Baker v. Duffus

In Baker v. Duffus,[1] the supreme court found that the superior court erred in granting partial summary judgment by not considering whether counterclaims brought were compulsory to an amended cross-complaint, rather than the original cross-complaint, and therefore whether they related back to the original cross-complaint. Baker and Duffus were business partners in a limited liability corporation. In response to a suit filed against the LLC and the partners individually, Duffus filed an answer and cross-complaint against Baker in 2007. Baker answered the cross-complaint in 2008. In 2013, Duffus amended his cross-complaint. Baker answered the amended cross-complaint in 2015 and added new counterclaims. On a motion for summary judgment, the superior court dismissed Baker’s counterclaims finding that they did not relate back to the original suit filed against the LLC nor the 2007 cross-complaint and were therefore outside of the statute of limitations. The supreme court found that the operative pleading for consideration on the summary judgment motion was not the Duffus’ 2007 cross-complaint, but Duffus’ 2013 amended cross-complaint. The court found that Baker’s 2015 counterclaims were compulsory as they logically related to Duffus’ 2013 amended cross-complaint. Further, the court found that because Baker’s counterclaims were compulsory, they related back to Duffus’ 2013 amended cross-complaint under the self-executing Alaska Civil Rule 15(c). Duffus’ 2013 amended cross-complaint related back to his original 2007 cross-complaint because it incorporated the original claim and added additional claims. The court held that because Baker’s 2015 counterclaims relate back to Duffus’ 2013 amended cross-complaint, and that related back to his original 2007 cross-complaint, Baker’s counterclaims also relate back to the original 2007 cross-complaint. The supreme court held that the superior court erred by not considering whether the amended counterclaims brought were compulsory to an amended cross-complaint, rather than the original cross-complaint, and therefore whether they related back to the original cross-complaint.

[1] 441 P.3d 432 (Alaska 2019).

Baker v. Duffus

In Baker v. Duffus,[1] the supreme court found that the superior court erred in granting partial summary judgment by not considering whether counterclaims brought were compulsory to an amended cross-complaint, rather than the original cross-complaint, and therefore whether they related back to the original cross-complaint. Baker and Duffus were business partners in a limited liability corporation. In response to a suit filed against the LLC and the partners individually, Duffus filed an answer and cross-complaint against Baker in 2007. Baker answered the cross-complaint in 2008. In 2013, Duffus amended his cross-complaint. Baker answered the amended cross-complaint in 2015 and added new counterclaims. On a motion for summary judgment, the superior court dismissed Baker’s counterclaims finding that they did not relate back to the original suit filed against the LLC nor the 2007 cross-complaint and were therefore outside of the statute of limitations. The supreme court found that the operative pleading for consideration on the summary judgment motion was not the Duffus’ 2007 cross-complaint, but Duffus’ 2013 amended cross-complaint. The court found that Baker’s 2015 counterclaims were compulsory as they logically related to Duffus’ 2013 amended cross-complaint. Further, the court found that because Baker’s counterclaims were compulsory, they related back to Duffus’ 2013 amended cross-complaint under the self-executing Alaska Civil Rule 15(c). Duffus’ 2013 amended cross-complaint related back to his original 2007 cross-complaint because it incorporated the original claim and added additional claims. The court held that because Baker’s 2015 counterclaims relate back to Duffus’ 2013 amended cross-complaint, and that related back to his original 2007 cross-complaint, Baker’s counterclaims also relate back to the original 2007 cross-complaint. The supreme court held that the superior court erred by not considering whether the amended counterclaims brought were compulsory to an amended cross-complaint, rather than the original cross-complaint, and therefore whether they related back to the original cross-complaint.

[1] 441 P.3d 432 (Alaska 2019).