Robert v Sonis [2002] FMCSC 7; 11 FSM Intrm. 031 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2002) (19 June 2002)

CHUUK STATE SUPREME COURT
TRIAL DIVISION

Cite as Robert v. Sonis
11 FSM Intrm. 31 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2002)

[11 FSM Intrm. 31]

LORENZO ROBERT et al.,
Plaintiffs,

vs.

MANNIX SONIS et al.,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------
HERWIN ZION et al.,
Plaintiffs,

vs.
MANNIX SONIS et al.,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------
MINORU KUKA et al.,
Plaintiffs,

vs.

MANNIX SONIS et al.,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------
LIFANG PULUSOU et al.,
Plaintiffs,

vs.

MANNIX SONIS et al.,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------
SANTYAKO ISAM et al.,
Plaintiff,

vs.

MANNIX SONIS et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________

[11 FSM Intrm. 32]

SANRES CHEIPOT et al.,
Plaintiffs,

vs.

MANNIX SONIS et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________

CSSC-CA-NO. 4-2002
CSSC-CA-NO. 5-2002
CSSC-CA-NO. 6-2002
CSSC-CA-NO. 7-2002
CSSC-CA-NO. 8-2002
CSSC-CA-NO. 9-2002

DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Soukichi Fritz
Chief Justice

Hearing: May 20, 2002
Decided: June 19, 2002

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiffs: Repeat Samuel
Micronesian Legal Services Corporation
P.O. Box D
Weno, Chuuk FM 96942

For the Defendants: Lester Ruda
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Chuuk Attorney General
P.O. Box 189
Weno, Chuuk FM 96942

* * * *

HEADNOTES

Admiralty; Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction over admiralty and maritime cases resides exclusively with the FSM Supreme Court trial division. The language of the FSM Constitution is clear and unambiguous in this regard. Robert v. Sonis, 11 FSM Intrm. 31, 33 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2002).

Admiralty
Cases involving claims for wages by seamen are maritime cases. Robert v. Sonis, 11 FSM Intrm. 31, 33 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2002).

Admiralty; Jurisdiction
The exclusive nature of the national court jurisdiction is such that the FSM Supreme Court appellate division has held that it does not have the power to abstain from admiralty and maritime cases. Robert v. Sonis, 11 FSM Intrm. 31, 33 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2002).

[11 FSM Intrm. 33]

Jurisdiction
Plaintiffs cannot rely on a default judgment entered in excess of the trial court’s jurisdiction in another case as conferring jurisdiction on the court in their cases. Robert v. Sonis, 11 FSM Intrm. 31, 33 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2002).

* * * *

COURT’S OPINION

SOUKICHI FRITZ, Chief Justice:

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

These consolidated cases, all filed on January 14, 2002, claim hazardous pay for Plaintiffs, who are in the employ of the Chuuk State Department of Transportation as "seamen and port operators on Federated States of Micronesia Class III Vessels." Complaint, 7.^[1] Defendants answered each complaint, and alleged as an affirmative defense that this Court lacked jurisdiction over the claims of the various Plaintiffs.

On May 16, 2002, Defendants filed in two of these cases, their Motion to Dismiss Action, based on their contention that these cases sound in admiralty and maritime law, and are therefore within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the Federated States of Micronesia. The Court, determining that the cases were subject to consolidation, entered its order consolidating the cases, and setting a hearing on the Defendants’ motions to dismiss for June 4, 2002. Plaintiffs filed their oppositions to the motion to dismiss on May 29, 2002. Hearing was held as scheduled on June 4, 2002. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

II. THE COURT LACKS JURISDICTION OVER THESE CLAIMS

Jurisdiction over admiralty and maritime cases resides exclusively with the Federated States of Micronesia Supreme Court Trial Division. Article IX, § 6(a) of the Constitution of the Federated States of Micronesia provides: "The trial division of the Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction in...admiralty and maritime cases . . . ." (ems added).

The language of the FSM Constitution is clear and unambiguous in this regard. Cases involving claims for wages by seamen are maritimes. 2JUR. >Admiralty § 72, at 759-60 (190 (1962); 62); FeFederal Business Dev. Bank v. S.S. Thorfinn, [1990] FMSC 20; 4 FSM Intrm. 367, 374 (App. 1990). The exclusive nature of the national court jurisdiction is such that the FSM Supreme Court Appellate Division has held that it does not have the power to abstain from admiralty and maritime cases. M/V Hai Hsiang # 36 v. Pohnpei[1996] FMSC 56; , 7 FSM Intrm. 456, 459 (App. 1996).

Plaintiffs’ reliance on Sikata v. Department of Transp., CSSC-CA-NO. 131-98 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1999) is unavailing. The judgment in that case was entered after the default of the Defendants, and the issue of jurisdiction was never raised. Plaintiffs cannot rely on an judgment entered in excess of the trial court’s jurisdiction in another case as conferring jurisdiction on this Court in these consolidated cases.

Without jurisdiction, this Court can proceed no further. Good cause appearing, these consolidated cases are due to be dismissed, and they hereby are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Footnote:

1. Each complaint appears identical, except for the names of the Plaintiffs and the amounts claimed by each Plaintiff.

---

Footnote:

1. Each complaint appears identical, except for the names of the Plaintiffs and the amounts claimed by each Plaintiff.