Opinion ID: 3133196
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: CIFF’s other causes of action

Text: The day before the preliminary injunction hearing CIFF had amended its complaint to include: (1) a claim for declaratory relief requesting that the court uphold the validity of the Board’s salmon management plans and direct the Department to -11- 7056 follow them; (2) a claim under the Alaska Constitution’s various natural resources clauses alleging that the Department “violated [CIFF’s] constitutional rights by improperly excluding its members from fishing regularly scheduled periods and extra periods, while at the same time allowing all other user groups to fish their regular period[s] and additional extra periods”; and (3) a claim for “negligent management and/or willful mismanagement of fisheries.” CIFF sought damages for its set netter members in connection with its constitutional and tort claims. The Department moved for summary judgment on all of CIFF’s claims. In opposing summary judgment CIFF argued that “summary judgment cannot be granted to the [D]epartment because CIFF has moved for discovery under [Alaska Civil Rule] 56(f).”12 In a four-paragraph order the superior court granted summary judgment to the Department. It reasoned that no material facts were in dispute and that CIFF “failed to articulate any concrete way in which the Department overstepped its management authority other than the claim — already rejected [in connection with the] preliminary injunction [motion] — that [CIFF’s set netters] were entitled to 51 hours of extra fishingtime by law.” The superior court awarded the Department 30% of its attorney’s fees, 12 Rule 56(f) provides: Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing [summary judgment] that the party cannot for reasons stated present by affidavit facts essential to justify the party’s opposition, the court may refuse the application for judgment or may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or depositions to be taken or discovery to be had or may make such other order as is just. -12- 7056 about $19,400, justifying the award on the grounds that the preliminary injunction hearing was essentially a trial and that the issues presented were “fairly complex.”13 CIFF appeals, arguing that the superior court abused its discretion by denying CIFF’s Rule 56(f) motion, and that whether the Department strayed from its management plans presented genuine issues of material fact, making summary judgment improper as to: (1) its negligent or willful fisheries mismanagement claim; (2) its constitutional claims; and (3) its claim for injunctive relief. CIFF also appeals the attorney’s fees award.