Main Menu

Cook v. Quashnick

BUSINESS LAW

Hannah Rogers

In Cook v. Quashnick, 484 P.3d 1026 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 82, rather than the attorney’s fees provision of Alaska’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Act (UTPA), applied to determine the proper fee award in an offer of judgment to settle a case when the settlement did not specify an alternate law to govern the provision of attorney’s fees. (Id. at 1027). Cook and Quashnick are commercial fishermen in Bristol Bay. (Id.). Cook alleged that Quashnick drove his boat over Cook’s nets and intentionally struck his boat into Cook’s. (Id.). Cook, representing himself, filed suit against Quashnick, seeking, among other damages, attorney’s fees and costs under the UTPA. (Id. at 1027–28). Before the trial, Cook and Quashnick entered into the following settlement: the court entered judgment in favor of Cook without admission of Quashnick’s fault, Quashnick paid Cook $25,000, and the court would assess fees and costs against Quashnick. (Id. at 1028). Cook moved for entry of judgment an award of attorney’s fees, requesting $15,652.65 in attorney’s fees for his representation of himself. (Id.). Quashnick opposed Cook’s motion, arguing the fees should be capped at $4,500 under Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 82. (Id.). The superior court found Rule 82 governed Cook’s entitlement to attorney’s fees. (Id.). Cook appealed. (Id.). The supreme court cited precedent stating that a trial court shall, unless the settlement specified otherwise, award attorney’s fees under Rule 82. (Id. at 1030). The supreme court found that the Order of Judgment between Cook did not otherwise specify that the claims resolved in the settlement were governed by the UTPA. (Id.). Affirming the decision of the superior court, the supreme court held that Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 82, rather than the attorney’s fees provision of Alaska’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Act (UTPA), applied to determine the proper fee award in an offer of judgment to settle a case when the settlement did not specify an alternate law to govern the provision of attorney’s fees. (Id. at 1027).

Cook v. Quashnick

BUSINESS LAW

Hannah Rogers

In Cook v. Quashnick, 484 P.3d 1026 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 82, rather than the attorney’s fees provision of Alaska’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Act (UTPA), applied to determine the proper fee award in an offer of judgment to settle a case when the settlement did not specify an alternate law to govern the provision of attorney’s fees. (Id. at 1027). Cook and Quashnick are commercial fishermen in Bristol Bay. (Id.). Cook alleged that Quashnick drove his boat over Cook’s nets and intentionally struck his boat into Cook’s. (Id.). Cook, representing himself, filed suit against Quashnick, seeking, among other damages, attorney’s fees and costs under the UTPA. (Id. at 1027–28). Before the trial, Cook and Quashnick entered into the following settlement: the court entered judgment in favor of Cook without admission of Quashnick’s fault, Quashnick paid Cook $25,000, and the court would assess fees and costs against Quashnick. (Id. at 1028). Cook moved for entry of judgment an award of attorney’s fees, requesting $15,652.65 in attorney’s fees for his representation of himself. (Id.). Quashnick opposed Cook’s motion, arguing the fees should be capped at $4,500 under Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 82. (Id.). The superior court found Rule 82 governed Cook’s entitlement to attorney’s fees. (Id.). Cook appealed. (Id.). The supreme court cited precedent stating that a trial court shall, unless the settlement specified otherwise, award attorney’s fees under Rule 82. (Id. at 1030). The supreme court found that the Order of Judgment between Cook did not otherwise specify that the claims resolved in the settlement were governed by the UTPA. (Id.). Affirming the decision of the superior court, the supreme court held that Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 82, rather than the attorney’s fees provision of Alaska’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Act (UTPA), applied to determine the proper fee award in an offer of judgment to settle a case when the settlement did not specify an alternate law to govern the provision of attorney’s fees. (Id. at 1027).