Chuuk v Land known as Mononong A-1 [1992] FMSC 3; 5 FSM Intrm. 272 (Pon. 1992) (2 March 1992)

[1992] FMSC 2; 5 FSM Intrm 266 (Pon 1992)

FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA
SUPREME COURT TRIAL DIVISION

FSM CIVIL ACTION 1991-1033

CHUUK STATE
Plaintiff

V

LAND KNOWN AS MONONONG A-1
KACHUTOSY PAULUS and unknown others
Defendants

OPINION: March 2, 1992

BEFORE: Honorable Richard H. Benson, Associate Justice, FSM Supreme Court

APPEARANCES: For the Plaintiff: Martin Pankove, Chuuk State Attorney; For the Defendants: Maketo Robert, Attorney at Law

HEADNOTE

Jurisdiction - Removal
A motion for removal will be denied where, in an action in eminent domain under Truk State law the only defense available are those relating to the taking, and the counterclaims asserted as a basis for national court jurisdiction do not fall within a defense to the taking. Chuuk v. Land Known as Mononong[1992] FMSC 3; , 5 FSM Intrm. 272, 273 (Chk. 1992).

COURT'S OPINION

RICHARD H. BENSON, Associate Justice:

This matter came before me on the motion of the defendant for an order removing Civil Action 199-91 from the Chuuk State Supreme Court to this court.

The action was commenced in this court pursuant only to this motion, and a notice of hearing. No other pleadings were filed. The procedural aspect of the matter was not put in issue. Because of my decision on the motion, I will not decide the procedural problem presented. Koike v. Ponape Rock Products Co., [1984] FMSC 7; 1 FSM Intrm. 496 (Pon. 1984).

This case was submitted to me on the motion, on plaintiff's response, and on the pleadings in the state court furnished me by the defendant upon my request.

The state brings its action in eminent domain under Truk State Law No. 2-1, Section 219 of which limits the defenses available to those relating to the taking, issues of either public purpose of just compensation.

In his counterclaim the defendant asserts national constitution and national law claims on which he bases his assertion of this court's jurisdiction. The plaintiff contends that these claims do not fall within a defense to the taking. I agree.

The motion is accordingly denied.