CHUUK STATE SUPREME COURT APPELLATE DIVISION
Cite as Kuch v. Mori, 18 FSM Intrm. 442 (Chk. S. Ct. App. 2012)
WAKIN KUCH,
Appellant,
vs.
SHELLYANN MORI, BENJAMIN NITHON,
ANNA W. MIJARES, FELICSITAS WENGU,
SIMIKO WENGU, and MAGDALENA W.,
Appellees.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 01-2007
ORDER AFFIRMING DISMISSAL
Decided: October 30, 2012
BEFORE:
Hon. Midasy O. Aisek, Associate Justice, presiding
Hon. Dennis K. Yamase, Temporary Justice*
Hon. Jayson Robert, Temporary Justice**
*Associate Justice, FSM Supreme Court, Chuuk
**Attorney at Law, Weno, Chuuk
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant:
Salomon Saimon, Esq.
Micronesian Legal Services Corporation
P.O. Box D
Weno, Chuuk FM 96942
For the Appellees:
Stephen V. Finnen, Esq.
P.O. Box 1450
Kolonia, Pohnpei FM 96941
* * * *
Motions may be decided without oral argument. Kuch v. Mori, 18 FSM Intrm. 442, 443 (Chk. S. Ct. App. 2012).
Whenever a case is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, it is dismissed without prejudice to a determination on the merits by a tribunal that has subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. This should make sense because a dismissal with prejudice is considered a ruling on the case's merits, and if a court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a case, the court is without any authority to make any ruling on the merits. Kuch v. Mori, 18 FSM Intrm. 442, 443 (Chk. S. Ct. App. 2012).
A trial court's dismissal "with prejudice" for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is either reversible error or it only addresses the determination of the trial court's subject-matter jurisdiction, not the merits of the plaintiff's case. It has no other effect. Kuch v. Mori, 18 FSM Intrm. 442, 444 (Chk. S. Ct. App. 2012).
* * * *
PER CURIAM:
On July 27, 2012, we noted the appellees' renewed motions to dismiss the appeal and issued our Order of Dismissal Nisi that automatically dismissed this case unless counsel entered an appearance for the appellant Wakin Kuch by August 24, 2012 and filed an opening brief by September 13, 2012. Kuch v. Mori, 18 FSM Intrm. 337, 339 (Chk. S. Ct. App. 2012). Wakin Kuch's new counsel entered his appearance on August 23, 2012. On September 12, 2012, Kuch filed his Notice of Dismissal of Appeal, in which he asks that we make our earlier statement that "that the trial court's use of the term 'with prejudice' was likely error" an explicit term of our dismissal. Since we may decide motions without oral argument, see Jonah v. FSM Dev. Bank, 17 FSM Intrm. 506, 507 (App. 2011); Christian v. Urusemal, 14 FSM Intrm. 291, 293 (App. 2006), we do so now.
Whenever a case is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, it is dismissed without prejudice to a determination on the merits by a tribunal that has subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. National Fisheries Corp. v. New Quick Co., 9 FSM Intrm. 147, 148 (Pon. 1999) (a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction should recite that fact so as to make clear that it is without prejudice to a different suit in a court that has jurisdiction). An action is subject to dismissal without prejudice whenever it appears that the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Iwo v. Chuuk, 18 FSM Intrm. 182, 184 (Chk. 2012); People of Gilman ex rel. Tamagken v. M/V Easternline I, 17 FSM Intrm. 81, 85 (Yap 2010); FSM v. Fu Yuan Yu 096, 16 FSM Intrm. 1, 3 (Pon. 2008); Geoffrey Hughes (Export) Pty, Ltd. v. America Ducksan Co., 12 FSM Intrm. 413, 415 (Chk. 2004). This should make sense because a dismissal with prejudice is considered a ruling on the case's merits, Kitti Mun. Gov't v. Pohnpei, 11 FSM Intrm. 622, 628 (App. 2003) (dismissal with prejudice constitutes a judgment on the merits); Livaie v. Kosrae Sea Ventures, Inc., 10 FSM Intrm. 206, 209 (Kos. 2001) (under a dismissal with prejudice, a defendant secures the same relief it would have if the case had gone to trial and it had prevailed); Union Indus. Co. v. Santos, 7 FSM Intrm. 242, 244 (Pon. 1995) (dismissal with prejudice of a plaintiff's prior action
constituted a judgment on the merits, which then has a res judicata effect), and, if a court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a case, the court is without any authority to make any ruling on the merits. Accordingly, the "with prejudice" part of the trial court's dismissal was either reversible error or it only addressed the determination of the trial court's subject-matter jurisdiction, not the merits of the plaintiff's case. It has no effect.
Since this appeal is dismissed without a decision on the merits, we will not issue a mandate but will direct the appellate clerk to transmit a copy of this order to the trial division for insertion in the trial court file.
* * * *