Alaska Miners Association v. Holman
2017 Alas. LEXIS 75
Alaska2017Background
- Plaintiffs (Richard Hughes, Alaska Miners Association, Council of Alaska Producers) sued to enjoin certification of the "Bristol Bay Forever" ballot initiative, arguing it violated Alaska Constitution article XI, §7 and separation-of-powers principles; the initiative would require legislative approval for large-scale metallic sulfide mining in the Bristol Bay watershed.
- The initiative sponsors (Holman, Niver, Salmon) intervened for the State; the superior court granted summary judgment to the State and intervenors, and this Court affirmed on the merits.
- After final judgment, the intervenors moved for full attorney’s fees under AS 09.60.010(c) as prevailing "constitutional claimants." Plaintiffs opposed, arguing they were themselves constitutional claimants and that intervenors (as intervenor-defendants) were not protected.
- The superior court awarded full fees to the intervenors, finding (1) intervenors qualified as claimants under the statute, and (2) plaintiffs (or the real party in interest, Pebble) had "sufficient economic incentive" to bring the suit, disqualifying plaintiffs from the statute’s fee protection.
- On appeal the Supreme Court reversed the fee award, holding the litigation was principally about constitutional limits on the initiative process (not direct economic benefits to Pebble) and therefore the plaintiffs lacked "sufficient economic incentive" to forfeit constitutional-claimant protection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether intervenor-defendants (Holman, Niver, Salmon) qualify as "claimants" under AS 09.60.010(c) entitled to attorney's fees when they prevail | Hughes: plaintiffs are constitutional claimants, and statute protects plaintiffs asserting constitutional rights; intervenor-defendants should not get protection | Intervenors: they sought declaratory relief that initiative was constitutional and dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaint, so they are claimants entitled to fees | Court did not decide generally whether intervenor-defendants can be claimants; unnecessary to resolve for outcome here (left open) |
| Whether plaintiffs had "sufficient economic incentive" to bring the action (thus losing fee protection) | Plaintiffs: their primary purpose was vindicating constitutional limits on initiatives; they lacked direct economic stake and thus are protected | Intervenors/State: funding by Pebble and indemnification show plaintiffs had economic incentive; Pebble was the real party in interest | Court held plaintiffs did not have sufficient economic incentive; case focused on constitutional limits, not direct economic benefit to Pebble, so plaintiffs remain protected |
| Whether third-party funding (Pebble) can defeat plaintiffs’ claimant status and be treated as the real party in interest | Plaintiffs: third-party funding cannot substitute for plaintiffs’ primary purpose in litigation; funding alone is insufficient to show sufficient economic incentive | Intervenors: Pebble’s funding and indemnity show direct economic motive, so plaintiffs should be disqualified | Court declined to decide whether a third party can be "real party in interest" for AS 09.60.010 purposes; held funding/future economic contingencies here do not supply sufficient economic incentive |
| Whether discovery into plaintiffs’ relationship with Pebble and funding sources was permissible to determine fee liability | Plaintiffs: such discovery is improper focus on funding rather than the litigation’s primary purpose and raises constitutional concerns | Intervenors: discovery appropriate to test economic incentive and real-party-in-interest assertions | Court reversed and cautioned against focusing on funding rather than litigation’s substance; did not permit further discovery in this appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Hughes v. Treadwell, 341 P.3d 1121 (Alaska 2015) (underlying appeal addressing constitutionality of certification of the Bristol Bay initiative)
- Alaska Conservation Found. v. Pebble Ltd. P’ship, 350 P.3d 273 (Alaska 2015) (explains "sufficient economic incentive" test and warns against focusing on third-party funding rather than primary purpose of constitutional litigation)
- Citizens Coalition for Tort Reform, Inc. v. McAlpine, 810 P.2d 162 (Alaska 1991) (discusses economic-incentive inquiry under former public-interest-litigant doctrine)
- Municipality of Anchorage v. Citizens for Representative Governance, 880 P.2d 1058 (Alaska 1994) (recognizes strong public interest in fair elections and public-interest-litigant principles)