Konman v Adobad [2002] FMCSC 8; 11 FSM Intrm. 034 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2002) (25 June 2002)

CHUUK STATE SUPREME COURT
TRIAL DIVISION

Cite as Konman v. Adobad
11 FSM Intrm. 34 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2002)

[11 FSM Intrm. 34]

PAULUS KONMAN,
Plaintiff,

vs.

RICHARD ADOBAD et al.,
Defendants.

CSSC-CA-NO. 76-99

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

Wanis R. Simina
Associate Justice

Decided: June 25, 2002

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiff: Nelson Stephen
Micronesian Legal Services Corporation
P.O. Box D
Weno, Chuuk FM 96942

For the Defendants: Ready Johnny, Esq.
Attorney General
Office of the Chuuk Attorney General
P.O. Box 189
Weno, Chuuk FM 96942

* * * *

HEADNOTES

Civil Procedure - Motions
A pending motion to dismiss that involves only matters of law can be decided without hearing. Konman v. Adobad, 11 FSM Intrm. 34, 35 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2002).

Judgments
The Chuuk State Supreme Court may correct any errors in judgments or orders resulting from oversight or omission prior to final judgment, which under Rule 54 does not occur until the rights and duties of all parties have been finally determined. Konman v. Adobad, 11 FSM Intrm. 34, 35 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2002).

[11 FSM Intrm. 35]

Civil Procedure - Dismissal; Sovereign Immunity - Chuuk
When state law clearly provides that no action shall be brought against the state for any actions or omissions of the Chuuk Coconut Authority and that the Authority’s debts or obligations shall not be debts or obligations of the Legislature or state government, and neither will be responsible for the same, the state and the governor will be dismissed as defendants from a suit against the Authority because as a matter of law no action lies against the state and no liability attaches. Konman v. Adobad, 11 FSM Intrm. 34, 35 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2002).

Judgments
When an offer of judgment and an acceptance of offer of judgment were made solely between the plaintiff and one defendant and neither party had the power to bind the other defendants to any judgment by such offer and acceptance, the judgment will be modified under Civil Rule 60(a) to clearly reflect that the judgment is only against the one defendant. Konman v. Adobad, 11 FSM Intrm. 34, 35-36 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2002).

* * * *

COURT’S OPINION

WANIS R. SIMINA, Associate Justice:

WHEREAS, the Court - in reviewing the files, pleadings and records in the within action in anticipation of ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order in Aid of Judgment – having discovered that Defendants ANSITO WALTER and CHUUK STATE had filed a Motion to Dismiss on July 29, 1999 which was still pending and without decision, and that said motion involves only matters of law which can be decided without hearing, and

WHEREAS, the Court further having discovered that the Offer of Judgment and Acceptance of Offer of Judgment upon which the Judgment herein was based were made by Plaintiff and Defendant CHUUK COCONUT AUTHORITY, without the participation or agreement of Defendants WALTER and CHUUK STATE, and

WHEREAS, the Court is authorized by CSSC Civil Rule 60(a) to correct any errors in judgments or orders resulting from oversight or omission prior to final judgment, which pursuant to CSSC Civil Rule 54 does not occur until the rights and duties of all parties have been finally determined, and good cause appearing,

NOW THEREFORE, the Court makes the following orders:

1. The Motion to Dismiss of Defendants ANSITO WALTER and CHUUK STATE, based upon the clear language of Truk S.L. No. 1-1-12, must be and it hereby is granted. Truk S.L. No. 1-1-12 clearly provides, at § 4(7) that no action shall be brought against the state for any actions or omissions of Defendant CHUUK COCONUT AUTHORITY, and further provides at § 9 that "The debts or obligations of the Authority shall not be debts or obligations of the . .㼠. [Chuuk] Legislatislature or [Chuuk] State Government, and neither the . . . [Chuugislaor e or [Chuuk]huuk] State Government . . . be responsiblether ame."ame." (emphasis and internal chal changes added). Since as a matter of law no action against Chuuk State and abili Chuuk StateState attaches, the motion to dismiss was properly made and is hereby gran granted, ted, and Defendants ANSITO WALTER and CHUUK STATE are due to be, and they hereby are, DISMISSED from this action.

2. The Court finds that the Offer of Judgment and Acceptance of Offer of Judgment made on

[11 FSM Intrm. 36]

February 1, 2001 were made solely between Plaintiff and Defendant CHUUK COCONUT AUTHORITY, and that neither party had the power to bind Defendants ANSITO WALTER and CHUUK STATE to any judgment by such Offer and Acceptance. Therefore, the Judgment herein is modified pursuant to CSSC Civil Rule 60(a) to clearly reflect that: Plaintiff PAULUS KONMAN shall have judgment against Defendant CHUUK COCONUT AUTHORITY only in the sum of $15,000.00, plus simple interest thereon at the legal rate of 9% per annum from February 8, 2001.

3. Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order in Aid of Judgment is hereby denied without prejudice, on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate any attempts to recover the stipulated judgment sum from the only Defendant obligated on the judgment, the CHUUK COCONUT AUTHORITY, prior to the bringing of the motion.

All parties are hereby notified that this is the FINAL JUDGMENT in this matter, and that rights of appeal run from the date of entry of this Order and Judgment.

* * * *