| Alaska Supreme Court Opinions made Available byTouch N' Go Systems and Bright Solutions |
|
|
|
| Alaska Supreme Court Opinions made Available byTouch N' Go Systems and Bright Solutions |
|
|
|
|
You can search the entire site. or go to the recent opinions, or the chronological or subject indices. Michelle Stone Bittner v. State of Alaska, Board of Game; and Douglas Vincent-Lang, Commissioner, Department of Fish & Game, in an official capacity (2/14/2025) sp-7745
Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFIC REPORTER.
Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts,
303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email
corrections@akcourts.gov.
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA
MICHELLE STONE BITTNER, )
) Supreme Court No. S- 18944
Appellant, )
) Superior Court No. 3AN-23-07487 CI
v. )
) O P I N I O N
STATE OF ALASKA, BOARD OF )
GAME; and DOUGLAS VINCENT- ) No. 7745 - February 14, 2025
LANG, COMMISSIONER, )
DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME, in )
an official capacity, )
)
Appellees. )
)
Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third
Judicial District, Anchorage, Andrew Guidi, Judge.
Appearances: Michelle S. Bittner, Anchorage, Appellant.
Cheryl R. Brooking, Senior Assistant Attorney General,
Anchorage, and Treg Taylor, Attorney General, Juneau, for
Appellees.
Before: Maassen, Chief Justice, and Carney, Borghesan,
Henderson, and Pate, Justices.
PATE, Justice.
----------------------- Page 2-----------------------
INTRODUCTION
A resident of Alaska filed a lawsuit to challenge amendments to the State's
predator control program. The resident alleged in her complaint that she returned to
Katmai National Park to view bears after the implementation of the changes to the
predator control program and observed that the brown bear population was noticeably
smaller. The superior court dismissed the complaint, concluding that the resident
lacked standing and that she was not entitled to a declaratory judgment on the validity
of the regulatory change. The resident appeals dismissal of her lawsuit and an
associated award of attorney's fees.
We hold that because the resident returned to Katmai National Park after
the bear population was allegedly reduced by the State's program, she has alleged an
injury to her interest in viewing bears there sufficient to demonstrate standing. We also
conclude that she is entitled to a declaratory judgment on the validity of the regulation.
We reverse the dismissal of her complaint, vacate the associated award of attorney's
fees, and remand for further proceedings.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
A. Background
The State operates a predator control program in southwest Alaska
through regulations adopted by the Board of Game (the Board) which are then
implemented by the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G).1 The goal of the
program is to boost the population of the Mulchatna caribou herd by reducing the
population of wild predators.2 Prior to the regulatory change at issue in this case, the
1 See AS 16.05.255(a); AS 16.05.020; AS 16.05.050.
2 See 5 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 92.111(c)(1).
-2- 7745
----------------------- Page 3-----------------------
program authorized the targeted killing of wolves on state land in an area southwest of
Denali.3
In 2021 the Board announced that it would consider changes to the
predator control program at its January 2022 meeting.4 The Board gave notice of a plan
by ADF&G, which the Board labeled Proposal 21, to expand the program to allow the
targeted killing of wolves on federal lands adjacent to the program's existing
geographic range. 5 The notice for Proposal 21 did not reference bears as a targeted
6 7
species. The deadline for submitting comments was January 7.
During its meeting on January 24, ADF&G submitted an amendment to
Proposal 21 - after the comment period had closed - that further expanded the
program to allow the targeted killing of brown and black bears.8 The Board adopted
3 See former 5 AAC 92.111(c)(1) (2021) ("[This program] is designed to
increase the caribou herd's population size and human harvest by reducing wolf
predation on caribou and is expected to make a contribution to achieving the [intensive
management] objectives in [Game Management] Units 9(B), 17(B), 17(C), 19(A), and
19(B)."); Game Management Unit (GMU) Information, ALASKA DEP 'T OF FISH &
GAME, https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=huntingmaps.gmuinfo (last
visited Dec. 11, 2024) (indicating that GMUs 9(B), 17(C), 19(A), and 19(B) are
southwest of Denali).
4 ALASKA BD. OF GAME, NOTICE OF PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE
REGULATIONS OF THE ALASKA BOARD OF GAME (2021), https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/
static/regulations/regprocess/gameboard/pdfs/2021-2022/notice.pdf.
5 See ALASKA BD. OF GAME, CENTRAL & SOUTHWEST REGION
PROPOSALS, https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/regulations/regprocess/gameboard/
pdfs/2021-2022/proposals/csw_all_22.pdf.
6 Id.
7 ALASKA BD. OF GAME, supra note 4.
8 See ALASKA DEP 'T OF FISH & GAME, DIV. OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION,
AMENDED LANGUAGE FOR PROPOSAL 21 (2022), https://www.adfg.
alaska.gov/static/regulations/regprocess/gameboard/pdfs/2021-2022/csw/rcs/rc047_
AKDFG_Ammended_Language_for_Proposal_21.pdf.
-3- 7745
----------------------- Page 4-----------------------
the amendment seven minutes after it was first read to the public.9 The regulation
10
implementing these changes took effect in June 2022.
B. Complaint
In July 2023 Michelle Bittner filed suit against the Board, challenging the
changes to the predator control program. Bittner alleged in her complaint that the
Board's decision to approve the changes, including expansion of the program to target
bears, violated both its constitutional and statutory duties. First, she maintained that the
Board violated its duty under the Alaska Constitution to manage and conserve wildlife
for the benefit of all Alaskans.11 Second, she asserted that the Board violated the Alaska
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by failing to provide adequate notice and
opportunities for public input before adopting the changes to the predator control
program.
Bittner's complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including a
judgment that "the term 'use' in Article VIII, Section 3 [of the Alaska Constitution]
includes both consumptive and non-consumptive uses of wildlife" and that the Board
is required to consider "the interests of all Alaskans, including current and future
generations, when it makes decisions related to wildlife in Alaska."
Bittner amended her complaint in August to name the Commissioner of
ADF&G as an additional defendant and also added a request for an injunction
"prohibiting the Commissioner from implementing any further predator control
operations" under the challenged regulation.12 In paragraph 13 of her amended
complaint, Bittner described her interest as follows:
9 See 5 AAC 92.111(c).
10 5 AAC 92.111; 5 AAC Register 242 (July 2022).
11 See Alaska Const. art. VIII, § 3 ("Wherever occurring in their natural
state, fish, wildlife, and waters are reserved to the people for common use.").
12 See 5 AAC 92.111(c).
-4- 7745
----------------------- Page 5-----------------------
Michelle Stone Bittner ("Plaintiff") has been an Alaska
resident since 1979 and is a non-consumptive user of
wildlife. She has traveled extensively in Western Alaska
including fishing in the Brooks River with the brown bears,
some of whom may have been killed in the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game's recent predator control
program in the western calving area of the [Mulchatna
caribou herd]. Despite her extensive travels around the state
and in the wilderness, Plaintiff has only ever seen one wolf.
Elsewhere in her amended complaint, Bittner alleged that "[f]or people who are non-
consumptive users of wildlife, watching and/or knowing [Alaska's] animals are
declining is devastating and concerning. These wild animals provide a connection to
the land and are part of people's longtime identity and experience as Alaskans." She
further alleged that "non-consumptive uses" of wildlife include "conservation, wildlife
viewing, photography, and just knowing that the wildlife is flourishing in Alaska."
Bittner maintained that after the changes to the predator control program
were implemented, ADF&G killed 94 brown bears, five black bears, and five wolves
"over the course of just 17 days" in May 2023. She asserted that after ADF&G took
these actions, "the population of brown bears at Brooks Fall[s]," a popular bear-viewing
destination, "appear[ed] to be noticeably smaller . . . than in other years." She also
claimed that after ADF&G implemented the expanded predator control program, she
"visited and spoke to members of the staff at Katmai National Park and learned that
some of the bears who return every year to fish in the Brooks River have not returned
this year."
C. Proceedings
The Board moved to dismiss Bittner's complaint, arguing that she lacked
standing to challenge the changes to the predator control program and that she was not
-5- 7745
----------------------- Page 6-----------------------
an "interested person" entitled to a declaratory judgment under the APA.13 The Board
also pointed out that Bittner did not participate in its January 2022 meeting or provide
comments on the proposed regulatory changes.
Bittner opposed the motion to dismiss and moved for leave to amend her
complaint a second time. Bittner requested to expand paragraph 13 of her complaint to
include allegations that she was "personally devastated" by the Board's actions "to the
point that she has spent hundreds of hours researching the facts and law relating to these
matters" and expended time and effort to file and litigate this case.
The superior court granted the motion to dismiss Bittner's complaint,
concluding that she had not alleged an injury sufficient to support standing and was not
an "interested person" within the meaning of the APA.14 The court also denied Bittner's
motion for leave to amend her complaint, agreeing with the Board that her proposed
amendment was futile. The Board then moved for an award of attorney's fees,15 which
the court granted.
Bittner appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim de novo,
applying our independent judgment.16 Whether a litigant is an "interested person"
entitled to a declaratory judgment on the validity of a regulation is an issue of statutory
13 See AS 44.62.300(a) ("An interested person may get a judicial declaration
on the validity of a regulation by bringing an action for declaratory relief in the superior
court.").
14 See id.
15 See Alaska R. Civ. P. 82(b)(2) (providing for award of attorney's fees to
"prevailing party").
16 Larson v. State, Dep 't of Corr., 284 P.3d 1, 6 (Alaska 2012); Kanuk ex
rel. Kanuk v. State, Dep 't of Nat. Res., 335 P.3d 1088, 1092 (Alaska 2014).
-6- 7745
----------------------- Page 7-----------------------
interpretation.17 We review issues of statutory interpretation by applying our
18
independent judgment.
DISCUSSION
The superior court dismissed Bittner's complaint for lack of standing,
reasoning that she was not personally affected because she did not travel to the location
of the predator control program. Our view of standing is not so limited. Because Bittner
alleged that she returned to an area plausibly impacted by the predator control program
expanded by the Board, she articulated an injury to her interest in viewing bears in
Katmai National Park that is both specific and personal. Having demonstrated interest-
injury standing, Bittner is an "interested person" under the APA entitled to a declaratory
judgment on the validity of the regulation she challenges. We therefore reverse the
19
order dismissing her complaint.
A. Bittner Has Interest-Injury Standing Because She Alleged An Interest
In Observing Katmai Bears That Was Harmed By The Board's
Actions.
Standing is a prudential doctrine that requires us to ask whether a plaintiff
is "a 'proper party to request an adjudication of a particular issue' "20 in light of the
principle that courts "should only hear cases in which a genuine adversarial relationship
exists" between the parties.21 "[W]e 'interpret the concept [of standing] broadly' with
17 See AS 44.62.300(a).
18 Antenor v. State, Dep 't of Corr., 462 P.3d 1, 10 (Alaska 2020).
19 Because we reverse the order dismissing Bittner's complaint, we do not
reach her argument that the court erred by denying her motion for leave to amend the
complaint.
20 PLC, LLC v. State, Dep't of Nat. Res., 484 P.3d 572, 577 (Alaska 2021)
(quoting Trs. for Alaska v. State, Dep 't of Nat. Res., 736 P.2d 324, 327 (Alaska 1987)).
21 Bowers Off. Prods., Inc. v. Univ. of Alaska, 755 P.2d 1095, 1097-98
(Alaska 1988).
-7- 7745
----------------------- Page 8-----------------------
an eye toward increased access to justice."22 One way a plaintiff can demonstrate
23
standing is to show an "interest-injury" regarding the subject matter of the case.
Under the interest-injury approach, a plaintiff must allege a "sufficient
personal stake in the outcome of the controversy to ensure the requisite adversity"24 and
"an interest which is adversely affected by the complained-of conduct."25 "The affected
interest may be economic or intangible, such as an aesthetic or environmental
interest,"26 and "the degree of injury to the interest need not be great."27 "The basic
22 PLC, LLC, 484 P.3d at 577 (second alteration in original) (quoting Kanuk
ex rel. Kanuk v. State, Dep 't of Nat. Res., 335 P.3d 1088, 1092 (Alaska 2014)).
23 Id. Litigants can also demonstrate citizen-taxpayer standing to maintain
suit, but that type is not at issue here. See Ruckle v. Anchorage Sch. Dist., 85 P.3d 1030,
1034 (Alaska 2004) (noting that plaintiff can establish citizen-taxpayer standing by
demonstrating that case "is one of public significance" and plaintiff is "appropriate in
several respects").
24 Kanuk, 335 P.3d at 1092 (quoting Larson v. State, Dep't of Corr. , 284
P.3d 1, 12 (Alaska 2012)).
25 PLC, LLC, 484 P.3d at 578 (quoting Keller v. French , 205 P.3d 299, 304
(Alaska 2009)).
26 Kanuk, 335 P.3d at 1092 (quoting Friends of Willow Lake v. State, Dep 't
of Transp. & Pub. Facilities, Div. of Aviation & Airports, 280 P.3d 542, 547 (Alaska
2012)); accord Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 562-63 (1992) ("Of course, the
desire to use or observe an animal species, even for purely esthetic purposes, is
undeniably a cognizable interest for purpose of standing."); Sierra Club v. Morton, 405
U.S. 727, 734 (1972) ("Aesthetic and environmental well-being, like economic well-
being, are important ingredients of the quality of life in our society, and the fact that
particular environmental interests are shared by the many rather than the few does not
make them less deserving of legal protection through the judicial process.").
27 Trs. for Alaska v. State, Dep't of Nat. Res. , 736 P.2d 324, 327 (Alaska
1987).
-8- 7745
----------------------- Page 9-----------------------
idea," we have explained, "is that an identifiable trifle is enough for standing to fight
out a question of principle."28
When analyzing a plaintiff's standing at the motion to dismiss stage, we
construe the plaintiff's complaint liberally, accept its allegations as true, and "draw all
reasonable inferences in [the plaintiff 's] favor."29 Applying these standards, we
conclude that Bittner has alleged a cognizable interest in observing bears in Katmai
National Park, and it is reasonable to infer from her allegations that the Board's actions
have adversely affected that interest.
Bittner demonstrated an interest in observing bears in Katmai by way of
allegations in her complaint that she has "traveled extensively in Western Alaska,"
including visiting Katmai and "fishing in the Brooks River with the brown bears" before
ADF&G implemented the changes to the predator control program. Bittner also has
alleged that after ADF&G implemented those changes, she returned to Katmai National
Park at least once, spoke to staff members there, and "learned that some of the bears
who return every year to fish in the Brooks River have not returned this year."
It is reasonable to infer from Bittner's allegations that the Board's actions
adversely affected her interest in observing bears in Katmai. Bittner alleges that "the
population of brown bears at Brooks Fall[s] appear[ed] to be noticeably smaller . . . than
in other years" after ADF&G implemented the expanded predator control program and
that some of the bears she had previously encountered there "may have been killed" in
the program. Because we are reviewing the dismissal of Bittner's complaint, we must
30
accept these allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in her favor.
28 State v. Planned Parenthood of Alaska, 35 P.3d 30, 34 (Alaska 2001)
(quoting Wagstaff v. Superior Ct., Fam. Ct. Div., 535 P.2d 1220, 1225 n.7 (Alaska
1975)).
29 Kanuk, 335 P.3d at 1092-93 (quoting Waiste v. State, 10 P.3d 1141, 1144-
45 (Alaska 2000)).
30 Id.
-9- 7745
----------------------- Page 10-----------------------
Drawing all reasonable inferences in Bittner's favor, these allegations show that Bittner
has a genuine and cognizable "aesthetic or environmental interest" in observing bears
in Katmai that was harmed during the period between her visits.31 This alleged harm
to her interest provides her with a sufficient "personal stake" in this case to support a
32
claim of interest-injury standing.
We reject the Board's argument that Bittner lacks standing because she
does not allege "she either resides in, has ever visited, or intends to visit" the specific
areas where ADF&G has carried out predator control targeting bears. A plaintiff must
allege an interest that is adversely affected by the defendant's wrongful conduct to have
standing.33 But a plaintiff need not personally travel to the precise location of the
defendant's allegedly harmful activity so long as the impacts of the activity are
plausibly capable of causing harm to the plaintiff's interest elsewhere.34 Here, Bittner
alleges that the Board interfered with her ability to observe bears in Katmai by
authorizing ADF&G to kill bears in neighboring areas where the bears allegedly roam.
As long as it is plausible that the harm caused by the predator control program extends
to the area of Katmai that Bittner visited, her allegation is sufficient to support interest-
35
injury standing.
31 See, e.g., Friends of Willow Lake, 280 P.3d at 547.
32 Kanuk, 335 P.3d at 1092 (first quoting Friends of Willow Lake, 280 P.3d
at 547; and then quoting Larson v. State, Dep't of Corr. , 284 P.3d 1, 12 (Alaska 2012)).
33 Neese v. Lithia Chrysler Jeep of Anchorage, Inc., 210 P.3d 1213, 1219
(Alaska 2009).
34 Compare Kanuk, 335 P.3d at 1092-95, 1095 n.27 (holding that plaintiffs
have standing to contest State's alleged failure to mitigate climate change because
plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the State's failure caused them harm), with Neese, 210
P.3d at 1219 (holding that plaintiffs failed to allege standing because complaint did not
claim interest that was harmed by specific defendants).
35 See Kanuk, 335 P.3d at 1092-93 (holding that plaintiff who witnessed
decline in whale population due to State's inaction had standing).
-10- 7745
----------------------- Page 11-----------------------
We also reject the Board's argument that it is not reasonable to infer that
bears may have travelled between Katmai and the areas where ADF&G has killed bears
as part of its predator control program. We take judicial notice36 that Brooks Falls is
located less than 100 miles from the boundary area of the predator control program
targeting bears.37 The reasonableness of the inference that bears travel between these
two areas depends primarily on how far bears travel across Western Alaska, which is a
factual question.38 At the motion-to-dismiss stage, we must "view the facts in the best
light for the nonmovant."39 Viewing the facts in the best light for Bittner, we conclude
that it is reasonable to infer that some bears may have travelled between Katmai and
the areas where ADF&G killed bears as part of its predator control program.
Finally, we reject the Board's argument that Bittner lacks standing
because she alleges only that the predator control program "may" have caused the
deaths of bears she otherwise might have had the opportunity to observe, without
alleging with certainty that the program has already caused her direct harm. We do not
36 See Alaska R. Evid. 201(b) (providing that courts may take judicial notice
of facts "not subject to reasonable dispute" that are either "(1) generally known within
this state or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose
accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned").
37 See 5 AAC 92.111(c) (noting program is authorized to operate in Game
Management Unit 9(B)); ALASKA DEP 'T OF FISH & GAME, UNIT 9 (2022),
https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/hunting/maps/gmumaps/pdfs/9.pdf (map of Game
Management Unit 9); Maps: Katmai National Park & Preserve, Alaska, NAT 'L PARK
SERV., https://www.nps.gov/katm/learn/photosmultimedia/upload/KATM_Park-
Map_for_web.pdf (last visited Dec. 11, 2024).
The Board agreed at oral argument that the distance between Brooks River
and the nearest borders of the relevant Game Management Units is a proper subject for
judicial notice.
38 The Board agreed at oral argument that bears travel.
39 See Kanuk, 335 P.3d at 1092 (quoting Waiste v. State, 10 P.3d 1141, 1144-
45 (Alaska 2000)).
-11- 7745
----------------------- Page 12-----------------------
always require certainty about causation to establish interest-injury standing based on
harms with many potential causes; an allegation that a defendant breached a legal duty
to the plaintiff that may have contributed to harm the plaintiff suffered can be
40
sufficient.
B. Bittner Is An "Interested Person" Within The Meaning Of The APA
And Thus Is Entitled To A Declaratory Judgment As To The Validity
Of The Regulation.
The APA provides that "[a]n interested person" may obtain a "judicial
declaration on the validity of a regulation by bringing an action for declaratory relief in
the superior court."41 The superior court concluded that Bittner was not an "interested
person" entitled to a declaratory judgment regarding the validity of the revised predator
control program because she was not directly affected by the regulation and she did not
submit comments on the proposed regulatory changes in January 2022. We disagree.
We reject the Board's argument that Bittner is not an interested person
because she is not "directly impacted by the regulation being challenged." Although a
person who is "directly affected" by a regulation is an "interested person,"42 we have
not held that the APA allows challenges only by people who can prove that they have
been directly affected by a regulation. On the contrary, we have explained that the
40 See id. at 1095 & n.27. In Kanuk, the State argued that the plaintiffs lacked
standing because the alleged harm from global warming was caused by global
emissions, not the State's actions. Id. at 1095. We nevertheless concluded that the
plaintiffs had standing because the complaint alleged that the State had a legal duty to
protect and preserve the atmosphere and it failed to do so. Id.
41 AS 44.62.300(a).
42 See Rutter v. State, Com. Fisheries Entry Comm'n, 668 P.2d 1343, 1346
(Alaska 1983) ("In this case, Rutter is 'interested' in the number of permits issued, for
his ability to fish commercially is directly affected by the number of trollers using the
fishery."), superseded in part by statute on other grounds, ch. 22, § 5, SLA 1985, as
recognized in Haynes v. State, Com. Fisheries Entry Comm 'n, 746 P.2d 892, 894
(Alaska 1987).
-12- 7745
----------------------- Page 13-----------------------
"interested person" requirement does not "deny standing to parties who could
demonstrate at the filing of a complaint only the possibility of harm."43 Accordingly,
we have held that "the threat of future injury confers standing to seek judicial aid to
forestall a possible harm."44 Under this standard, Bittner's allegations are sufficient to
make her "interested" in the predator control regulation at issue here.
We have interpreted the APA's "interested person" requirement broadly,
often applying the same considerations we use when deciding whether a litigant has
interest-injury standing.45 We take this opportunity to clarify that when a party has
interest-injury standing to challenge the validity of a regulation - as Bittner does in
this case - that party is also an interested person within the meaning of the APA and
is entitled to a declaratory judgment on that regulation's validity. We therefore hold
that Bittner is an interested person entitled to a declaratory judgment on the validity of
Proposal 21.
We also reject the Board's argument that Bittner cannot be an interested
person under the APA because she did not submit comments to the Board before it
adopted the regulatory changes she challenges. The Board's argument conflates the
APA's interested person requirement with the doctrine of exhaustion. In some contexts,
we have required plaintiffs to exhaust administrative remedies prior to raising
procedural challenges to agency action, but we have not required plaintiffs to exhaust
administrative remedies before challenging the validity of administrative regulations
43 Johns v. State, Com. Fisheries Entry Comm 'n, 699 P.2d 334, 338 (Alaska
1985).
44 Id. at 337 (citing Rutter, 668 P.2d at 1343).
45 See, e.g., Larson v. State, Dep 't of Corr., 284 P.3d 1, 12 (Alaska 2012);
Bowers Off. Prods., Inc. v. Univ. of Alaska, 755 P.2d 1095, 1096 n.4, 1098 (Alaska
1988); Haynes, 746 P.2d at 895.
-13- 7745
----------------------- Page 14-----------------------
under the APA.46 Even assuming, without deciding, that a party ordinarily must
participate in a public comment process to raise a challenge to agency rulemaking under
the APA, we would excuse Bittner's lack of participation under the circumstances of
this case.
Bittner alleges the Board failed to provide adequate notice of the proposed
amendments to the predator control program. Specifically, she alleges that the proposal
to add bears as a targeted species was adopted less than seven minutes after it was first
announced to the public. Taking these allegations as true,47 we reject the argument that
Bittner's failure to submit comments - in the extremely short window between the
time notice was provided and the Board acted - prevents her from being an "interested
person" where she has otherwise alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate interest-injury
48
standing.
In sum, we conclude that Bittner has interest-injury standing and is an
"interested person" entitled to a declaratory judgment on the validity of the regulation
at issue. We therefore reverse the dismissal of her complaint. Because we reverse the
dismissal of Bittner's complaint, we vacate the associated award of attorney's fees to
46 See State, Dep't of Transp. & Pub. Facilities v. Fairbanks N. Star
Borough, 936 P.2d 1259, 1260-61 (Alaska 1997); see also Universal Health Servs., Inc.
v. Thompson, 363 F.3d 1013, 1019 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that interested parties under
Clean Air Act forfeit challenges to agency rulemaking on grounds not raised during
rulemaking proceedings).
47 See Kanuk ex rel. Kanuk v. State, Dep't of Nat. Res., 335 P.3d 1088, 1092
(Alaska 2014) ("We review a motion to dismiss de novo, construing the complaint
liberally and accepting as true all factual allegations.").
48 Cf. Bruns v. Mun. of Anchorage, Anchorage Water & Wastewater Util.,
32 P.3d 362, 371 (Alaska 2001) (noting, in context of appeal from agency adjudication,
that "defects in the administrative process," among other factors, "can make pursuit of
administrative remedies difficult or ineffective, and in some circumstances can excuse
the . . . failure to exhaust available administrative remedies").
-14- 7745
----------------------- Page 15-----------------------
the Board without deciding whether Bittner is exempt by statute from paying the
Board's attorney's fees.49
CONCLUSION
The superior court's decision is REVERSED, the court's award of
attorney's fees is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings.
49 See AS 09.60.010(c)(2); Alaska R. Civ. P. 82(a); see also City of Valdez
v. Regul. Comm 'n of Alaska, 548 P.3d 1067, 1086 (Alaska 2024).
-15- 7745
 |
| Case Law Statutes, Regs & Rules Constitutions Miscellaneous |
|
