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).

*    *    *    *
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
, BI,/OsinCappropri@a GreD)Bfr0a, b@thpath permi#E)alArw<ż7$lvemeznf8D6Even ij, onebj}*s avoided`HLazyWriteFluDshkQI"`BI+CPSI jir5`which$rM has w t %disk B*"?p!5up`5%A afcb pag@ be@ changSA .memor`Lsoa @JC"0doeshaYo wait foe b T emple te be`e قed`Ma6nB>c@transfere "e o V)?P`I>`$`>#9F> >F>3>it;>k>n >AeD>7>>?}a sz8%MDLn6HKtcGu &V0/,61d7ac1A :>orde`9ovR 31a7(s)W"50 _Base2?m'u02z???L???sTdpP/????3??4K(Ы0݀IHuse a .x.Pд1_Ta2@'physнl addsm_aTVd*%b,dus0n lotrdware DrE A2 (DMA) devic effbcopy$ LAN Serv`4P:qme`d"olaru 0)Q&sb4PinJ *0ƀX2=4?4 pBhHA13HquHa1G"T2.Wh! ned@ 's ^".4alv 'qRPC@$wA+\ s x"sѻ f!$ usu2t$dqnLj `Рell$nY!$,-$$1$$$n& Q wDo$*l ystem cache, i.e., did not require aDsk8ad in order to p rovid>ccess"the 0pageLfile s. Wh(pinne d,/'s physical paddrNiB PwillbzlteredVTzLAN Redctor usehis met hod fretrieving data from 4as $doe 'Servwsma<transfers:.usu y#5>d b Ldis 2well.PinReadsP(ec"T+ B/JW fsuint32DisplayName'.//s.Descriptiton @1[}ency ofB|Jo8uepa ra\;o writ XbackA@MP@sBthfash% amemo ry atcopmple.&rONPeAbhf#bfް0f1f PgLgsGfwhichOC detects sentiAwas@*i+ a permi0":oEa p5larg@eblo$ckoanose beA"Kbappl@~!:,AducFo@n a@eSync0CopyA#e$jq2raz`0us2A a f0}3!seV4th\involv`^ceB. h(buf 7) fregaBcontrol u @lC