KOSRAE STATE COURT TRIAL DIVISION
Cite as Palsis v. Kosrae
10 FSM Intrm. 551 ( Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2002)
 
[10 FSM Intrm. 551]
 
VALTON PALSIS,
Plaintiff,
 
vs.
 
STATE OF KOSRAE,
Defendant.
 
CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-01
 
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS, SETTING DATES
 
Yosiwo P. George
Chief Justice
 
Hearing: March 11, 2002
 
Decided: March 11, 2002
 
Order Entered: March 18, 2002

APPEARANCES:

 
For the Plaintiff:                              Sasaki L. George, Esq.
                                                         Micronesian Legal Services Corporation
                                                         P.O. Box 38
                                                         Lelu, Kosrae FM 96944
 
For the Defendant:                         Paul J. Simonett, Esq.
                                                         Assistant Attorney General
                                                         Office of the Kosrae Attorney General
                                                         P.O. Box 870
                                                         Lelu, Kosrae FM 96944

* * * *

HEADNOTE

Civil Procedure ) Pleadings; Evidence
     When the plaintiff's complaint claimed he performed "over 714 hours of overtime work," the defendant was given notice of the plaintiff's overtime claims. The defendant thus cannot exclude evidence that the plaintiff worked 1184.5 overtime hours, and the plaintiff does not need to amend his complaint, because 1184.5 hours is more than 714 hours. Palsis v. Kosrae, 10 FSM Intrm. 551, 552 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2002).

* * * *

[10 FSM Intrm. 552]

COURT'S OPINION

     YOSIWO P. GEORGE, Chief Justice:On February 25, 2002, Defendant filed a Motion to Exclude Evidence from Trial. Plaintiff filed a Response to the Motion and also filed a Motion for Leave of Court to Allow Amendment of the Complaint on March 7, 2002. Defendant filed a Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint on March 11, 2002. A hearing on both Motions was held on March 14, 2002. Plaintiff was represented by Sasaki L. George. Paul J. Simonett, Assistant Attorney General, appeared for the Defendant. After hearing from both parties, I denied both motions.

I. Defendant's Motion to Exclude Evidence From Trial.

     Defendant's Motion seeks to exclude "increased claims" now allegedly made by the Plaintiff. It appears that the Plaintiff submitted his overtime claims to the Defendant for Defendant's evaluation, as part of settlement negotiations. Plaintiff's submission included overtime claims for airline and vessel inspection, which were then evaluated by the Defendant. Plaintiff's and Defendant's work in compiling and evaluation of this information was made as settlement negotiations, as urged by this Court, in an effort to minimize trial issues, or to reach settlement before trial, if possible.

     A review of Plaintiff's Complaint is necessary to determine what claims were actually pled and which claims the Defendant was given notice of. Plaintiff's Complaint claims overtime hours from April 1997 and thereafter. Complaint paras. 9, 10. Plaintiff was a Kosrae State Government employee until February 14, 1999 and claims overtime until that date. Id. paras. 7, 10. Plaintiff claimed he performed "over 714 hours of overtime work." Id. para. 15.

     Through the Complaint, the Defendant was given notice of Plaintiff's overtime claims, based on overtime allegedly performed from April 1997 to February 14, 1999. Defendant was given notice that Plaintiff claims are more than 7l4 overtime hours. It is a mathematical certainty that 1184.5 hours is more than 714 hours.

     The initial overtime calculations were submitted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant as part of settlement negotiations only. Those overtime calculations are not binding upon the Court ) they are not evidence taken at trial.

     Defendant, by the Complaint, was put on notice for overtime claims which occurred between April 1997 and February 14, 1999, in an amount over 714 hours. Plaintiff shall be permitted to present evidence at trial for all overtime claims which occurred during that time period specified in the Complaint. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Exclude Evidence is denied.

II. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint

     Plaintiff's Motion seeks leave of Court to amend the Complaint, paragraph 15, to delete "over 714 OT hours" and replace it with "about 1184.5 hours, more or less." As discussed above, the amendment to the Complaint is not necessary, as the Complaint has property given notice to the Defendant of the timing of the overtime claims and the amount of the overtime claims, as more than 714 hours. The number of overtime hours now claimed by the Plaintiff, 1184.5 hours, is certainly more than 714 hours. Therefore, the allegation in paragraph 15 of the Complaint is mathematically correct. The amendment is unnecessary. Plaintiff shall be permitted to present evidence of his overtime claims, as set forth in the Complaint, which occurred during the specified time period. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint is denied.

[10 FSM Intrm. 553]

III. Trial Date and Pre-trial Briefs.

     Trial of this matter is now set for April 11, 2002 at 9 a.m. Parties may file and serve amended pre-trial briefs no later than April 4, 2002.

* * * *

 

 
1a ]15ca.7r1a'7te8as8iehJaB5ca 0l)A8E=?O'?_)0H-6%8e e A\4gs8t,tSGp'A I ,0TC%8cSSi \0p8o&A I ,0TA%8t,tSGp8o& A I ,0TA%8t,tSGp'A!O#2M"?E7/N;u rDo/P1oA!O#2M"?E7/N;u rDo4b4;U&!VA5guvA!O#2M"?E7/P1obmA!O#2M"?E7/P1ob4A8E=?O'?_)0H-6%8fr=en #u#r t iA.iA.-$aeiA.-$aeA!O#2M"?E7/PoA I ,0TA%8t,tSP1o'A I ,0TC%8cSSi \0p8o 4vE4v ! VC4Di/pTA I ,0TE%8co/I r  !l r8iSLc #r t6yA0TSTlDrn+A I ,0TE%8ieD eDC0P'r  2sBA I ,0T@%8ieD eDC0P'r \4v ! VC4DiSVi4v ! 0aiOA I ,0TE%8co/I r  !l r8iSLc #r t6y'r  2s&A I ,0TE%8ieD eDiSVi8A I ,0T@%8ieD eDi/PaSESTlDrnkA8E=?O'?_)0H-6%8is \3d \'rVi /U sl8ieD eDC0P'r  2s _fA8E=?O'?_)0H-6%8is \3d \'rVi /U sl8ieD eDiSVi ,i0A8E=?O'?_)0H-6%8