Alaska Supreme Court

Joseph Murat, Appellant v. F/v Shelikof Strait; Kodiak Fisheries Co., Inc.; Andreas Arnsten, a Partnership…

June 15, 19901990 Alas. LEXIS 73

Summary

The court affirmed the corporation's default judgment because the corporation received constitutionally adequate notice through service on the officers who controlled its litigation, and the service violation did not warrant relief under the circumstances. It held that Murat preserved his authentication objection by timely invoking the authentication requirement and that the Fishermen therefore could not rely on unauthenticated documents without satisfying that requirement. The court reversed the summary judgment imposing personal liability because evidence concerning equitable title to the vessel and capitalization created genuine issues of material fact relevant to veil piercing.

Holding

  • Constitutional adequacy of notice of the default-judgment motion. The corporation received notice reasonably calculated to inform it of the motion and an adequate opportunity to respond because the motion was served on the president and secretary/treasurer who controlled the litigation on the corporation's behalf.
  • Effect of technical violations of the service rules. Serving the corporate officers rather than the attorney of record did not render the default judgment void, and the superior court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief because the corporation was not shown to have been prejudiced.
  • Adequacy of the pleadings regarding Murat's personal liability. The complaint adequately informed Murat that the fishermen sought personal liability against him for the corporate debt.
  • Authentication of documents submitted on summary judgment. A timely objection based on the authentication requirement was sufficient to preserve Murat's evidentiary objection; he was not required to identify a separate doubt about the genuineness of each document.
  • Existence of a genuine issue of material fact on veil piercing. Summary judgment against Murat was improper because the evidence created genuine issues concerning whether the corporation acquired equitable title to the vessel and whether its capitalization was adequate, and inadequate capitalization alone would not necessarily justify piercing the veil.

Docket S-2483

Cited authorities

  • Rule 37(b)(2)(C)
  • Rule 54(b)
  • Alaska Civil Rule 5(b)
  • Rule 5(b)
  • Rule 5(b)
  • Rule 60(b)
  • Rule 5(b)
  • Alaska R.Civ.P. 55(c)

Cited by

Read full opinionPDF