Alaska Commercial Fishermen's Memorial in Juneau v. City & Borough of Juneau, 357 P.3d 1172

Background

The Alaska Commercial Fishermen’s Memorial (nonprofit) built a granite memorial on the Juneau waterfront and annually hosts a Blessing of the Fleet ceremony where fishing vessels pass the memorial.
The City and Borough of Juneau planned to build Dock 16B for cruise ships; the approved plan required conveyance of submerged state-owned lands to the City.
DNR issued a preliminary approval to convey the submerged lands, received Fishermen’s Memorial comments, and then issued a final decision; an administrative appeal by Fishermen’s Memorial automatically stayed the decision for commissioner review.
While the administrative appeal/stay was pending, the City accepted a construction bid and took pre-construction steps (permitting, planning), but did not have state title to the submerged lands.
Fishermen’s Memorial sued in superior court seeking (1) a temporary restraining order and declaratory relief enjoining the City from constructing Dock 16B before title transfer, (2) permission to amend its complaint to allege nondisclosure of potential environmental remediation costs, and (3) discovery under Civil Rule 56(f).
The superior court denied injunctive/ declaratory relief, denied leave to amend (as futile), and granted the City’s Rule 12(c) motion; the Memorial appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a declaratory judgment was proper (ripeness/actual controversy)	Memorial argued the City was actively preparing to build and could trespass on state lands; court should declare City cannot build before DNR decision final	City argued it did not intend to build on state lands without title and would pursue alternatives if conveyance failed; no imminent trespass	No actual controversy; declaratory relief denied (claims not ripe)
Whether judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) was proper	Memorial argued facts supported relief and injunction	City argued pleadings fail to show any imminent unlawful conduct or trespass; dismissal appropriate	Rule 12(c) dismissal affirmed — no genuine issue of material fact showing ripeness
Whether leave to amend should have been granted (futility)	Memorial sought to add allegation that submerged lands are a DEC-listed contaminated site and City failed to disclose cleanup costs	City argued the proposed amendment did not state any cognizable legal claim requiring disclosure; amendment would be futile	Denial of leave to amend affirmed as futile (proposed pleading failed to state a legally sufficient claim)
Whether Rule 56(f) continuance for discovery should have been granted	Memorial sought discovery to support nondisclosure/environmental-cost allegations before opposing dismissal	City argued discovery improper because proposed claim was legally deficient and original claims were pleaded inadequately	Denial of Rule 56(f) continuance affirmed — discovery cannot rescue futile claims or claims dismissed on pleadings

Key Cases Cited

Brause v. State, Dep’t of Health & Social Servs., 21 P.3d 357 (Alaska 2001) (ripeness/actual controversy requirement for declaratory relief)
State v. American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska, 204 P.3d 364 (Alaska 2009) (actual controversy encompasses standing, ripeness, and mootness)
Sea Hawk Seafoods, Inc. v. City of Valdez, 282 P.3d 359 (Alaska 2012) (standard for Rule 12(c) reviewed de novo; pleadings assessed for legal sufficiency)
Native Village of Tanana v. State, 249 P.3d 734 (Alaska 2011) (ripeness and standing discussion; injury and threat requirements)
Muscarello v. Ogle County Bd. of Comm’rs, 610 F.3d 416 (7th Cir. 2010) (permit approval without exercise does not constitute actionable trespass or nuisance)
Bauman v. Day, 942 P.2d 1130 (Alaska 1997) (Alaska’s liberal pleading policy; Rule 15 amendment standards)