Brooks Range Petroleum Corporation v. Shearer
425 P.3d 65
Alaska2018Background
- Shearer, recruited by BRPC while consulting on the North Slope, alleges a verbal promise of a ten‑year employment term; a short written employment contract was later signed in Anchorage and contained no guaranteed term.
- Shearer worked primarily out of BRPC’s Anchorage office though he initially accepted the offer after North Slope discussions at Mustang (near Nuiqsut).
- BRPC terminated Shearer in 2015 by phone and letter sent from Anchorage to Shearer (resident of Canada), after roughly 2.5 years of employment.
- Shearer sued for misrepresentation, breach of contract, and related claims; he served BRPC in Anchorage (Third Judicial District) but filed the complaint in Utqiagvik (Second Judicial District/North Slope).
- The superior court (Second Judicial District) denied BRPC’s motion to change venue, ruling tort claims arose in the Second District (reliance occurred there) and contract claims in the Third (place of intended performance), and relied in part on local public‑interest factors.
- The Alaska Supreme Court granted review to decide where the claims “arose” for venue and whether venue in the Second District was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Where did the tort (misrepresentation) claim "arise" for venue purposes? | Shearer: misrepresentations were made and relied upon on the North Slope (Second District), so claim arose there. | BRPC: no compensable injury occurred in the Second District; injury occurred when terminated from Anchorage. | Held: claim arose where the pecuniary loss occurred (termination in Anchorage); Second District was not a proper venue for tort claims. |
| Where did the breach‑of‑contract (and related contract) claims "arise"? | Shearer: contract was negotiated and agreed on the North Slope; venue in Second District is proper. | BRPC: contract was executed and largely performed in Anchorage; substantial events occurred in Third District. | Held: contract claims arise where a substantial part of events giving rise to the claim occurred; here those events were in Anchorage (Third District), not the Second. |
| Should Alaska adopt ancillary/pendent venue to retain related claims in chosen forum? | Shearer argued local ties/public interest supported retaining venue for related claims. | BRPC opposed keeping venue where claims did not arise. | Held: Court did not reach ancillary venue issue after concluding Second District was not a proper venue for either claim. |
| Did superior court abuse discretion under AS 22.10.040 in denying change of venue? | Shearer favored denial based on local public‑interest and community impact. | BRPC argued convenience of witnesses, evidence, and defendant favored transfer to Anchorage. | Held: Because venue under Rule 3(c) was improper in the Second District for both tort and contract claims, the superior court’s refusal to transfer was reversed and case remanded for transfer to the Third District. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ebell v. Seapac Fisheries, Inc., 692 P.2d 956 (Alaska 1984) (established place‑of‑injury rule for where a tort claim "arose" under venue statute)
- Leroy v. Great W. United Corp., 443 U.S. 173 (1979) (discussed meaning of "claim arose" for venue and limits on plaintiff forum choice)
- Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834 (9th Cir. 1986) (place‑of‑intended/actual performance test for venue in contract cases)
- Anchorage Chrysler Ctr. v. DaimlerChrysler Motors Corp., 221 P.3d 977 (Alaska 2009) (clarified loss vs. reliance in fraudulent misrepresentation claims)
- Jenkins Brick Co. v. Bremer, 321 F.3d 1366 (11th Cir. 2003) (discussed substantial‑part test and relevance of where breach and damages occurred)