National Fisheries Corporation v New Quick Co, Ltd [1999] FMSC 7; 9 FSM Intrm. 147 (Pon. 1999) (12 May 1999)

FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA
SUPREME COURT TRIAL DIVISION
Cite as National Fisheries Corp. v. New Quick Co., Ltd., [1999] FMSC 7; 9 FSM Intrm. 147 (Ponape 1999)

[1999] FMSC 7; [9 FSM Intrm. 147]

NATIONAL FISHERIES CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,

vs.

NEW QUICK CO., LTD., NORTHSTAR
INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, LTD. and
L. DOUGLAS BROWN,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1998-042

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM

Martin Yinug
Associate Justice

Decided: May 12, 1999

* * * *

HEADNOTES

Civil Procedure - Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel; Judgments
As a general rule, a judgment for a defendant based on lack of jurisdiction does not bar the plaintiff from bringing another action on the same cause in another court having jurisdiction. National Fisheries Corp. v. New Quick Co., [1999] FMSC 7; 9 FSM Intrm. 147, 148 (Pon. 1999).

Civil Procedure - Dismissal; Judgments
A judgment entered upon a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction should recite that fact, so as to make clear that the dismissal is without prejudice to a different suit in a court that does have jurisdiction. Similar reasoning applies to the granting of a motion to dismiss for improper forum. National Fisheries Corp. v. New Quick Co., [1999] FMSC 7; 9 FSM Intrm. 147, 148 (Pon. 1999).

* * * *

COURT'S OPINION

MARTIN YINUG, Associate Justice:

On May 3, 1999, the court entered an order granting the motion to dismiss of defendant New Quick Co., Ltd., for improper forum, and the motion to dismiss of defendants Northstar International Holdings, Ltd., and L. Douglas Brown for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court's May 3, 1999, order

[1999] FMCSC 10; [9 FSM Intrm. 148]

also directed the clerk to enter a judgment consistent with the May 3, 1999, order and pursuant to Rule 58 of the FSM Rules of Civil Procedure. The judgment entered thereupon was with prejudice.

The court notes the "general rule . . . a jut for ther the defendefendant based on lack of jurisdiction does not bar the plaintiff from bringing another action on the same cause in another court having jurisdiction." 46 Am. Jur. 2d Judgments § 500, at 636 ). The May 3, 1 3, 1999, order proceeds on this premise, and is therefore inconsistent with the judgment reflecting a dismissal prejudice. Indeed, a judgment entered upon a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction should reci recite that fact, so as to make it clear that the dismissal is without prejudice, i.e., to a different suit filed in a court that does have jurisdiction. Armour & Co. v. Fort Morgan S.S. Co., [1926] USSC 29; 270 U.S. 253, 258[1926] USSC 29; , 46 S. Ct. 212, 214[1926] USSC 29; , 70 L. Ed. 571, 575 (1926). Similar reasoning applies to the granting of a motion to dismiss for improper forum.

Accordingly, the court's order of May 3, 1999, stands amended so that the sentence beginning on line 15 of page 9 [National Fisheries Corp. v. New Quick Co., [1999] FMSC 28; 9 FSM Intrm. 120, 127 (Pon. 1999)], "The complaint as to defendant New Quick is dismissed with prejudice." is deleted. The judgment of dismissal with prejudice entered on May 3, 1999, is vacated, and the clerk is directed to enter a judgment of dismissal without prejudice, the judgment to recite the fact that the motion to dismiss of defendants Northstar International Holdings, Ltd., and L. Douglas Brown is based upon this court's lack of personal jurisdiction over them.