAL DATA SERVICES, INC., APPELLANT, V. TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LIMITED, APPELLEE. Alaska Supreme Court

Confidential information under a nondisclosure agreement is defined by the party sending the information, not the party generating the information.

Commercial law – Nondisclosure agreement – Confidential information

 

RECREATIONAL DATA SERVICES, INC., APPELLANT, V. TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LIMITED, APPELLEE. Alaska Supreme Court

A legal partnership exists when two or more persons become associated and carry on as co-owners of a business for profit. Intent to form a partnership plays no part as to whether or not a partnership is formed.

Commercial law – Breach of fiduciary duty – Partnership

 

RECREATIONAL DATA SERVICES, INC., APPELLANT, V. TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LIMITED, APPELLEE. Alaska Supreme Court

In order for a legal partnership to exist, for elements must exist: associational intent, co-ownership of the resulting business, the partners are actually in business and the business exists to make a profit.

Commercial law – Breach of fiduciary duty – Partnership

 

RECREATIONAL DATA SERVICES, INC., APPELLANT, V. TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LIMITED, APPELLEE. Alaska Supreme Court

Evidence of a partnership does not require that a partnership agreement be in writing. The existence of a partnership may be proven with credible evidence including the conduct of the parties.

Commercial law – Breach of fiduciary duty – Partnership

 

RECREATIONAL DATA SERVICES, INC., APPELLANT, V. TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LIMITED, APPELLEE. Alaska Supreme Court

Parties in a partnership have a duty to refrain from dealing as or with another party who has an interest that is adverse to the partnership.

Commercial law – Fiduciary duty – Duty of loyalty

 

RECREATIONAL DATA SERVICES, INC., APPELLANT, V. TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LIMITED, APPELLEE. Alaska Supreme Court

Alaska law allows the recovery of lost profits even if a business hasn’t yet been established, as long as the plaintiff provides information to allow the fact-finder to properly estimate the amount of damages.

Commercial law – Damages – Lost profits

 

RECREATIONAL DATA SERVICES, INC., APPELLANT, V. TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LIMITED, APPELLEE. Alaska Supreme Court

A new business’ lost profits cannot be established solely on statistical projections.

Commercial law – Damages – Lost profits

 

RECREATIONAL DATA SERVICES, INC., APPELLANT, V. TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LIMITED, APPELLEE. Alaska Supreme Court

A party is entitled to nominal damages even though it did not raise this claim until an appeal, as long as the request for nominal damages is closely related to the arguments made at trial and could be gleaned from the pleadings.

Commercial law – Damages – Nominal damages