Opinion ID: 2636635
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether It Was Error To Deny Litigation Costs to Alexander

Text: The trial court did not grant litigation costs to Alexander. Alexander argues that he is entitled to costs incurred in suing, including postage, transportation, copying, and paralegal costs. The state argues that even though Alexander might have been entitled to recover costs, he did not properly request them. Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 79 allows a prevailing party to recover costs by filing a cost bill with supporting documents within ten days of judgment. If the party does not meet the deadline, the right to costs is waived. [17] Alexander, in his Notice of Objection to Proposed Final Judgment, requested costs and expenses incurred in connection with this case. He filed this notice six days after the state filed its proposed judgment and four days before the court issued the final judgment. Alexander did not file an itemized and verified cost bill as Civil Rule 79(b) requires. Alexander's request for an award of costs was procedurally defective, but he nonetheless requested an award of costs. The trial court must inform a pro se litigant of the proper procedure for the action he or she is obviously attempting to accomplish when he or she submits procedurally defective motions or requests. [18] The defective request therefore triggered a need to tell Alexander how to proceed. Failing to do so was an abuse of discretion. [19] Alexander's request for paralegal costs, if considered a request for paralegal fees, is covered by Rule 82(b)(2). That rule allows recovery of actual fees for legal work performed by a paralegal, but only in cases in which the prevailing party did not recover a money judgment. [20] Because Alexander recovered money damages, he is not entitled to recover actual paralegal fees.