FSM SUPREME COURT
Cite as Chuuk v. Land Known as Mononong,
5 FSM Intrm. 272 (Chk. 1992)
LAND KNOWN AS MONONONG
A-1, KACHUTOSY PAULUS
and unknown others,
FSM CIV. 1991-1033
Richard H. Benson
FSM Supreme Court
March 2, 1992
For the Plaintiff: Martin Pankove
Chuuk State Attorney
P.O. Box 189
Weno, Chuuk FM 96942
For the Defendants: Maketo Robert
Attorney at Law
Kolonia, Pohnpei FM 96941
* * * *
Jurisdiction - Removal
A motion for removal will be denied where, in an action in eminent domain under Truk State law the only defense available are those relating to the taking, and the counterclaims asserted as a basis for national court
jurisdiction do not fall within a defense to the taking. Chuuk v. Land Known as Mononong, 5 FSM Intrm. 272, 273 (Chk. 1992).
* * * *
RICHARD H. BENSON, Associate Justice:
This matter came before me on the motion of the defendant for an order removing Civil Action 199-91 from the Chuuk State Supreme Court to this court.
The action was commenced in this court pursuant only to this motion, and a notice of hearing. No other pleadings were filed. The procedural aspect of the matter was not put in issue. Because of my decision on the motion, I will not decide the procedural problem presented. Koike v. Ponape Rock Products Co., 1 FSM Intrm. 496 (Pon. 1984).
This case was submitted to me on the motion, on plaintiff's response, and on the pleadings in the state court furnished me by the defendant upon my request.
The state brings its action in eminent domain under Truk State Law No. 2-1, Section 219 of which limits the defenses available to those relating to the taking, issues of either public purpose of just compensation.
In his counterclaim the defendant asserts national constitution and national law claims on which he bases his assertion of this court's jurisdiction. The plaintiff contends that these claims do not fall within a defense to the taking. I agree.
The motion is accordingly denied.