Chuuk Public Utility Corp. v Rain [2019] FMCSC 1; 22 FSM R. 276 (Chk. S. Ct. App. 2019) (27 June 2019)

CHUUK STATE SUPREME COURT APPELLATE DIVISION
APPEAL CASE NO. 01-2018
CSSC-CA-No. 115-2010

CHUUK PUBLIC UTILITY CORPORATION
Appellant,

vs.

SIGFRIT RAIN,
Appellee.
_________________________________________

ORDER GRANTING APPELLANT’S MOTION TO STAY TRIAL-LEVEL JUDGMENT

Decided: June 27, 2019

BEFORE:

Hon. Jayson Robert, Associate Justice, presiding
Hon. Larry Wentworth, Temporary Justice*
Hon. Bethwell O’Sonis, Temporary Justice**

* FSM Supreme Court, Associate Justice
**Attorney at Law, Weno, Chuuk

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Maximo Mida, Esq.
Ramp & Mida Law Firm
P.O. Box 1480
Kolonia, Pohnpei FM 96941

For the Appellee: Scott Hess, Esq.
Directing Attorney
Micronesian Legal Services Corporation
P.O. Box D
Weno, Chuuk FM 96942

* * * *

HEADNOTES

Appellate Review - Stay - Civil Cases
To seek a stay within the appellate division, the movant 1) must first have filed a motion to stay in the court of first instance and if it was denied or gave impractical relief, or if such filing was impractical; 2) the motion must state reasons and facts relied upon and have support in affidavits or by the record; and 3) reasonable notice must be provided to all parties. A single appellate justice may consider the motion if it is deemed impractical, due to requirements of time, for all eligible justices to, and relief may be conditioned on the posting of a bond. Chuuk Public Utility Corp. v. Rain, 22 FSM R. 276, 278 (Chk. S. Ct. App. 2019).

Appellate Review - Stay - Civil Cases
The Chuuk State Supreme Court appellate division’s standard to review motions for stays of judgment is to weigh the following factors: 1) whether the appellant has shown that without the stay he will be irreparably harmed; 2) whether issuance of the stay would substantially harm other parties interested in the proceedings; 3) whether the public interest would be served by granting a stay; and 4) whether the appellant has made a strong showing that he is likely to prevail on the merits of the appeal. Chuuk Public Utility Corp. v. Rain, 22 FSM R. 276, 278 (Chk. S. Ct. App. 2019).

Appellate Review - Stay - Civil Cases - Money Judgments
An appellant may be irreparably harmed if it prevails on appeal and the appellee, or his estate, is unable to repay, and substantive harm to the appellee is not as likely when the appellate decision should not delay it more than several months. Chuuk Public Utility Corp. v. Rain, 22 FSM R. 276, 278 (Chk. S. Ct. App. 2019).

Appellate Review - Stay - Civil Cases
Public interest requires accountability of quasi-governmental entities towards the public when instances of wrongdoing occur, and public interest also demands that a plaintiff who may ultimately lose on appeal, not walk away with a windfall he is unable to repay to the quasi-governmental entity - at the public’s expense. Chuuk Public Utility Corp. v. Rain, 22 FSM R. 276, 279 (Chk. S. Ct. App. 2019).

Appellate Review - Stay - Civil Cases - Money Judgments
The court may require a bond in the judgment amount as a precondition to grant a motion to stay. If the appellee should prevail, the release of the judgment money will occur unhindered if it is already posted as a bond - thus alleviating the appellee’s main concern that he will not see his judgment during his lifetime. Chuuk Public Utility Corp. v. Rain, 22 FSM R. 276, 279 (Chk. S. Ct. App. 2019).

* * * *

COURT’S OPINION

JAYSON ROBERT, Associate Justice, presiding:

I. INTRODUCTION

On February 27, 2018 the trial division of this Court entered a judgment of $30,000 against Chuuk Public Utility Corporation (hereinafter CPUC) after finding that CPUC committed negligence, trespass, and nuisance. CPUC filed a timely notice of appeal and motioned the trial division to stay its judgment until the appellate division issues a decision on appeal. The trial court denied that motion. On June 1, 2018, CPUC filed a motion to stay within the Appellate Division. One year later, Rain has still not filed an opposition to this motion. This Appellate Panel now uses the Pius factors to determine whether a stay is warranted.

II. ISSUES

1. 1. Whether the balance of factors under Pius weigh in favor of granting a stay of judgment pending the outcome of this appeal?
   

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Rule 8 of the Chuuk State Rules of Appellate Procedure outlines the procedure for seeking a stay within the appellate division: 1. The movant first filed a motion to stay in the court of first instance and it was denied or gave impractical relief, or such filing would be impractical, 2. The motion shall state reasons and facts relied upon and have support in affidavits or by the record, 3. Reasonable notice must be provide to all parties. 4. All justices of the court eligible to act within the appellate division in this case shall consider this motion - or a single justice if the former procedure is deemed impractical due to requirements of time. Chk. App. R. 8(a). 5. Relief may be conditioned on the posting of a bond. Chk. App. R. 8(b).

This Court uses the standard detailed within Pius to review motions for stays of judgment. The Court must weigh the following factors in its decision on whether to grant a stay: (1) whether the appellant has shown that without the stay he will be irreparably harmed; (2) whether issuance of the stay would substantially harm other parties interested in the proceedings; (3) whether the public interest would be served by granting a stay; and (4) whether the appellant has made a strong showing that he is likely to prevail on the merits of the appeal. Pius v. Chuuk State Election Comm'n, [1998] FMCSC 16; 8 FSM Intrm. 570, 571 (Chk. S. Ct. App. 1998).

IV. ANALYSIS

a. The Pius Factors favor a stay within this matter

CPUC has succeeded in demonstrating that the Pius factors align in favor of granting a stay in this instance - yet only by the most narrow of margins.

CPUC has not demonstrated that a serious case of irreparable harm will result should the stay be denied. CPUC alleges should it prevail on appeal, Rain’s precarious health condition and possibility of death in the interim may complicate the return monies paid to Rain as part of the judgment. Inability to return the $30,000 judgment is a matter which may raise an issue of irreparable harm. However, even if Rain dies prior to a decision rendered by the appellate court, CPUC can still recover monies from Rain’s estate if CPUC prevails on appeal -or attach the judgment obligation to Rain’s property should he remain alive. This factor, perhaps in favor of CPUC, carries a limited weight.

Likewise, this Court finds that a stay on the payment until an appellate decision issues, falls short of substantive harm to Rain in this instance. While justice delayed might be justice denied, in some instances; the delay prior to a judgment rendered by this panel will not likely exceed several months. The appellate process within this case is well underway, so a delay of several months, while having the potential to harm a plaintiff who never sees judgment as a result of death, is extremely limited. This factor favors CPUC.

Public interest requires accountability of quasi-governmental entities towards the public when instances of wrongdoing occur. Properly raised lawsuits ensure that accountability. Public interest also demands however, that a plaintiff who may ultimately lose on appeal, not walk away with a windfall he is unable to repay to the quasi-governmental entity - at the expense of the public. This factor balances out without favoring either party.

CPUC has also denoted points of appeal which may result in a potential remand to the trial division of this court. Without a review of the briefs, this Court is unable to determine whether CPUC has made a strong showing as to whether it will prevail on the merits. This factor marginally weighs in favor of CPUC.

b. Bond Required

This Court’s shall require CPUC to post a $30,000 bond as a precondition for a grant of this motion to stay. CPUC has demonstrated that a stay is appropriate in this instance. CPUC’s main concern, as to the payment of judgment pending appeal, remains its belief that Rain will fail to return the $30,000 judgment should CPUC succeed in its appeal. The stay alleviates this concern.

This Court believes, and CPUC likewise agrees within its motion, that a bond is appropriate. Should Rain prevail, the release of the judgment money will occur unhindered if it is already posted as a bond - thus alleviating Rain’s main concern that he will not see his judgment during his lifetime.

V. CONCLUSION

This Court finds that the balance of factors under Pius weigh in favor of granting a stay of judgment pending the outcome of this appeal. CPUC shall post a $30,000 bond with the Court within 20 days of this order. Motion granted.

* * * *