|
Two JDO Attorneys Named Best Lawyers
Charles A. Dunnagan and Howard S. Trickey have been selected by their peers for inclusion in 2011's Best Lawyers Annual Guide to Labor and Employment Law. Chuck Dunnagan serves as general counsel to a number of labor unions, employee associations, and pension funds. His practice has emphasized labor and employment issues for over 30 years. Howard Trickey is an accomplished litigator representing businesses, individuals, school districts, and municipalities in complex litigation, including many labor and employment cases.
School District Health Plan Wins Summary Judgment
In American Marine Center v. The Lake & Peninsula School District, et al., JDO attorneys Matt Singer and Callie Patton recently obtained a defense judgment for their clients. An Anchorage hyperbaric center sued JDO's client, a small school district health plan, claiming that it was obligated to pay several hundred thousand dollars for an experimental and unrecognized medical treatment. The hyperbaric center claimed that an oral contract was formed when it called to verify that a patient was eligible for health benefits under the plan. The superior court agreed that there was no oral contract formed by this short telephone call, and it entered judgment in favor of the defendants.
Pair of Election-Related Wins for JDO Clients
JDO lawyers Chuck Dunnagan and Matt Singer recently obtained successful results in two matters before the Alaska Public Offices Commission.
In Hackney v. Council of Alaska Producers, et al., JDO represented a company accused of incorrectly reporting contributions in a 2008 ballot initiative campaign. JDO moved to dismis the claims against its client. APOC agreed that the assertions were without merit and dismissed the claims entirely.
In Hamman v. International Association of Firefighters Local 1264, JDO's client was accused of improperly coordinating its campaign advocacy with a candidate, and with making false statements in an advertisement. After hearing, APOC dismissed all claims, agreeing with JDO's argument that the campaign activities and statements were proper and protected by the First Amendment.
JDO managing partner, Chuck Dunnagan, is a former APOC commissioner. He and JDO litigator Matt Singer routinely appear before APOC in election-related matters, and also provide clients advice and counsel about the legal requirements for reporting lobbying, election, and campaign expenditures.
JDO Appellate Attorneys Prevail in Pair of Alaska Supreme Court Cases
In Dash v. Roderer, the plaintiff sued her surgeon after a spinal procedure left her with a lifelong injury. The jury entered a large verdict for the plaintiff and the doctor appealed. JDO appellate lawyers Matt Singer and Cheryl Mandala were retained by the plaintiff to handle the appeal. The supreme court confirmed the validity of the jury verdict in all respects, upholding an award well in excess of $1 million.
In Weimer v. Continental Motors, JDO litigators Howard Trickey, Matt Singer and Gary Sleeper defended an automobile dealership against a class action claim brought by a single consumer, Weimer. The trial court dismissed the case because the plaintiff filed after the statute of limitations. On appeal, the supreme court upheld the dismissal, agreeing that the plaintiff's claim was untimely. Alaska Supreme Court issues precedent-setting decision in commercial fraud dispute.
In a franchise dispute between an Alaska auto dealership and the manufacturer, JDO litigators Randy Simpson and Matt Singer recently prevailed in an appeal to the state's highest court. The court established new law as to the measure of damages in a fraud case, and remanded for the trial court to consider a punitive damages award.
Matthew Singer inducted into Litigation Counsel of America
JDO litigator Matt Singer has been invited to join the Litigation Counsel of America (LCA). The LCA is a trial lawyer honorary society composed of less than one-half of one percent of American Lawyers. Fellowship in the LCA is highly selective and by invitation only. Fellows are selected based upon effectiveness and accomplishment in litigation, both at the trial and appellate levels, and superior ethical reputation. Established as a trial and appellate lawyer honorary society reflecting the American Bar in the 21st century, the LCA represents the best in law among its membership. Mr. Singer represent businesses, public entities, and individuals in trials and appeals, with particular focus on commercial disputes, environmental and natural resources cases, employment law, and tort claims.
Alaska Supreme Court upholds major consumer settlement.
JDO litigators Howard Trickey, Gary Sleeper and Matt Singer obtained a favorable decision from the Alaska Supreme Court in Neese v. State of Alaska, et al. JDO represented a group of car dealerships that had entered into a consent judgment with the State of Alaska to resolve consumer claims. The agreement was unusual in Alaska history in terms of the number of consumers involved, the size of the civil penalty paid to the State of Alaska, and the scope of relief afforded to each consumer. Nonetheless, a small group of customers sought to derail the settlement so that they could file their own private class action. The Alaska Supreme Court agreed with the trial court that the private group had no standing to interfere with the settlement. This decision has precedent-setting implications for businesses that face consumer claims.
JDO lawyers obtain important ruling on State's failure to provide adequate educational opportunities in chronically underperforming schools.
JDO represents three rural Alaskan school districts and a consortium of parents and educators in Moore et al. v. State of Alaska, a challenge to the State's ongoing failure to provide adequate educational opportunities to students in chronically underperforming schools. Superior Court Judge Sharon Gleason ruled that the State has continued to deny students in these districts access to an adequate education, and has failed to remedy constitutional violations previously identified by the court. The court held that the State's intervention in these districts was poorly implemented, insufficient to address the constitutional violations, and targeted an unjustifiably narrow set of problems, ignoring both known causes of poor educational performance and known educational solutions to these problems. The court ordered the State to dramatically revamp its interventions in chronically underperforming schools. For more information, please contact Howard S. Trickey or Cheryl Mandala.
|
Print this page