Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hudson v. Citibank (South Dakota) NA

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided December 16, 2016No. 7141 S-14740/S-14826Published

1DissentMaassen, Justice

The determinative issue in this ease is whether Citibank’s claim for attorney’s fees under Alaska Civil Rule 82 is “closely related” to Janet Hudson’s claim in response: that Citibank’s attorney’s fees claim is greatly inflated, violates the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act (UTPA), and entitles Hudson to statutory remedies. I believe the attorney’s fees claim and the UTPA-based response to it are indeed closely related. For that reason, and because the language of the parties’ contract has no effect on the court’s authority to find that a party waived arbitration through its…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Deposit Guaranty National Bank v. RoperSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  2. Cabinetree of Wisconsin, Incorporated v. Kraftmaid Cabinetry, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1995
  3. State v. O'Neill Investigations, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 1980
  4. Republic Insurance v. Paico Receivables, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2004
  5. Krinsk v. SunTrust Banks, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2011

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API