FSM SUPREME COURT TRIAL DIVISION
Cite as Clarence v. FSM Social Sec. Admin.,13 FSM Intrm. 34 (Kos. 2004)
[13 FSM Intrm. 34]
FSM SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2003-2008
Decided: November 8, 2004
[13 FSM Intrm. 35]
Plaintiff: Sasaki L. George, Esq.
Micronesian Legal Services Corporation
P.O. Box 38
Lelu, Kosrae FM 96944
For the Defendant: Michael J. Sipos, Esq.
P.O. Box 2069
Kolonia, Pohnpei FM 96941
* * * *
Nonresponse may be deemed consent to the motion, but there still must be a basis in law and fact for granting the motion. Clarence v. FSM Social Sec. Admin., 13 FSM Intrm. 34, 35 (Kos. 2004).
When a party files a motion for enlargement of time under Rule 6(b) after the time for doing the act has expired, he must show excusable neglect. Merely being a busy lawyer does not establish excusable neglect and a motion to enlarge brought on that basis will be denied. Clarence v. FSM Social Sec. Admin., 13 FSM Intrm. 34, 35 (Kos. 2004).
* * * *
* * * *
MARTIN YINUG, Associate Justice:
On October 6, 2004, plaintiff John Clarence ("Clarence") filed a motion of enlargement of time in which he requested 30 additional days to file its brief addressing the question whether the October 21, 2003, order of the Board of the FSM Social Security Administration ("FSMSSA") was supported by the record. Clarence's brief was due on October 5, 2004, one day before the motion for an enlargement was filed. The FSMSSA did not respond to the motion. Nonresponse may be deemed consent to the motion, but there still must be a basis in law and fact for granting the motion. Bank of the FSM v. Mori, 11 FSM Intrm. 13, 14 (Chk. 2002).
When a party files a motion for enlargement of time under Rule 6(b) of the FSM Rules of Civil Procedure after the time for doing the act has expired, he must show excusable neglect. Clarence's counsel cites the press of business as the basis for the enlargement, but merely being a busy lawyer does not establish excusable neglect. Medabalmi v. Island Imports Co., 10 FSM Intrm. 217, 219 (Chk. 2001). Accordingly, Clarence's motion is denied.
The September 22, 2004, order gave the FSMSSA until October 25, 2004, to file a response to Clarence's brief. The FSMSSA filed nothing on that date, but then Clarence filed no brief to which to respond. The FSMSSA will have until November 15, 2004, to file any further comments it may have with the court on the pending issue. The court will then issue a dispositive order.
* * * *