Cite as Yoruw v. Ira,16 FSM Intrm. 464 (Yap 2009)

[16 FSM Intrm. 464]

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2008-3000

Decided: June 1, 2009

APPEARANCES:

HEADNOTES

Civil Procedure – Motions

Under FSM Civil Rule 6(d), failing to oppose a motion is deemed consent to the motion, however, the court must still determine that there is a basis in fact and law for the requested relief before granting the motion. Yoruw v. Ira, 16 FSM Intrm. 464, 465 (Yap 2009).

[16 FSM Intrm. 465]

Civil Procedure – Summary Judgment – Grounds – Particular Cases; Torts – Defamation

When the plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to support a defamation action and the defendants allege either that the statements were true, or for some defendants, that they did not make the statements, a factual dispute exists as to who said what about the plaintiff, and whether the statements were false. Under these circumstances, there are facts to be determined at trial and summary judgment motions will be denied. Yoruw v. Ira, 16 FSM Intrm. 464, 465 (Yap 2009).

Torts – Interference with a Contractual Relationship

Parties to a contract cannot, as a matter of law, tortiously interfere with their own contractual relations. Yoruw v. Ira, 16 FSM Intrm. 464, 466 (Yap 2009).

Torts – Interference with a Contractual Relationship

Complaints to government officials are not sufficient to establish tortious interference with contractual relations. The tort requires that a defendant act intentionally with a known contract or prospect of economic advantage, that he has caused harm in so doing, and that he has acted in pursuit of some purpose considered improper. Yoruw v. Ira, 16 FSM Intrm. 464, 466 (Yap 2009).

Civil Procedure – Dismissal – Before Responsive Pleading; Contracts – Breach

When the facts establish only two defendants had contracts with the plaintiff, the plaintiff's complaint alleging that all defendants breached a contract with the plaintiff will be dismissed with respect to all defendants except the two. Yoruw v. Ira, 16 FSM Intrm. 464, 466 (Yap 2009).

*    *    *    *

COURT'S OPINION

ANDON L. AMARAICH, Chief Justice:

Plaintiff filed this action on February 28, 2008. Pending before the Court are Defendants' Motions to dismiss this action under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be had. Defendants Tony Tareg and Alice Tareg, pro se, filed their motion on March 18, 2008. Clement Mulalap filed the motion on behalf of all other defendants except Ira, Labarca, Santos and Porboy Perez. Ira, Labarca, Santos and Porboy Perez have not responded to the suit, and proof of service of the summons and complaint has not been filed with respect to any party. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to these motions. Under FSM Civil Rule 6(d), failing to oppose a motion is deemed consent to the motion, however, the Court must still determine that there is a basis in fact and law for the requested relief before granting the motion. Senda v. Mid-Pacific Constr. Co., 6 FSM Intrm. 440, 442 (App. 1994).

COUNT ONE: LIBEL AND SLANDER

Plaintiff alleges Defendants made false oral and written statements about him to others, and that these statements damaged his reputation. Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to support a defamation action. Defendants allege either the statements were true, or for some defendants, that they did not make the statements. A factual dispute exists as to who said what about Plaintiff, and whether the statements were false. Under these circumstances, there are facts to be determined at trial. With respect to count one, Defendants' motions are denied.

COUNT TWO: TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS

Plaintiff alleges all defendants tortiously interfered with contractual relations between him and

[16 FSM Intrm. 466]

defendants Ira and Labarca. However, Ira and Labarca, as parties to the contract cannot, as a matter of law, tortiously interfere with their own contractual relations. The allegations with respect to the remaining defendants are that those defendants repeated to government officials Ira and Labarca's allegations that Plaintiff assaulted them. Although the parties dispute whether the allegations concerning the assaults are true, complaints to government officials are not sufficient to establish tortious interference with contractual relations.¹ The tort requires that a defendant act "intentionally with a known contract or prospect of economic advantage, that he has caused harm in so doing, and that he has acted in pursuit of some purpose considered improper." Federated Shipping Co. v. Ponape Transfer & Storage, 4 FSM Intrm. 3, 13, 14 (Pon. 1989). Count Two of the Complaint is dismissed with respect to all defendants.

COUNT THREE: BREACH OF CONTRACT

The third count of the complaint alleges all defendants breached a contract with Plaintiff. Yet, the facts establish only Defendants Ira and Labarca had contracts with Plaintiff. Accordingly Count Three of the Complaint is dismissed with respect to all defendants except Ira and Labarca.

SCHEDULING

The parties shall complete all discovery in this matter no later than Monday, August 17, 2009.

The parties shall file any pretrial motions on or before Monday, September 7, 2009.

The parties shall file pretrial statements on or before Monday, October 12, 2010. The pretrial statements will set forth the uncontested issues of law and material fact; the contested issues of law and material fact; the witnesses that a party will call in its case-in-chief together with a summary of their expected testimony; and the estimated length of trial.

Trial is set for 10:00 a.m. Monday, November 16, 2009.

¹ There is no indication that any governmental official took any adverse action against Plaintiff as a result of the complaints, nor that the government itself refused to award contracts to Plaintiff based upon the complaints.