Jake Olivit, Sr. v. City and Borough of Juneau; John Hartle; The Juneau Empire; and Tony Carroll

Summary

The Supreme Court of Alaska affirmed summary judgment dismissing Jake Olivit's claims against the City and Borough of Juneau, a city attorney, the Juneau Empire, and a reporter. The court held that the challenged statements were either not defamatory or were conditionally privileged as matters of public interest, and that Olivit presented no evidence of actual malice. The court also upheld the denial of default judgment and the award of attorney's fees to the prevailing defendants.

Holdings

1. Under Alaska law, speech concerning a matter of public interest is conditionally privileged, and a plaintiff must prove actual malice—knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth or falsity—to recover for a false and defamatory statement.
2. Summary judgment for the Juneau Empire and Tony Carroll was proper because Olivit produced no evidence creating a genuine factual dispute that they acted with actual malice.
3. Summary judgment for Hartle and the City was proper because the challenged statements were either substantially true, not defamatory, not defamatory as to Olivit, or unsupported by evidence that Hartle supplied the allegedly erroneous information.
4. Olivit failed to preserve a false-light invasion-of-privacy claim because he did not adequately raise or develop the claim in the superior court or on appeal.
5. Olivit failed to preserve his intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims because he raised them belatedly below and did not meaningfully brief them on appeal.
6. Default was unavailable because the Empire filed an answer before Olivit requested entry of default.
7. The superior court properly awarded the City and the Empire twenty percent of their actual attorney's fees because they were prevailing parties after obtaining summary judgment and the fees were not shown to be unreasonable.

Questions Presented

1. Whether summary judgment was proper on Olivit's defamation claims against the Juneau Empire and Tony Carroll.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper on Olivit's defamation claims against John Hartle and the City and Borough of Juneau.
3. Whether Olivit preserved a false-light invasion-of-privacy claim.
4. Whether Olivit preserved intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress claims.
5. Whether the superior court erred in refusing to enter default against the Juneau Empire after the Empire filed its answer.
6. Whether the superior court erred in awarding the City and the Empire twenty percent of their actual attorney's fees under Alaska Civil Rule 82.
7. Whether the superior court was biased against Olivit and whether his other unsupported claims were preserved for appeal.

Disposition

affirmed