THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA
CHUUK STATE APPELLATE DIVISION
Cite as Walter v. Welle, 8 FSM Intrm. 595
(Chk. S. Ct. App. 1998)

[8 FSM Intrm. 595]

ANSITO WALTER,
as Governor of Chuuk, et al.,
Appellants,

vs.

KANGICHY WELLE,
Appellee.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9-98
OPINION

Argued:  December 11, 1998
Decided:  December 11, 1998

BEFORE:
Hon. Camillo Noket, Associate Justice, Chuuk State Supreme Court, presiding
Hon. Yoster Carl, Temporary Justice, Chuuk State Supreme Court*
Hon. Ready Johnny, Temporary Justice, Chuuk State Supreme Court**

*Associate Justice, Pohnpei Supreme Court, Kolonia, Pohnpei
**FSM Public Defender, Weno, Chuuk

APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant:     Joses Gallen, Esq.
                     Assistant Attorney General
                     Office of the Chuuk Attorney General
                     P.O. Box 189
                     Weno, Chuuk FM 96942

[8 FSM Intrm. 596]

For the Appellee:      Wesley Simina, Esq.
                     P.O. Box 94
                     Weno, Chuuk FM 96942

*    *    *    *

HEADNOTE
Appeal and Certiorari ) Briefs and Record
     An appeal may be dismissed when the appellants have been served with a notice of oral argument and briefing schedule which required appellant's brief to be filed no later than a certain date and appellants have filed no brief and no extension of time to do so was ever requested of or granted by the court and when the appellee has filed a written motion for dismissal on those grounds and when, at oral argument appellants' counsel offered no reasonable justification for not filing a brief. Walter v. Welle, 8 FSM Intrm. 595, 596 (Chk. S. Ct. App. 1998).

*    *    *    *

COURT'S OPINION
CAMILLO NOKET, Associate Justice:
     This is an appeal from a summary judgment of the Chuuk State Supreme Court Trial Division in an action arising out of a dispute over title to the position of Director of Education.

     The Record reflects that Appellant has failed to comply with the provisions of Rule 31, CSSC Rules of Appellate Procedure in matters that are vital to a proper consideration and disposition of the appeal.  On these grounds, the Appellee has filed a written Motion to Dismiss the appeal.

     The record further reflects that Appellant was served with a notice of oral argument and briefing schedule which required Appellant's brief to be filed no later than October 10, 1998.  Appellants have filed no brief and no extension of time to do so was ever requested or granted by the Court.

     During oral argument, when questioned by the Court, Counsel for the Appellant offered no reasonable justification for not filing a brief as required by the CSSC Rules of Appellate Procedure.

     Rule 31(a) CSSC Rules of Appellate Procedure requires that Appellants' brief be filed within the time provided by the rule or the appeal is subject to dismissal on motion of the Appellee.  The written motion filed by Appellee addresses this specific ground for dismissal of the appeal.

     Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal thereby continuing the Summary Judgment entered by the Special Trial Justice in full force and effect.

*    *    *    *
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
# b iPtmappPÐ|f `Wp@Fbsment (non-.)3,AwithA-succe1ve8onB>F15_1pNumdJ`%uQ0Q`B0Z0 U/maximumN `AatA 2cha@n s@ltaneo\us GOLEEOUseRFC1@122Urg`8PBo er &yR `boopleanӦ4 whe`b us>ՠ   `3 or{modead by Berkeley Softwaign (BSD) derive d sys@s,=bwuXP` mechanismvs`] p_ p$ differC&and Anon!lQNT `s3.51 ahighd@?o  . If TRU:as`@%_FALS$>cSize;'{<