Opinion
Supreme Court No. S-12541.
October 8, 2008.
Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, Sen K. Tan, Judge, Superior Court No. 3AN-99-4824 CI.
Kenneth P. Jacobus, P.C., Anchorage, for Appellant. Howard S. Trickey, Jermain Dunnagan Owens, P.C., Anchorage, for Appellee Mark Wilson.
Before: Matthews, Eastaugh, Carpeneti, and Winfree, Justices. [Fabe, Chief Justice, not participating.]
NOTICE
Memorandum decisions of this court do not create legal precedent. See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d). Accordingly, this memorandum decision may not be cited for any proposition of law or as an example of the proper resolution of any issue.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT
Entered pursuant to Appellate Rule 214.
Appellant's arguments and our responses to each are set forth below:
1. Argument: "Tex Doellefeld is an Employee under the Alaska Wage and Hour Act."
Response: The superior court concluded that there was no employment relationship between Tex Doellefeld and appellees Gary Paul Lodoen, Mark Wilson, or Royal Alaska Resorts, LLC. In reaching this conclusion the court correctly applied the approach outlined by this court in Jeffcoat v. State, Department of Labor. The court's finding that Doellefeld was not an employee of appellees was supported by adequate evidence and is not clearly erroneous.
732 P.2d 1073, 1075-76 (Alaska 1987).
2. Argument: "Tex Doellefeld is still Entitled to Compensation, even if he were an Independent Contractor"; and
3. Argument: "Quasi-Contract/Unjust Enrichment also Require Compensation to Tex Doellefeld."
Response: Appellant waived his claims as an independent contractor and those based on quasi-contract and unjust enrichment theories by (1) participating in a settlement agreement entered into on November 15, 2002, in which he released a putative property lien and expressly reserved only "his wage and hour claims" for purposes of trial; (2) confirming his intention to preserve only his wage and hour claim at the outset of the trial when the attorney for the appellees stated that the wage and hour claim was the only issue that remained for trial and appellant neither disagreed nor stated that there were any other issues for trial; and (3) submitting written closing arguments and proposed findings and conclusions at the close of trial relating only to his wage and hour claim.
For the above reasons, the judgment of the superior court is AFFIRMED.