Sandy v Mori [2010] FMSC 34; 17 FSM Intrm. 245 (Chk. 2010) (21 September 2010)

FSM SUPREME COURT TRIAL DIVISION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2008-1073

ELIAS SANDY,
Plaintiff,

vs.

JESSE MORI, in his official capacity as
Director of the Department of
Administrative Services, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, and STATE
OF CHUUK,
Defendants
_________________________________

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SET ASIDE

Ready E. Johnny
Associate Justice

Decided: July 30, 2010
Corrected: September 21, 2010

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiff:	Salomon M. Saimon, Esq. Micronesian Legal Services Corporation P.O. Box 129 Kolonia, Pohnpei FM 96941
For the Defendants:	Joses R. Gallen, Esq. Attorney General Office of the Chuuk Attorney General P.O. Box 1050 Weno, Chuuk FM 96942

* * * *

HEADNOTES

Costs
The court has long followed the principle that when awarding costs, costs may be allowed for copying expenses which represent payments to others for that service, but not the cost of copying within the law office. So when there is no indication that a copying charge is for payment to others for copying services, that charge will be disallowed. Sandy v. Mori, [2010] FMSC 34; 17 FSM Intrm. 245, 246 (Chk. 2010).

Costs
An attorney's travel expenses to Chuuk will be denied as costs when the attorney's law firm maintains a law office on Chuuk even though the attorney did not reside on Chuuk and only made occasional trips to Chuuk from Pohnpei. Sandy v. Mori, [2010] FMSC 34; 17 FSM Intrm. 245, 246-47 (Chk. 2010).

* * * *

COURT'S OPINION

READY E. JOHNNY, Associate Justice:

On July 12, 2010, the plaintiff, Elias Sandy, filed and served his Motion [to] Set Aside Portion of Order Awarding Costs and Fees. The defendants filed their opposition on July 22, 2010. The motion is denied. The reasons follow.

Sandy asks the court to reconsider the portion of the June 9, 2010 Order Awarding Fees and Costs that denied his request for an award of $402.30 for his Micronesian Legal Services Corporation attorney's (prorated) travel expenses from Pohnpei to Chuuk for his trial and of $65 as the purported cost (at 20¢ each) of 325 copies made in-house by his counsel for his case.

The court has long followed the principle that when awarding costs, costs may be allowed for copying expenses which represent payments to others for that service, but not the cost of copying within the law office. Bank of the FSM v. Truk Trading Co., [2009] FMSC 29; 16 FSM Intrm. 467, 471 (Chk. 2009); Ruben v. Petewon, [2008] FMSC 34; 15 FSM Intrm. 605, 609 (Chk. 2008); People of Rull ex rel. Ruepong v. M/V Kyowa Violet, [2007] FMSC 39; 15 FSM Intrm. 53, 74 (Yap 2007); Lippwe v. Weno Municipality, [2006] FMSC 28; 14 FSM Intrm. 347, 354 (Chk. 2006); Warren v. Pohnpei State Dep't of Public Safety, [2005] FMSC 51; 13 FSM Intrm. 524, 527 (Pon. 2005); FSM Social Sec. Admin. v. Jonas, [2005] FMSC 7; 13 FSM Intrm. 171, 173 (Kos. 2005); AHPW, Inc. v. FSM, [2004] FMSC 33; 13 FSM Intrm. 36, 42 (Pon. 2004); Udot Municipality v. FSM, [2002] FMSC 2; 10 FSM Intrm. 498, 501 (Chk. 2002); Bank of Guam v. O'Sonis, [1999] FMSC 26; 9 FSM Intrm. 106, 111 (Chk. 1999); Damarlane v. United States, [1996] FMSC 57; 7 FSM Intrm. 468, 470 (Pon. 1996); see also Santos v. Bank of Hawaii, [2000] FMSC 28; 9 FSM Intrm. 306, 308 (App. 2000). Since there was no indication that the $65 charge was for payment to others for copying services, the June 9th order disallowed that charge. Sandy urges the court "to reevaluate its ruling for denying copying costs" and asserts that the court need not follow "a trial court ruling that set this questionable" precedent. Mot. at 4. In his view, it could discourage law firms from making copies by not making "an aggrieved party whole."

Sandy has not presented any compelling reasons not to follow the line of cases that have consistently denied the taxation of costs for a law firm's "expense" of making copies in-house. His motion to set aside that port of the June 9, 2010 order is therefore denied.

Sandy also asks for $402.30 for his attorney's (pro-rated) travel costs from Pohnpei (_ of a $362 air ticket, $625 per diem, and $220 car rental). Since Sandy's counsel was part of a law firm with a number of attorneys admitted to this court and since that law firm maintains a Chuuk office and has the ability to assign personnel there, the court, relying on Amayo v. MJ Co., [2001] FMSC 32; 10 FSM Intrm. 371, 386 (Pon. 2001) (counsel's travel expenses to and from Pohnpei for litigation on Pohnpei may not be awarded as costs when counsel maintains a Pohnpei office and is thus local counsel), did not award those travel costs. Sandy urges that the court set aside this ruling on the ground that it was based on the "mistaken fact" that MLSC has the ability to assign its admitted attorneys to Chuuk, if needed, but that the court should base its decision on the "corrected fact" that an admitted MLSC attorney only made occasional trips to Chuuk from Pohnpei.

Sandy misunderstands the import of Amayo v. MJ Co., [2001] FMSC 32; 10 FSM Intrm. 371, 386 (Pon. 2001). In Amayo, attorney's travel expenses were denied because plaintiff's counsel maintained a law office on Pohnpei even though he was resident on Guam and only occasionally traveled to Pohnpei. Sandy's "corrected fact" thus does not support his claim for his attorney's travel. MLSC maintains a law office on Chuuk. Sandy's motion to set aside this part of the June 9, 2010 order is therefore denied.

Now therefore it is hereby ordered that Elias Sandy's motion to set aside parts of the June 9, 2010 is denied.