Alaska Supreme Court Upholds Fishermen’s Class Action Suit

International Seafoods of Alaska, Inc. v. Bissonette, 2006 Alas. LEXIS 127 (Alaska Sept. 1, 2006).

Britta Hinrichsen, 3L, Vermont Law School

In International Seafoods of Alaska v. Bissonette, the Alaska Supreme Court addressed a breach of contract claim by commercial salmon fishers from Bristol Bay against a seafood company for paying a price lower than promised. On whole, the court determined that the fishers met the requirements to file a class action, the trial court properly sanctioned fishers who did not respond to discovery requests, one jury verdict could be given for the entire class, jury instruction was proper, and the lower court did not abuse its discretion for increasing the award for attorney’s fees.

Background
Buyers of red salmon in Bristol Bay usually pay a “posted price” when salmon are delivered, while big buyers, such as Trident, Peter Pan, or Icicle, pay a higher “bay price” later in the season.1 It is accepted practice for smaller Bristol Bay buyers to pay a “retro” bonus at the end of the season to adjust for the difference between the posted price and the bay price. International Seafoods of Alaska, Inc. (ISA) followed this practice by matching the competitive “bay price” set by the big buyers or by paying “retros.”2
In 1999, ISA leased a competitor’s fishing facilities on Egegik beach. To alleviate the fishers’ concerns about ISA’s control of the fishery in the area, ISA sent a letter to fishers stating that ISA has “always done things according to our own costs and sales and . . . to keep your business we must be competitive with our price . . . .”3 Fishers interpreted this language as assurance that ISA would pay the competitive bay price for salmon in relation to the other buyers in Bristol Bay. ISA viewed the language narrowly by only considering its “own costs and sales” without regard to other competitors. In 2000, ISA lost money and did not pay Egegik fishers retro payment above the posted price. Fishers then filed a class action against ISA for failing to pay the competitive bay price.

Lower Court
Six fishers filed the breach of contract claim against ISA, which had to be certified as a class action. The Alaska Superior Court certified the class, which totaled 110 members, as “[a]ll fishers, who in the year 2000, took salmon from the Egegik District and sold these salmon to International Seafoods of Alaska, Inc.”4 ISA objected to the certification and requested that the claims of fishers who did not respond to discovery be dismissed. The court maintained the certification and held that only evidence provided in discovery could be used at trial, thereby limiting witnesses at trial to those plaintiffs who had responded to discovery requests.5 ISA also contested the single jury verdict form used for the entire class, which the court found appropriate since “that’s the whole point of a class action.”6 Ultimately, the jury awarded the fishers an additional $0.17 per pound for salmon ISA bought in 2000 plus attorney’s fees.

Alaska Supreme Court
Class Certification
As per Civil Rule 23, plaintiffs may be certified as a class if
(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.7

The Alaska Supreme Court found that the fishers met these requirements. First, the class was numerous (110 members) and joinder would be impractical because the members were “so geographically dispersed.”8 Second, commonality exists if “the named plaintiffs share at least one question of fact or law with the grievances of the prospective class.”9 All plaintiffs of the class claimed a breach of contract by ISA and sought monetary damages for the difference between the competitive bay price and what ISA paid. Likewise, plaintiffs also satisfied the third requirement of typicality—all plaintiffs had the same claim arising from ISA’s alleged breach of contract. Finally, the representatives of the class adequately protected the interests of the class because all shared the same interests and damages. Additionally, the court noted that policy considerations favored a class action suit to ensure fair, efficient, and consistent adjudication of each of the fisher’s claims.

Discovery
The supreme court also found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to severely sanction absent class members who did not participate in discovery. Discovery against absent class members is permissible through interrogation when “the discovery sought was relevant to the decision of common questions and may have been known only to absent class members.”10 In such circumstances, the court can compel compliance with discovery requests by imposing sanctions. However, the court found that dismissal of the absent class members’ claims, as ISA requested, was too severe a sanction. The trial court has “broad discretion to choose whether to impose any sanctions at all on the non-responding class members.”11 The Alaska Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision to exclude testimony from trial that was not produced during discovery, because ISA failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its broad discretion.

Jury Verdict Form
The court also found that a single jury verdict form was appropriate for this class action. ISA contended that it created individual contracts with each fisher and should have independent adjudications for each. To take ISA’s position, however, would result in multiple duplicative suits.12 Once a court certifies a class, the “class of plaintiffs is entitled to the same verdict” and therefore should be given a single verdict form.13

Jury Instruction
The Alaska Supreme Court held that the jury instruction regarding salmon purchase price properly allowed the jury to determine what price ISA promised to pay each fisher. The instruction stated that “[ISA] maintains that it promised to pay all plaintiffs the same price” and that it was up to the jury to “decide whether a promise to pay a particular price was made as part of the contract.”14 Under this instruction, the real issue was whether the price promised to be paid was the competitive bay price or the posted price. Given all of the evidence, the jury determined that ISA promised to pay the competitive bay price.

Attorney’s Fees
Pursuant to Civil Rule 82, the prevailing party is entitled to attorney’s fees.15 The fee award may be adjusted at the judge’s discretion. Based on the work performed and the benefit to ISA for having a class action rather than the expense of multiple trials, the trial court increased the attorney’s fees by $15,000. ISA failed to establish that the trial court abused its discretion through this increase, so the trial court’s decision was upheld.

Conclusion
The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed all of the lower court’s rulings. As a result, ISA will be required to pay fishers an additional $0.17 per pound for salmon ISA bought in 2000 plus attorney’s fees.

Endnotes
1. International Seafoods of Alaska, Inc. v. Bissonette, 2006 Alas. LEXIS 127 at *2 (Alaska Sept. 1, 2006).
2. Id. at *2-3.
3. Id. at *4.
4. Id. at *7-8.
5. Id. at *9.
6. Id. at *10.
7 AK R. Civ. Pro., Rule 23.
8. International Seafoods of Alaska, 2006 Alas. Lexis 127 at *18.
9. Id. at *19.
10. Id. at *24.
11. Id.. at *26.
12. Id. at *32.
13. Id. at *32-33.
14. Id. at *34-35 (emphasis omitted).
15. AK R. Civ. Pro., Rule 82