7 FSM Intrm. 147-148

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE

FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA

Cite as Trance v. Penta Constr. Co.,

7 FSM Intrm. 147 (Chuuk 1995)

[7 FSM Intrm. 147]

FLORENCIO E.T. TRANCE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

PENTA OCEAN CONSTRUCTION CO. and SEGUNDINO,

Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1995-1006

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Richard H. Benson

Associate Justice

Decided: May 4, 1995

APPEARANCE:

For the Plaintiff: Johnny Meippen, Esq.

P.O. Box 705

Weno, Chuuk FM 96942

[7 FSM Intrm. 148]

* * * *

HEADNOTES

Jurisdiction ) Diversity

The FSM Supreme Court has diversity jurisdiction only in disputes between a state and a citizen of another state, between citizens of different states, and between a state or a citizen thereof, and a foreign state, citizen, or subject. Diversity jurisdiction thus does not exist when all the parties are foreign citizens, even though they may be citizens of different foreign nations. In such cases, the court's subject matter jurisdiction must be based on some other ground. Trance v. Penta Ocean Constr. Co., 7 FSM Intrm. 147, 148 (Chk. 1995).

Civil Procedure ) Dismissal; Jurisdiction

When it appears that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction the case will be dismissed. Trance v. Penta Ocean Constr. Co., 7 FSM Intrm. 147, 148 (Chk. 1995).

* * * *

COURT'S OPINION

RICHARD H. BENSON, Associate Justice:

This is a case in tort, arising out of an automobile accident on the island of Weno. Plaintiff is a citizen of the Philippines. Defendant Penta Ocean Construction Company is a Japanese corporation. Defendant Segundino is not a citizen of the Federated States of Micronesia. Suit was filed in this court, presumably on the basis of the diversity of citizenship between the parties.

The FSM Supreme Court has diversity jurisdiction only "in disputes between a state and a citizen of another state, between citizens of different states, and between a state or a citizen thereof, and a foreign state, citizen, or subject." FSM Const. art. XI, § 6(b). Diversity jurisdiction thus does not exist when all the parties are foreign citizens, even though they may be citizens of different foreign nations. Cf. International Trading Corp. v. Hitec Corp., 4 FSM Intrm. 1, 2 (Truk 1989). In such cases, the court's subject matter jurisdiction must be based on some other ground. In this case there is none.

It appearing that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, this case is hereby dismissed. FSM Civ. R. 12(h)(3).

* * * *


	THE SUPREME COURT OF THE FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA Cite as Trance v. Penta Constr. Co., 7 FSM Intrm. 147 (Chuuk 1995) [7 FSM Intrm. 147] FLORENCIO E.T. TRANCE, Plaintiff, vs. PENTA OCEAN CONSTRUCTION CO. and SEGUNDINO, Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1995-1006 ORDER OF DISMISSAL Richard H. Benson Associate Justice Decided: May 4, 1995 APPEARANCE: For the Plaintiff: Johnny Meippen, Esq. P.O. Box 705 Weno, Chuuk FM 96942 [7 FSM Intrm. 148] * * * * HEADNOTES Jurisdiction ) Diversity The FSM Supreme Court has diversity jurisdiction only in disputes between a state and a citizen of another state, between citizens of different states, and between a state or a citizen thereof, and a foreign state, citizen, or subject. Diversity jurisdiction thus does not exist when all the parties are foreign citizens, even though they may be citizens of different foreign nations. In such cases, the court's subject matter jurisdiction must be based on some other ground. Trance v. Penta Ocean Constr. Co., 7 FSM Intrm. 147, 148 (Chk. 1995). Civil Procedure ) Dismissal; Jurisdiction When it appears that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction the case will be dismissed. Trance v. Penta Ocean Constr. Co., 7 FSM Intrm. 147, 148 (Chk. 1995). * * * * COURT'S OPINION RICHARD H. BENSON, Associate Justice: This is a case in tort, arising out of an automobile accident on the island of Weno. Plaintiff is a citizen of the Philippines. Defendant Penta Ocean Construction Company is a Japanese corporation. Defendant Segundino is not a citizen of the Federated States of Micronesia. Suit was filed in this court, presumably on the basis of the diversity of citizenship between the parties. The FSM Supreme Court has diversity jurisdiction only "in disputes between a state and a citizen of another state, between citizens of different states, and between a state or a citizen thereof, and a foreign state, citizen, or subject." FSM Const. art. XI, § 6(b). Diversity jurisdiction thus does not exist when all the parties are foreign citizens, even though they may be citizens of different foreign nations. Cf. International Trading Corp. v. Hitec Corp., 4 FSM Intrm. 1, 2 (Truk 1989). In such cases, the court's subject matter jurisdiction must be based on some other ground. In this case there is none. It appearing that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, this case is hereby dismissed. FSM Civ. R. 12(h)(3). * * * *