Western Caroline Trading Co. v Kinney [2011] PWSC 7; Civil Appeal 034.2010 (2 March 2011)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF PALAU
APPELLATE DIVISION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10-034
Civil Action No. 10-077

WESTERN CAROLINE TRADING CO.
Appellant,

v.

KAELANI KINNEY,
Appellee.

Decided: 2 March, 2011

Counsel for Appellant: David F. Shadel
Counsel for Appellee: Pro Se

BEFORE: ARTHUR NGIRAKLSONG, Chief Justice; ALEXANDRA F. FOSTER, Associate Justice; and RICHARD H. BENSON, Part-Time Associate Justice.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

1. Appellant Western Caroline Trading Company ("WCTC") filed a Petition for Rehearing following the Court's Opinion. The Court vacated and remanded the Trial Division's Order granting default judgment but denying attorney fees and punitive damages to WCTC. Appellant now seeks rehearing. The Petition is denied for the following reasons.

2. Following an Appellate Division Opinion, ROP R. App. P. 40(a) sets the following standard for parties seeking rehearing: "The petition must state with particularity each point of law or fact that the petitioner believes the court has overlooked or misapprehended and must argue in support of the petition." This standard requires the party seeking rehearing to specifically pinpoint how the Court made a mistake or misunderstood the law or facts. We grant petitions for rehearing exceedingly sparingly - only in instances "where this Court's original decision obviously and demonstrably contains an error of fact or law that draws into question the result of the appeal." Melaitau v. Lakobong, 9 ROP 192, 192 (2002) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

3. The Petition does not reference ROP R. App. P. 40(a), nor does it make an effort to meet the standard it imposes. Rather, the Petition disagrees - over the course of seven pages -with the Court's decision that the Trial Division did not abuse its discretion. The Petition does not quote, cite to, and barely mentions the Court's Opinion, and thus failed to demonstrate a point of law or fact the court overlooked or misapprehended. Petitions for rehearing that ignore the dictates of ROP R. App. P. 40 will be summarily rejected.

4. Accordingly, Appellant's Petition for Rehearing is DENIED.

SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of March, 2011.

ARTHUR NGIRAKLSONG
Chief Justice

ALEXANDRA F. FOSTER
Associate Justice

RICHARD H. BENSON
Part-Time Associate Justice