Longline Services, Inc v Kupfer [2012] ASHC 15; AP 09-10 (30 April 2012)

OPINIONS

OF THE

APPELLATE DIVISION

OF THE

HIGH COURT OF AMERICAN SAMOA

(2011-2012)

LONGLINE SERVICES, INC., and ALGIS ALONSO ACEVEDO GONZALES, Appellants,

v.

RICHARD KUPFER, Appellee.

________________________________

High Court of American Samoa
Appellate Division

APPELLATE DIVISION

AP No. 09-10

April 30, 2012

[1] A trial court’s choice between two permissible views of the weight of evidence is not clearly erroneous where the evidence would support a conclusion either way.

[2] A court abuses its discretion when it does not apply the correct law or rests its decision on a clearly erroneous finding of a material fact.

[3] A trial court abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law. Thus, the first step of the abuse of discretion test is to determine de novo whether the trial court identified the correct legal rule to apply to the relief requested. If the trial court failed to do so, the appellate court must conclude it abused its discretion. If the trial court identified the correct legal rule, the appellate court moves to the second step of the abuse of discretion test. The second step of the abuse of discretion test is to determine whether the trial court’s application of the correct legal standard was (1) illogical, (2) implausible, or (3) without support in inferences that may be drawn from the facts in the record. If any of these three apply, only then is the appellate court able to have a definite and firm conviction that the trial court reached a conclusion that was a mistake or was not among its permissible options, and thus that it abused its discretion by making a clearly erroneous finding of fact.

[4] Where an undisputed certification and facts as alleged by a plaintiff confirm that the defendant’s alleged conduct may relate to his official duties, that plaintiff must serve the defendant and his government-agency employer pursuant to T.C.R.C.P. 4(d)(5).

[5] It is axiomatic that a court must have power to enforce its own orders. Longline Services, Inc. v. Kupfer, AP No. 09-10, slip op. at 10 (App. Div. Apr. 30, 2012).