Cite as Actouka v. Etpison ,1 FSM Intrm. 275 (Pon. 1983)
[1 FSM Intrm. 275]
CIVIL ACTION NO. 33-74
|For the Plaintiff:||Patricia Billington|
|Attorney at Law|
|E. Caroline Islands 96941|
|For the Defendants:||None|
Failure to file a memorandum in opposition to a motion is deemed a consent to the motion. Actouka v. Etpison, 1 FSM Intrm. 275, 276 (Pon. 1983).
Failure to file a memorandum of points and authorities with a motion constitutes a waiver of the motion. Actouka v. Etpison, 1 FSM Intrm. 275, 277 (Pon. 1983).
Transfer of a case not in active trial in the Trust Territory High Court is mandatory unless the legal rights of a party are impaired by the transfer. U.S. Dep't Int. Sec'l Order 3039, ' 5(a) (1979). Actouka v. Etpison, 1 FSM Intrm. 275, 277 (Pon. 1983).
[1 FSM Intrm. 276]
The plaintiff's motion for an order transferring this case to the High Court of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands came before the court for hearing on January 17, 1983.
The plaintiff was present by counsel.
Bismark Etpison did not file a memorandum in opposition to the motion, and is therefore deemed to have consented to the motion. Rule 6(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure for the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of the Federated States of Micronesia.
The court concludes that the motion should properly be denied on any of the following grounds:
[1 FSM Intrm. 277]
1. The notice of Associate Justice Nakamura filed July 30, 1981 gave 20 days to the parties to object to such proposed transfer. The plaintiff failed to object. The plaintiff had notice of Judge Nakamura's intention at least by March 11, 1982 when a copy of the notice was attached to a letter of this court mailed to plaintiffs counsel.
2. No memorandum of points and authorities was filed with the motion of the plaintiff for the transfer. This constitutes a waiver of the motion by the plaintiff. FSM Civ. R. 6(d).
3. It is not contended that the court lacks jurisdiction. This case is "...between a state or citizen thereof, and foreign state, citizen, or subject." FSM Const. art. XI, § 6(b).
The court finds that this case was not in "active trial" in the High Court at the time of the transfer. Its transfer to the Supreme Court was mandatory unless the legal rights of a party were impaired by the transfer. [Section 5(a) Secretary of the Interior Order No. 3039].In this regard the court has carefully weighed the argument of the plaintiff, presented for the first time on January 17, 1983, that transfer to this court deprives her of subpoena power over Yoichi Gonzales. The plaintiff admits that she has no funds to supply transportation to Yoichi Gonzales to have him appear. The power sought is thus futile. And since this complaint was
[1 FSM Intrm. 278]
filed over 8 years ago no attempt appears on the record to obtain the testimony of Yoichi Gonzales by, other means quite within the ability of the plaintiff. In this regard the Court notes that plaintiff's counsel has offices in Majuro, the place of residence of YoichiGonzales. The court finds that no legal right of a party is impaired by the transfer.
It is therefore ordered that the motion be, and it hereby is, denied.
/s/ Richard Benson
Received & Filed 4/7/83
/s/ Emiliana J. Kihleng
Chief Clerk of Court