John W. Sedwick

In United States v. Thoms, defendants Trace Rae Thoms and Jennifer Anne Thoms moved to suppress evidence obtained from search warrants executed on their Wasilla, Alaska property, which uncovered a large marijuana grow operation. The warrants were based on an Alaska State Trooper's affidavit stating he smelled cultivated marijuana while driving nearby, along with supporting details like high electricity usage and the defendants' backgrounds. The defendants sought a Franks hearing, arguing the officer intentionally or recklessly misrepresented facts about the odor and omitted material information. After a limited Franks hearing, Magistrate Judge Roberts recommended denying the motion, finding the affidavit truthful regarding the marijuana smell and sufficient to establish probable cause, and the district court adopted this recommendation in its final order.

criminal law

The case challenged a U.S. Forest Service rule exempting the Tongass National Forest from the nationwide Roadless Area Conservation Rule, which restricts road construction and timber harvesting in inventoried roadless areas of national forests. Plaintiffs, including the Organized Village of Kake, moved for summary judgment to invalidate the Tongass Exemption, reinstate the Roadless Rule, and vacate conflicting timber sales, while federal defendants and intervenors cross-moved for dismissal. The opinion reviews the factual and procedural background of the Roadless Rule's adoption, including alternatives considered for the Tongass, the requirements of the National Forest Management Act, and standards for judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court analyzed whether the exemption complied with applicable procedural and substantive requirements before resolving the cross-motions.

environmentfederal powerprocedure

In United States v. Jensen, defendants Mr. and Mrs. Jensen, proceeding pro se, were charged with attempting to defeat the payment of taxes in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201, unlawfully filing false joint federal income tax returns, and willfully failing to file income tax returns for certain years. They filed multiple motions to dismiss the indictment on grounds including overreach, absence of essential elements, fatal defects, and lack of magistrate authority for arraignment. The district court conducted de novo review of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, adopted the findings and conclusions, and denied all motions at dockets 23, 29, 30, 35, 36, 44, and 45, determining that the magistrate correctly applied the law and that the indictment was legally sufficient to apprise defendants of the charges. The court also directed the parties to confer on trial readiness for the March 10, 2010 date.

criminal lawtaxes

In this case, defendant Cassero Lenell Washington faced federal charges for distributing controlled substances and possessing them with intent to distribute. He moved to suppress evidence found in his Chevy Tahoe during a search conducted under a state warrant, arguing that the supporting affidavit failed to establish probable cause and that the officer could not reasonably rely on the warrant. The district court denied the motion after de novo review, adopting the magistrate judge's findings that the affidavit—detailing a traffic stop, strong marijuana odor, bloodshot eyes, lethargic behavior, large cash wads folded like those of drug dealers, and the officer's experience—provided enough facts to support probable cause for searching the vehicle for drugs, money, and related items. Alternatively, the court held that the Leon good-faith exception would apply even if probable cause were lacking, as the application was not so deficient that reliance on the warrant was objectively unreasonable.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved NorthStar Trekking LLC's challenge to an IRS assessment of Air Transportation Excise Tax under 26 U.S.C. § 4261 for its 2002 flight-seeing helicopter charters in Alaska, which the IRS claimed were operated on established lines; NorthStar sought a refund after paying a portion of the assessed amount and argued it qualified for the exemption under 26 U.S.C. § 4281. The court addressed NorthStar's motion for summary judgment on whether the flights were taxable. The court granted the motion, ruling that the flights were exempt because they were not operated on established lines. The reasoning centered on undisputed facts showing that NorthStar provided only on-demand charter flights with no fixed schedules or routes, varying landing sites based on weather and customer requests, and service only when sufficient demand existed, consistent with the statutory exemption for non-scheduled sightseeing operations.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case arose from the 2002 death of a child who strangled on the inner cord of a window blind, leading plaintiffs (the child's parents and sister) to sue the Window Covering Manufacturers Association (WCMA), a trade group, along with other defendants for negligence in developing an allegedly inadequate national safety standard for window coverings. After other defendants were dismissed, WCMA moved for summary judgment, arguing it owed no legal duty to consumers under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A or Alaska law. The court denied the motion, holding that WCMA's voluntary undertaking to create safety standards could impose a duty, as the risk of harm might be increased by an inadequate standard, the association had undertaken duties owed by manufacturers, and policy factors under Alaska precedent supported potential liability. The decision turned on whether reasonable jurors could find the association failed to exercise reasonable care in its undertaking.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved former Alaska state legislator Peter Kott, who was convicted after a jury trial on charges of conspiracy, extortion under color of official right, and bribery concerning federal funds, arising from allegations that he accepted payments and benefits from Veco Corporation executives in exchange for advancing favorable oil tax legislation known as the Petroleum Profits Tax. Kott moved for a judgment of acquittal under Rule 29 or a new trial under Rule 33, arguing primarily that the conspiracy charge was invalid because it involved obtaining property from participants in the conspiracy, that jury instructions on the Hobbs Act lacked a required quid pro quo element, and that legislative immunity principles were violated. The court denied the motion, holding that the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to convict, that the conspiracy was distinguishable from contrary Sixth Circuit precedent because Kott was the recipient rather than payor of the bribe, and that the jury instructions and other procedures complied with Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court authority such as Evans v. United States. The court further found no plain error in the proceedings that would warrant a new trial.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatorytaxes

This case involved defendants Sean Turvin and Corina Cunningham, who were stopped by Alaska State Troopers for a traffic violation and later moved to suppress evidence found during a vehicle search. The district court granted the motion to suppress as to both defendants. The core reasoning was that the trooper unlawfully extended the traffic stop detention without reasonable suspicion of other criminal activity, rendering the subsequent consent to search invalid under Ninth Circuit precedent in United States v. Chavez-Valenzuela; the court also found that the government had waived arguments about the passenger's standing and that she had standing to challenge the extended detention as fruit of the poisonous tree.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves residents of Kivalina, Alaska, suing Teck Cominco Alaska, Inc., the operator of the Red Dog Mine, for alleged violations of monitoring and reporting requirements under NPDES permits issued by the EPA pursuant to the Clean Water Act. The claims concern discharges of treated wastewater and tailings from the mine site and port facilities into local rivers and the Chukchi Sea. Defendant Teck moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss portions of the monitoring and reporting claims, arguing that some alleged violations were not actual breaches of permit terms or the related consent order and that past violations deprived plaintiffs of standing. Plaintiffs opposed and cross-moved for summary judgment on all such claims. The court examined the permit conditions, discharge monitoring reports, consent order obligations, and precedents on ongoing violations to determine whether material facts were disputed and whether jurisdiction existed.

environmentfederal powerprocedure

The case involved Laborers Local 341 filing suit under the LMRA to vacate an arbitration award that upheld the termination of employee Steve Pope by Anchorage Sand and Gravel, alleging the arbitrator failed to disclose a conflict. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint filed more than 90 days after the award as time-barred, prompting analysis of the appropriate statute of limitations where none is specified in the LMRA. The court reviewed options including Alaska's 90-day Uniform Arbitration Act period, 30-day appellate rules, the FAA's three-month limit, a three-year contract statute, and the six-month period in LMRA section 10(b), concluding that the federal six-month period from DelCostello v. Teamsters was the most appropriate to borrow for such actions. Because the complaint was filed within six months, the motion to dismiss was denied.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves a Miller Act dispute in which subcontractor Poong Lim sued prime contractor Dick Pacific/Ghemm Joint Venture and its sureties for additional compensation allegedly owed under a subcontract for fabrication and erection work on a hospital construction project at Fort Wainwright, Alaska; the defendants denied liability and claimed Poong Lim breached the agreement. At issue was the defendants' motion to exclude the testimony of Poong Lim's expert accountant, Jordan Rosenfeld, who calculated damages of approximately $1.92 million based on labor overruns. The court denied the motion, holding that challenges to Rosenfeld's productivity calculations, understanding of contract data, use of certain figures, and reliance on a total-cost approach raised questions of evidentiary weight rather than admissibility under Rule 702, as the record did not show the opinions were based on fictitious or clearly unreliable data. The court noted that disputes over the accuracy of underlying assumptions and whether a total-cost method was impermissibly used could be addressed at trial.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns residents of Kivalina suing Teck Cominco Alaska, Inc. for alleged Clean Water Act violations at the Red Dog Mine, specifically exceeding NPDES permit limits on total dissolved solids discharges into the Wulik River and breaching a related EPA consent order. The opinion addresses two evidentiary motions: the defendant's request to exclude plaintiffs' expert testimony on the costs of TDS treatment feasibility studies and on economic benefits to non-parties, and the plaintiffs' request to exclude a declaration filed with the defendant's reply. The court analyzed admissibility under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, concluding that testimony about economic benefits to the parent company was irrelevant to penalty calculations because the subsidiary operator retained no revenues, while other expert opinions on study costs were admissible if tied to the claimed violations. It denied the motion to exclude the declaration after finding it responsive to prior filings.

environmentprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case concerns a citizen lawsuit under the Clean Water Act brought by residents of Kivalina, Alaska, against Teck Cominco Alaska, Inc., the operator of the Red Dog Mine, alleging violations of the mine's NPDES permit limits on cadmium discharges into local waterways. The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claims for lack of standing or, alternatively, to find no violation occurred on June 13, 2000, while the plaintiffs cross-moved for a determination of liability on all cadmium claims. The court examined whether the plaintiffs' allegations, based on the defendant's monitoring reports, satisfied the good faith pleading requirement for standing under relevant precedents and addressed the evidentiary issues regarding the disputed violation date.

environmentprocedure

This case concerned a marine pollution insurance policy issued by plaintiff Lloyds to defendants Inlet Fisheries and Inlet Fish Producers. Lloyds moved for summary judgment to declare the policy void from the start, alleging that Inlet breached the federal maritime doctrine of uberrimae fidei by failing to disclose prior pollution losses, vessel conditions, and the cancellation of previous coverage by another insurer. Inlet cross-moved, arguing the doctrine did not apply or that no material facts were withheld, and also raised issues of policy ambiguity and waiver. The court analyzed whether uberrimae fidei is an established federal admiralty rule governing such policies, whether the undisclosed information was material to the underwriting decision, and whether Lloyds' later actions constituted a waiver. It concluded that the doctrine applies, the non-disclosures concerned material facts, and no waiver occurred, rendering the policy void ab initio.

business & regulatoryenvironment

This case involved a multi-defendant drug conspiracy prosecution charging twenty-six individuals with distributing heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine, and MDMA from California to Alaska over several years, plus related possession, distribution, and money-laundering counts. All non-fugitive defendants entered guilty pleas under agreements that assumed the then-mandatory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines would control sentencing. After the Supreme Court decisions in Blakely and Booker rendered the Guidelines advisory, the district court imposed sentences—including 188 months for the principal defendant—by considering the Guidelines range along with the statutory factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), scaling sentences according to relative culpability and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation rather than applying the Guidelines in a strictly mandatory fashion.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerns whether the United States, as an implied additional insured under a general business liability policy issued by Continental to Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation, can recover defense and settlement costs it paid under the Federal Tort Claims Act for personal injury claims, and whether Continental acted in bad faith by denying coverage. The United States moved for summary judgment on bad faith and punitive damages while Continental moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for partial summary judgment on those issues, following a Ninth Circuit reversal that established the United States' status as an implied insured. The court evaluates the motions under standards for dismissal and summary judgment, applies the law of the case doctrine to the implied-insured ruling, and examines whether the ISDEAA or FTCA bars recovery, while considering Alaska insurance law on duties to defend and indemnify. Core reasoning focuses on whether the United States has a viable contractual or quasi-contractual claim against the insurer not foreclosed by federal statutes.

business & regulatoryfederal powertorts & liabilityprocedure

John Mun, a longtime employee at the University of Alaska at Anchorage, sued the university and two supervisors alleging race and religion discrimination under Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause, as well as retaliation for filing grievances, based on disputes involving denied overtime pay, a promotion to Director of Summer Sessions, elimination of a Curriculum Manager position, unequal pay, and a hostile work environment. The court had previously dismissed the Title VII claims against the individual supervisors and the equal protection claim against UAA itself, leaving four claims: Title VII discrimination and retaliation against UAA plus equal protection claims against Weems and Howard individually. After confirming subject matter jurisdiction due to prior EEOC review of the first charge, the court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 standards to the pending summary judgment motions, requiring the moving parties to show no genuine disputes of material fact and evaluating whether Mun presented evidence of adverse actions tied to protected characteristics or activities.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involves an Alaskan inmate housed in an Arizona prison operated by defendant Corrections Corporation of America who sued after suffering a broken jaw and nerve damage during a wisdom tooth extraction, alleging the defendant failed to provide timely follow-up care from a speech therapist and neurologist. The plaintiff asserted claims for inadequate medical care sounding in negligence or medical malpractice and for breach of contract as a third-party beneficiary of the agreement between the defendant and the State of Alaska. The court issued a preliminary analysis on the defendant's motion for summary judgment after a choice-of-law discussion favoring Arizona law and a final ruling on the motion to strike certain exhibits, including the plaintiff's affidavit and medical letters, while examining whether the claims could proceed under applicable tort and contract standards.

criminal lawtorts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

This case involved employment discrimination claims brought by Judith A. Whetzel against Norman Y. Mineta, the head of the Department of Transportation, arising from her work at the Federal Aviation Administration. Whetzel alleged violations of Title VII based on age, sex, and disability discrimination in the denial of training and promotion opportunities, as well as retaliation for prior complaints to OSHA and about personnel practices. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that Whetzel failed to establish a prima facie case under the Rehabilitation Act. The court analyzed the Rehabilitation Act claim under standards equivalent to the ADA, finding that Whetzel's conditions of melanoma and hyperthyroidism did not substantially limit any major life activities based on her testimony about her capabilities. The court therefore granted summary judgment on that claim due to the lack of evidence showing a qualifying disability.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case concerns Minchumina Natives, Inc. (MNI), a nonprofit corporation formed in 2004, seeking to challenge an IBLA decision denying land conveyance benefits under ANCSA to a prior entity called Minchumina Natives Incorporated, which had applied in 1976 as a Native Group. Defendant DOI moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), contending MNI lacked capacity to sue because the original corporation was dissolved in 1993 for failing to file reports or pay taxes, failed to reinstate within the two-year statutory window under Alaska law, and MNI is a separate entity. The court treated the motion as one for summary judgment under Rule 56, relying on undisputed facts about the corporate formation, dissolution, and lack of reinstatement. The core reasoning centers on ANCSA's requirement that only qualifying incorporated Native Groups receive conveyances and Alaska statutes limiting reinstatement, which barred any continuation of the dissolved corporation's claims.

propertycivil rightsfederal powerprocedure