7 FSM Intrm. 075-076

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE

FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA

Cite as Labra v. Makaya ,

7 FSM Intrm. 75 (Pohnpei 1995)

[7 FSM Intrm. 75]

LEUDEMER G. LABRA et al.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

HERLINO MAKAYA d/b/a MACE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,

SIMON POLL, ROY HADLEY, LUCIO REMOKET, ASTERIO TAKESY, CAMILLO NOKET and FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA,

Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1994-096

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Andon L. Amaraich

Chief Justice

Decided: March 2, 1995

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiff: Delson Ehmes, Esq.

P.O. Box 1018

Kolonia, Pohnpei FM 96941

For the Defendant: Elizabeth F. Keys, Esq.

(Makaya) Micronesian Legal Services Corporation

P.O. Box 129

Kolonia, Pohnpei FM 96941

For the Defendants: Susan Bussey, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

Office of the FSM Attorney General

P.O. Box PS-105

Palikir, Pohnpei FM 96941

* * * *

HEADNOTE

Civil Procedure ) Dismissal

Plaintiffs are permitted to dismiss an action without the order of the court provided they file a stipulation signed by all parties who have appeared in the action. Therefore where plaintiffs file a stipulation of dismissal including all but one defendant and later file another stipulation of dismissal with that one defendant a court may recognize that the plaintiffs have reached agreements with all defendants and enter the stipulated judgment and dismissal. Labra v. Makaya, 7 FSM Intrm. 75, 76 (Pon. 1995).

[7 FSM Intrm. 76]

* * * *

COURT'S OPINION

ANDON L. AMARAICH, Chief Justice:

In this case, plaintiffs, all of whom are citizens of the Philippines, filed a complaint against a variety of defendants, including both private individuals and government officials, as well as the Federated states of Micronesia. The essence of plaintiffs' claims is that they entered into employment contracts with defendant Makaya who later breached the contracts by withholding plaintiffs' pay and eventually terminating them. Plaintiffs also charge that they were injured further by the named government officials' refusals to aid plaintiffs in their dispute against defendant Makaya.

On October 20, 1994, all of the plaintiffs and six of the defendants listed in the caption to this action filed a joint dismissal pursuant to FSM Civil Rule 41(a). The stipulation did not contain any information regarding the seventh defendant, Herlino Makaya, who at all times has been represented by counsel separate from the other six defendants. According to Rule 41(a)(1), a plaintiff is permitted to dismiss an action without order of court provided that plaintiff files a "stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared in the action." As stated above, however, the joint stipulation filed in this case was not signed by defendant Makaya. Accordingly, the stipulated dismissal required court approval in order to effect a dismissal of then claims against those defendants. See FSM Civ. R. 41(a)(2) (allowing the court to dismiss an action under "such terms and conditions as the court deems proper"). Because the stipulation did not provide any information regarding the status of the remaining defendant, the court withheld approval of the stipulated dismissal.

On January 17, 1995, defendant Makaya and plaintiffs filed a stipulation signed by all plaintiffs and defendant Makaya. The stipulation, which moves the court "to adopt the stipulation as its judgment" with respect top plaintiffs and defendant Makaya states that they "desire to resolve this matter separate from resolution of the claims by the plaintiffs against the other defendants." The stipulation also contains a list of the amounts which defendant Makaya agrees to pay to the plaintiffs, as well as a payment schedule for those amounts.

Based on the information contained in these two documents, the court recognizes that the plaintiffs have now reached agreements with all of the defendants named in this action. As such, it is now appropriate for the court to enter judgment in the amounts agreed to between the plaintiffs and defendant Makaya, and to approve the joint dismissal between the plaintiffs and the six other defendants.

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiffs against defendant Makaya according to the terms and conditions contained in the parties' stipulation filed with the court. It is further ordered that the claims against the remaining defendants are hereby dismissed.

* * * *


	THE SUPREME COURT OF THE FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA Cite as Labra v. Makaya , 7 FSM Intrm. 75 (Pohnpei 1995) [7 FSM Intrm. 75] LEUDEMER G. LABRA et al., Plaintiff, vs. HERLINO MAKAYA d/b/a MACE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, SIMON POLL, ROY HADLEY, LUCIO REMOKET, ASTERIO TAKESY, CAMILLO NOKET and FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA, Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1994-096 ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Andon L. Amaraich Chief Justice Decided: March 2, 1995 APPEARANCES: For the Plaintiff: Delson Ehmes, Esq. P.O. Box 1018 Kolonia, Pohnpei FM 96941 For the Defendant: Elizabeth F. Keys, Esq. (Makaya) Micronesian Legal Services Corporation P.O. Box 129 Kolonia, Pohnpei FM 96941 For the Defendants: Susan Bussey, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Office of the FSM Attorney General P.O. Box PS-105 Palikir, Pohnpei FM 96941 * * * * HEADNOTE Civil Procedure ) Dismissal Plaintiffs are permitted to dismiss an action without the order of the court provided they file a stipulation signed by all parties who have appeared in the action. Therefore where plaintiffs file a stipulation of dismissal including all but one defendant and later file another stipulation of dismissal with that one defendant a court may recognize that the plaintiffs have reached agreements with all defendants and enter the stipulated judgment and dismissal. Labra v. Makaya, 7 FSM Intrm. 75, 76 (Pon. 1995). [7 FSM Intrm. 76] * * * * COURT'S OPINION ANDON L. AMARAICH, Chief Justice: In this case, plaintiffs, all of whom are citizens of the Philippines, filed a complaint against a variety of defendants, including both private individuals and government officials, as well as the Federated states of Micronesia. The essence of plaintiffs' claims is that they entered into employment contracts with defendant Makaya who later breached the contracts by withholding plaintiffs' pay and eventually terminating them. Plaintiffs also charge that they were injured further by the named government officials' refusals to aid plaintiffs in their dispute against defendant Makaya. On October 20, 1994, all of the plaintiffs and six of the defendants listed in the caption to this action filed a joint dismissal pursuant to FSM Civil Rule 41(a). The stipulation did not contain any information regarding the seventh defendant, Herlino Makaya, who at all times has been represented by counsel separate from the other six defendants. According to Rule 41(a)(1), a plaintiff is permitted to dismiss an action without order of court provided that plaintiff files a "stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared in the action." As stated above, however, the joint stipulation filed in this case was not signed by defendant Makaya. Accordingly, the stipulated dismissal required court approval in order to effect a dismissal of then claims against those defendants. See FSM Civ. R. 41(a)(2) (allowing the court to dismiss an action under "such terms and conditions as the court deems proper"). Because the stipulation did not provide any information regarding the status of the remaining defendant, the court withheld approval of the stipulated dismissal. On January 17, 1995, defendant Makaya and plaintiffs filed a stipulation signed by all plaintiffs and defendant Makaya. The stipulation, which moves the court "to adopt the stipulation as its judgment" with respect top plaintiffs and defendant Makaya states that they "desire to resolve this matter separate from resolution of the claims by the plaintiffs against the other defendants." The stipulation also contains a list of the amounts which defendant Makaya agrees to pay to the plaintiffs, as well as a payment schedule for those amounts. Based on the information contained in these two documents, the court recognizes that the plaintiffs have now reached agreements with all of the defendants named in this action. As such, it is now appropriate for the court to enter judgment in the amounts agreed to between the plaintiffs and defendant Makaya, and to approve the joint dismissal between the plaintiffs and the six other defendants. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiffs against defendant Makaya according to the terms and conditions contained in the parties' stipulation filed with the court. It is further ordered that the claims against the remaining defendants are hereby dismissed. * * * *