MEA takes case to federal level

MAT-SU -- With allegations of "forum shopping" being launched from both sides, Matanuska Electric Association filed requests that the two lawsuits pertaining to the legality of newly adopted bylaws and the board's decision to unseat board member Michael Janecek be heard as one case in federal court.

"Among other claims, Mr. Ingaldson, in his filing on behalf of Mr. Waterman, raised a federal constitutional issue, and it creates the potential for federal jurisdictional issues," MEA spokesman Mike Pauley said Friday. "Since they raised a federal claim, the defendant has the right to bounce that to the federal court."

In a case filed in Palmer Superior Court, Bill Ingaldson of Ingaldson Maassen, the attorney representing Rowland Scott Waterman, alleges MEA's new drug-testing bylaw violates the Fourth Amendment, prohibiting unreasonable search and seizure. That's in addition to four other causes of action referring to the drug-testing bylaw. When they filed in federal court, MEA asked that the Palmer case be dismissed, and filed a similar request in the Anchorage suit in which they were the plaintiff.

Those causes of action, Ingaldson said, could be addressed by the federal court as readily as the state court in which Ingaldson filed, and Ingaldson said he doesn't see a reason for the new venue. Ingaldson filed a motion to have the case remanded to the Palmer courtroom of Judge Eric Smith. If the motion to remand isn't granted, Ingaldson asked that the federal claim be dismissed, thereby taking away federal jurisdiction.

Ingaldson said he believes it's important the case be heard in Palmer.

"It seems to me, for the people, it should be tried in the venue closest to the people it's affected, and they are in Palmer," Ingaldson said.

In the lawsuit, he alleged that MEA filed the suit in federal court because they had not received opinions they liked in Anchorage's or Palmer's Superior Court. He cited an order issued recently by Anchorage Judge Mark Rindner denying MEA's motion for expedited consideration.

"The court sees no reason why such a motion should be determined on an expedited basis other than what appears to be forum shopping on the preliminary injunctive motion," Rindner's order states. "Judge Smith is quite capable of handling the pending motions in Waterman."

Pauley said all MEA was looking for in filing in federal court was a consolidation of the two cases -- "preferably in Anchorage, for efficiency purposes."

"The amount of time and money you save on courier fees -- it's significant on litigation that could last over a couple of months or maybe a year," Pauley said.

As to the claims of forum-shopping, Pauley said doing so was impossible.

"Shopping for a court or judge that will be sympathetic to us … you don't know which judge you're going to get," Pauley said. "Trying to predict how a judge is going to rule, based on previous rulings -- it's Byzantine."