* * * *
* * * *
[10 FSM Intrm. 552]
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.
* * * *