HB 86 - INJUNCTIONS AGAINST PERMITTED PROJECTS Number 1655 CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the next order of business would be SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 86, "An Act relating to permits issued by the state; and amending Rules 65, 79, and 82, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure." Number 1685 REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for SSHB 86, Version 23-LS0349\V, Kurtz, 4/25/03, as the work draft. There being no objection, Version V was before the committee. REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked for a brief at-ease for the purpose of working with the sponsor's representative on a possible amendment to Version V. The committee took an at-ease from 4:31 p.m. to 4:35 p.m. Number 1731 JIM POUND, Staff to Representative Hugh Fate, Alaska State Legislature, remarked on behalf of Representative Fate, sponsor, that Version V maintains the sponsor's intent to "provide a private remedy to the permittee or owner of a state-permitted project who is the victim of frivolous, obstructionist litigation." The private remedy is in addition to any other penalty or sanction otherwise provided by law. Under Version V, a person who initiates or maintains a malicious claim against a state-permitted project will be liable for damages caused by such a lawsuit should he/she lose the case. Version V specifies the elements that would have to be established in order for the person to be held liable, and it specifies the type of damages the aggrieved person would be able to seek. The elements for such a cause of action are based on concepts established in law for stating a claim for unlawful civil proceedings and abuse of process. MR. POUND remarked that [Version V] has two key benefits. One, it avoids use of the unfamiliar, potentially ambiguous terms currently found in SSHB 86. Two, the courts would be able to draw on existing case law from Alaska to assist them in interpreting and applying the proposed law. He assured the committee that the civil remedy provided for in Version V is narrow and focused, adding that "it would apply only to egregious cases of abusive civil litigation." If adopted, he remarked, Version V would not have a chilling or deterrent effect on litigants who would bring legitimate, meritorious cases to court. Number 1834 REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1: on page 2, lines 16-17, delete "(A) without probable cause; or (B)", and insert "in bad faith"; on page 2, delete subsection (d) located on lines 23-25. There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS suggested that page 1, line 10, should have the phrase, ", but not limited to" inserted after "including". REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that language in Title 1 defines "including" to mean "including, but not limited to". REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS withdrew his suggestion, which Chair McGuire referred to as Amendment 2. Number 1940 REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS moved to report the proposed committee substitute (CS) for SSHB 86, Version 23-LS0349\V, Kurtz, 4/25/03, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSSSHB 86(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.