 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
K & K Recycling11/14/2003
hed an accord and satisfaction at the injunction hearing whereby K&K;released its claim concerning the Old Town and its contents. K&K;opposed Seuffert's motion and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment arguing that the contract encompassed the Old Town and its contents and that AGC as an assignor was liable for Seuffert's acts and omissions. On the same day, K&K;filed a Rule 56(f) motion seeking to depose the Seufferts and Michael Watson, AGC's former vice-president in charge of lands, if the court denied its cross-motion for summary judgment. Superior Court Judge Niesje J. Steinkruger denied K&K;s Rule 56(f) motion.
In October 1999 K&K;filed an amended complaint alleging breach of contract, repudiation, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, interference with contractual relations and prospective economic opportunity, conversion, trespass, and wrongful withholding of property; it also included a claim for punitive damages. Ten days later, AGC opposed K&K;s summary judgment motion and filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the contract was assignable and that the agreement between Seuffert and K&K;at the injunction hearing constituted a novation. In November 1999 the court permitted K&K;to amend its complaint.
Judge Steinkruger granted Seuffert's motion for summary judgment and denied AGC's motion to dismiss. K&K;filed a Rule 77(k) motion for reconsideration because the court had not ruled on its summary judgment motion, because granting Seuffert's motion and denying AGC's was inconsistent, and because K&K;discovered additional evidence not previously available. Judge Steinkruger then issued orders granting AGC's motion to dismiss (vacating the previous denial), denying K&K;s motion for reconsideration, and denying K&K;s motion for summary judgment.
The parties filed a second round of summary judgment motions on the issues raised by K&K;s amended complaint. In October and November 2000, Superior Court Judge Raymond M. Funk: (1) granted AGC summary judgment on K&K;s claim that AGC's rejection of K&K;s tender was a breach of contract; (2) denied all summary judgment motions on K&K;s claim that AGC's assignment to Seuffert constituted negligence and a breach of contract; (3) granted AGC and Seuffert summary judgment on K&K;s claim that the August 4 letter was a repudiation and material anticipatory breach; (4) denied all summary judgment motions on the claim that Seuffert's contact with government agencies constituted a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (5) granted AGC and Seuffert summary judgment on the tortious interference claims; (6) denied all parties summary judgment on whether AGC was jointly and severally liable for Seuffert's actions; (7) granted AGC and Seuffert summary judgment on the claims of conversion, trespass, and wrongful withholding of the Old Town and its contents; and (8) dismissed the punitive damages claim.
K&K;s claims for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing went to trial in January 2001. At the end of K&K;s case-in-chief, Seuffert moved for a directed verdict on the issue of K&K;s damages, claiming that K&K;used the disapproved total cost method and failed to prove its case. Judge Funk declined to direct a verdict in Seuffert's favor on this issue. The jury entered a verdict for K&K; finding that Seuffert and AGC breached the contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and that AGC wrongfully assigned the agreement to Seuffert. The jury awarded a total of $123,051 to K&K;for Seuffert's and AGC's various actions to impede K&K;s ability
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Alaska Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|