The case involved plaintiffs Suulutaaq, an Alaska Native Corporation participating in the federal Section 8(a) small business program, and its transitional CEO Boyle, who sued reporter Lance Williams, the Center for Investigative Reporting, and the San Francisco Chronicle for defamation based on a 2010 article about Suulutaaq's award of a $54 million no-bid contract for a Napa Valley flood control project and Boyle's prior role at a bankrupt dot-com company. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings to dismiss the claims. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, determining that some statements in the article were not actionable as defamation while allowing others to proceed, based on analysis of whether the statements were false, substantially true, or protected opinions or fair reporting.
This case involved an employer, Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC, petitioning a federal district court for a writ of mandate to compel an NLRB Regional Director to take specific actions regarding unfair labor practice charges and a union decertification petition arising from disputes at a hotel in Alaska. The Director had dismissed some of the employer's charges, issued complaints on union charges, and held the decertification petition in abeyance under the NLRB's blocking charge rule. The court denied the request for a writ of mandate, granted the Director's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), and dismissed the petition. The core reasoning was that the court lacked jurisdiction under the Mandamus Act because the requested actions involved discretionary rather than ministerial duties, the employer had other avenues for review through NLRB processes and eventual court enforcement proceedings, and the claims were not ripe.
In Truitt v. Doyon Drilling, Inc., plaintiff Gary Truitt, a rotational employee working two weeks on and two weeks off, sued his employer after being terminated and denied reinstatement following absences due to a foot infection and heart surgery in 2006; he claimed violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) along with age discrimination and state human rights claims. The court addressed cross-motions for partial summary judgment solely on the FMLA issue, focusing on how to calculate the 12-week leave entitlement for employees with non-standard schedules. The court granted the plaintiff's motion and denied the defendant's, holding that FMLA leave time may be reduced only for weeks the employee was scheduled to work, based on the statute's text, implementing regulations at 29 C.F.R. § 825.205, and the regulation's preamble clarifying that time off-duty cannot count against the entitlement. This interpretation meant the plaintiff's leave had not expired by his October 2006 medical clearance date, rendering the employer's calendar-week counting method unlawful under the FMLA.
The case concerned Sands North, Inc., which operates an adult cabaret featuring nude entertainment without alcohol service, challenging the City of Anchorage's 2005 amendments to its municipal ordinance regulating adult-oriented establishments. The plaintiff alleged that provisions such as the four-foot separation requirement between performers and patrons, restrictions on exterior broadcasting, and license revocation for specified sexual activities violated the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, along with corresponding Alaska constitutional provisions, by imposing prior restraints, vagueness, overbreadth, and equal protection issues. Defendant moved for partial summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings. The court reviewed the claims under standards for summary judgment and First Amendment analysis, addressing issues including overbreadth doctrine, standing exceptions, and whether the restrictions targeted secondary effects without suppressing protected expression.
The case involved a resident of an assisted living facility, Helen Winters, suing the operator Chugiak Senior Citizens, Inc. after her residency agreement was terminated, claiming violations of the Alaska Assisted Living Homes Act, the Alaska Uniform Residential Landlord Tenant Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Fair Housing Act, and related state laws. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on multiple counts. It granted summary judgment to the defendant on the federal disability discrimination claims, finding no causal link between the termination and the plaintiff's disability because the decision rested on her care needs exceeding the facility's authorized services and staffing limits under state regulations. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.
This case concerns unpaid claims by subcontractors North Star, Shoreside, and Metco for stevedoring, fuel, and labor supplied to a federal construction project on the Homer Spit in Alaska, where prime contractor Nugget Construction and its surety USF&G allegedly failed to pay after a support agreement with an intermediary led to withheld funds. The court addressed multiple cross-motions for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' state law causes of action, including unjust enrichment, quasi-contract, quantum meruit, negligence, and related tort claims. Applying Alaska law and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, the opinion outlines undisputed facts from the project contracts and Miller Act bond, notes disputed facts about Nugget's direct interactions that had previously blocked summary judgment on federal claims, and evaluates issues such as agency, duty to disclose, and economic loss doctrines before resolving the motions.
