Opinion ID: 2629666
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Offer of Judgment Procedure, AS 09.30.065, Is Facially Constitutional.

Text: Alaska Statute 09.30.065, the offer of judgment procedure, penalizes parties who receive an offer of judgment for some sum, refuse that offer, and win a judgment after trial that is less favorable than the offered sum by five percent or more. [106] The penalty is that the offeree is required to pay all costs and between thirty percent and seventy-five percent of the offeror's attorney's fees, depending on when the offer was made. [107] The 1997 legislation altered but did not create this scheme. [108] The plaintiffs challenge the entire statute, claiming that it is unconstitutional. The plaintiffs claim that AS 09.30.065 violates both (1) the right of access to the courts, and (2) the right to a jury trial. These contentions will be addressed in turn.
The plaintiffs claim that AS 09.30.065 violates their right of access to the courts, guaranteed by article I, section 7 of the Alaska Constitution because in some circumstances it renders victorious plaintiffs penniless. The plaintiffs discuss a hypothetical example, in which a plaintiff who recovers almost the same amount at trial as was contained in a defendant's offer is greatly punished because she is forced to pay the defendant's attorney's fees. The superior court rejected this argument, stating that it was a frivolous policy argument. As we noted earlier in this opinion, in our past decisions considering the right of access to the courts, we have been concerned with impediments to actual access to the courts. [109] We decline to expand the right of access to prohibit an offer of judgment scheme. We note that this is consistent with the United States Supreme Court's rejection of a similar challenge to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 in Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1, 105 S.Ct. 3012, 87 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), in which the Court noted that [m]erely subjecting civil rights plaintiffs to the settlement provision of Rule 68 does not curtail their access to the courts, or significantly deter them from bringing suit. [110]
The plaintiffs also recast the preceding argument under the rubric of the right to a trial by jury, claiming that the disincentive provided by AS 09.30.065 and the accompanying chilling effect is so great that it effectively deprives some plaintiffs of their right to a jury trial. We have held that a party is entitled to a jury trial if the right to a jury trial was preserved by the enactment of article I, section 16 of the Alaska Constitutionthat is, there is such a right in suits at law where the plaintiff seeks damages. [111] Without citing any authorities, the plaintiffs ask us to hold that the right to a jury trial also includes the right to be free from financial disincentives that might persuade the parties not to seek the jury trial to which they are entitled. We decline to do so.