Bodo v. Angasan

• Court: District Court, D. Alaska
• Decided: August 2, 2024
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00035
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

GRACIE BODO,

Plaintiff, v.

BRAD ANGASAN, et al.,

Case No. 3:23-cv-00035-SLG Defendants.

ORDER RE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Before the Court at Docket 76 is Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of Order Re All Pending Motions. Plaintiff Gracie Bodo responded in opposition at Docket 78. The facts of this case are more fully recounted in the Court’s prior orders.1 As relevant, this Court previously found that Ms. Bodo was entitled to $14,032.63 in wage penalties pursuant to Alaska Statute § 23.05.140 as well as associated attorney’s fees.2 Defendants now move for reconsideration of that order pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.3(h).3 Under Local Rule 7.3(h), “a court ordinarily will deny a motion for reconsideration absent a showing of [a] . . . (A) manifest error of the law or fact; (B) discovery of new material facts not previously available; or (C) intervening change

1 Docket 36; Docket 59; Docket 75. 2 Docket 75 at 10. 3 Docket 76 at 1. in the law.”4 Defendants maintain that Ms. Bodo is not entitled to wage penalties pursuant to state law because they characterize this Court’s prior finding—that Ms. Bodo did not provide sufficient information for Defendants to pay her until December 2022—as a finding that she did not tender a demand for wages as required by Alaska

Statute § 23.05.140 until then.5 Defendants misconstrue the Court’s prior finding, which related to the start date for the award of prejudgment interest. Further, in response to Defendants’ motion, Ms. Bodo filed a letter sent from her attorney to Defendants in August 2022 indicating that the attorney had been retained to represent Ms. Bodo on her claim for wages from the Angasans, a verbally-promised

10% crew share.6 The Court finds that this was an adequate demand for unpaid wages pursuant to Alaska Statute § 23.05.140.7 As such, Defendants have not identified a manifest error of the law nor other ground for relief pursuant to Local Rule 7.3(h). Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of Order Re All Pending Motions at Docket 76 is DENIED.

DATED this 2nd day of August 2024, at Anchorage, Alaska. /s/ Sharon L. Gleason UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4 Alaska L.Civ.R. 7.3(h)(1). 5 Docket 76 at 2-3. 6 Docket 78-1 at 1. 7 Cf. Hallam v. Holland Am. Line, Inc., 180 P.3d 955, 960 (Alaska 2008). Case No. 3:23-cv-00035-SLG, Bodo v. Angasan Order re Motion for Reconsideration Page 3 of 3 □□