Opinion ID: 2630530
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Task Force's Public Interest Litigant Status

Text: Following summary judgment, the Task Force argued that it was a public interest litigant and the Board challenged this claim. The superior court awarded the Board partial costs and attorney's fees, stating that [t]he court finds that plaintiff has failed to prove it is a public interest litigant. The Task Force appeals this award, claiming that the superior court abused its discretion in refusing to find that it was a public interest litigant. To be considered a public interest litigant, a party must generally satisfy the following criteria: (1) Is the case designed to effectuate strong public policies? (2) If the plaintiff succeeds will numerous people receive benefits from the lawsuit? (3) Can only a private party have been expected to bring the suit? (4) Would the purported public interest litigant have sufficient economic incentive to file suit even if the action involved only narrow issues lacking general importance? [4] A party must satisfy all four criteria in order to qualify as a public interest litigant. [5]
The Task Force contends that its lawsuit was designed to reduce the harvest pressure on the Koyukuk River Moose population, which all parties admit is an important food resource for subsistence and non-subsistence hunters in Alaska, and sought to enforce state statutes and the state constitution. They claim that litigation seeking to conserve Alaska's natural resources serves a public purpose. We have held that a suit brought to ensure compliance with statutory and constitutional policies that concern the public as a whole effectuates strong public policies. [6] Subsistence is an area of great public interest in Alaska and in challenging the Board's enforcement of subsistence statutes, the Task Force would appear to be concerned with strong public policies.
The Task Force contends that all subsistence users, which State law defines to include both the residents of the Koyukuk River Valley and urban subsistence hunters would benefit from this litigation. The Board does not contest this claim.
The Task Force contends that because the lawsuit is against the state to enforce compliance with regulations and the constitution, only a private party could reasonably be expected to bring this lawsuit. The Board does not challenge this assertion.
The Task Force contends that the relief it requested sought to limit or eliminate non-subsistence use of moose in the area. We have said that subsistence use does not create a sufficient economic incentive to sue such that it would negate public interest status. [7] The Task Force did not request damages, and economic incentives do not appear to have driven the litigation. Although it appears from the record that the Task Force complies with the criteria for public interest litigant status, it is impossible to confirm this appearance without proof to substantiate the Task Force's apparent compliance. As the state correctly points out, without proof of the Task Force's identity and purpose, there is no way to confirm that its individual members would have no economic interest in suing in their own right. Similarly, absent such evidence it cannot be determined with confidence that the Task Force brought its action in good faith to effectuate strong public policies. [8] Thus, the question remaining is the exact identity of the Task Force. In its complaint, the Task Force described itself and its purpose as follows: The Koyukuk River Tribal Task Force on Moose Management is a coalition of village councils for the villages of Allakaket, Alatna, Evansville, Hughes, Huslia, Wiseman, and Koyukuk, which are located along the Koyukuk River in the Interior of Alaska. The Task Force's purpose is to protect the local subsistence use of the moose population in the Koyukuk drainage, cooperate with the ADF & G in development of a Koyukuk River Moose Management Plan, and negotiate cooperative agreements on behalf of the member tribes with the ADF & G, the Alaska State Troopers, and USF & WS for the enforcement and other management actions necessary to protect the moose population of the area. Similarly, in its decision on the merits the superior court found that The Koyukuk River Tribal Task Force on Moose Management is a coalition of the village councils for Allakaket, Alatna, Evansville, Hughes, Huslia, Wiseman, and Koyukuk. But no affidavit was submitted by the Task Force describing its membership. This is understandable since the court in its decision on the merits had seemingly accepted the membership description set out in the complaint when the Task Force filed its opposition to the Board's motion for attorney's fees. We therefore believe that it is appropriate to remand this case for a determination of the Task Force's identity. On remand, the court may call for affidavits or other evidence of the Task Force's membership. If this is contested, the court may hold an evidentiary hearing.