THOMAS I. ANDERSON SR., Appellant,
v.
STATE OF ALASKA, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Appellee.
Appeal
from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska Court No. 3
AN-17-06733 CI, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, Erin B.
Marston, Judge.
Appearances: Thomas I. Anderson Sr., pro se, Anchorage,
Appellant.
Michael A. Stanker, Assistant Attorney General, Anchorage,
and Jahna Lindemuth, Attorney General, Juneau, for Appellee.
Before: Bolger, Chief Justice, Winfree, Stowers, and Maassen,
Justices. [Carney, Justice, not participating.]
OPINION
Maassen, Justice.
I.
INTRODUCTION
A
motorist appeals the superior court's dismissal of his
claim that the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) failed to
properly transfer a motorcycle endorsement from his
California driver's license to his new Alaska license in
1992. The court decided that the motorist's claim, filed
in 2017, was barred by the statute of limitations, the
doctrines of laches and exhaustion of administrative
remedies, and the governing DMV regulations. The court also
awarded the DMV attorney's fees calculated pursuant to
the Alaska Civil Rule 82(b)(2) schedule. The motorist
appeals.
We
affirm the superior court's decision primarily on laches
grounds. The motorist filed his claim 25 years after the
DMV's alleged mistake, long past the time the DMV could
reasonably be expected to have retained any evidence relevant
to its defense. We also affirm the award of attorney's
fees, which the motorist did not oppose in the superior
court, because the scheduled award is not plainly erroneous.
II.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
This
case was decided on the pleadings; we therefore take as true
the following allegations of the complaint.[1] Thomas I.
Anderson Sr. completed a "Motorcycle Safety Rider's
Course" at Fort Ord, California, in 1983, while he was
serving in the military. As a result he "[w]as certified
through the Motorcycle Safety Foundation" and was
"informed... that the certification was good in all
50" states. He moved to Alaska in 1987, and his
California driver's license, with its motorcycle
endorsement, allowed him to continue operating his motorcycle
legally on Alaska's roads as long as he continued on
active military duty.
Anderson
was discharged in 1992 and acquired an Alaska driver's
license. Although he did not notice at the time, his Alaska
license "did not reflect the motorcycle endorsement that
was on the California [l]icense," and the DMV failed to
inform him that the endorsement was not transferred "or
that there were other requirements to continue to operate his
motorcycle on Alaska['s] highways and/or roads."
Anderson nonetheless continued driving his motorcycle until
2007, when he registered a new "motorcycle/scooter"
with the DMV and, at about the same time, learned that his
license lacked a valid motorcycle endorsement.[2] When he asked for
one, the DMV informed him that he needed first "to take
a written and road test[] and complete a motorcycle safety
rider's course." Anderson took and passed the
written test "involuntar[il]y" in 2007, but since
then he has declined to take the road test and safety course
on the ground that his 1983 training in California, along
with the DMV's failure to transfer the California
endorsement in 1992, entitles him to an Alaska endorsement
without further proof of his competence. Several times over
the past decade he has asked the governor's office to
help him resolve the matter, though without success.
On
March 31, 2017, Anderson again renewed his driver's
license and again asked the DMV to give him a motorcycle
endorsement. This time he showed a photocopy of his
decades-old, expired California driver's license, but the
DMV again "failed to reinstate" his motorcycle
endorsement.
In May
2017, proceeding pro se, Anderson filed a complaint in which
he "respectfully ask[ed] the court to mandate that [the
DMV] restore [his] motorcycle endorsement... as it should
have been done" in 1992 when he first surrendered his
California license in exchange for an Alaska one. The DMV
filed an answer and a few months later moved for judgment on
the pleadings pursuant to Alaska Civil Rule 12(c). The DMV
argued that Anderson's claim accrued in 1992, when he
transferred his license, and was now barred by a 10-year
statute of limitations. The DMV also argued that
"forc[ing it] to address an alleged error that occurred
decades ago" would violate due process, because
"[t]he records related to this transaction are long gone
and it would likely be impossible to reconstruct what
occurred through witness testimony." The DMV also relied
on the doctrine of laches and Anderson's failure to
exhaust his administrative remedies. Finally, the DMV relied
on its regulations to contend that it lacked authority to
transfer an endorsement from a license that had expired so
long ago.[3]
Anderson
did not file an opposition to the motion, and the superior
court granted it, relying "on the legal analysis in...
the DMV's motion." The court awarded the DMV
attorney's fees of $809.67 pursuant to the schedule of
Alaska Civil Rule 82(b)(2) for cases resolved short of trial
and without a money judgment.
Anderson
now appeals.
III.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
"We
review the grant of a motion for judgment on the pleadings de
novo."[4]"The application of laches may raise
three issues for review."[5] The first - whether the equitable
defense of laches may be applied to the plaintiffs
claim-presents a question of law we review de
novo.[6] The second - "whether the facts
demonstrate an unreasonable delay and a resulting
prejudice" - presents questions of fact we review for
clear error.[7] And the third issue-whether, based on the
facts, it was appropriate to apply the laches doctrine - is a
question reserved to the superior court's discretion, and
we review it to determine whether that discretion has been
abused.[8] "The trial court has broad discretion
to sustain or deny a defense based on
laches."[9]
The
interpretation of a regulation is a question we review de
novo.[10] We review issues not properly raised in
the trial court for plain error.[11] "A plain error
involves an 'obvious mistake' that is 'obviously
prejudicial' "[12]
IV.
DISCUSSION
A.
The Superior Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion By Applying
The Laches Defense To Anderson's Claim For Injunctive
Relief.
The
specific relief Anderson seeks by his complaint is a
"mandate that the Alaska Division of Motor Vehicles
restore [his] motorcycle endorsement... as it should have
been done at the time of [transference], at no cost to
[him]." Traditionally, a suit asking the court to order
a government official to act in a certain way is an action
for mandamus.[13] The writ of mandamus was abolished in
Alaska many decades ago by court rule, but the type of relief
once provided by the writ may still be "obtained by
appropriate action or by appropriate motion under the
practice prescribed in" the Alaska Civil
Rules.[14] One appropriate action in the nature of
mandamus that is recognized by the Civil Rules is an action
for a mandatory or reparative injunction.[15] Claims for
injunctive relief are equitable in nature, [16] and the
equitable doctrine of laches is therefore available as a
defense to them.[17]
The
defense of laches requires that the defendant "show two
'independent' elements": "(1) that the
plaintiff has unreasonably delayed in bringing the action,
and (2) that this unreasonable delay has caused undue harm or
prejudice to the defendant."[18]Both elements are plainly
met in this case on the undisputed facts. The crux of
Anderson's complaint is that the DMV acted unlawfully in
1992, when it failed to transfer the motorcycle endorsement
from his California license to his replacement Alaska
license. He claims he was surprised 15 years later when, in
2007, a friend informed him that his license lacked the
proper endorsement. Even assuming it was reasonable for
Anderson to be unaware of this himself for 15 years,
[19]
it was not reasonable for him to wait yet another ten years
to file suit ...