CHUUK STATE SUPREME COURT TRIAL DIVISION
Cite as Narruhn v. Chuuk State Election Comm'n, 18 FSM Intrm. 634 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2013)
ALEXANDER R. NARRUHN and WILLIE W3
WILLIANDER,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CHUUK STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
Commissioner JOHN YLIAIZA, Commissioner
RUFUS PETEWON, Commissioner SONDAK
GIDIEON, Commissioner ANGELINO ROSOKOW,
and Commissioner ANANTER YEAR,
Defendants.
CSSC CA NO. 031-2013
ORDER
Repeat R. Samuel
Associate Justice
Decided: April 10, 2013
APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiffs:
Kasio Mida, Jr., Esq.
Ramp & Mida Law Firm
P.O. Box 1480
Kolonia, Pohnpei FM 96941
For the Defendant:
Johnny Meippen, Esq.
P.O. Box 705
Weno, Chuuk FM 96942
* * * *
A case or dispute becomes moot when the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. Narruhn v. Chuuk State Election Comm'n, 18 FSM Intrm. 634, 635 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2013).
A case must be one appropriate for judicial determination, that is, a justiciable controversy, as distinguished from a difference or dispute of a hypothetical or abstract character or one that is academic or moot. The controversy must be definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests. Narruhn v. Chuuk State Election Comm'n, 18 FSM Intrm. 634, 635 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2013).
A case would fall within the exception to the mootness doctrine when it may have a continuing effect on future events, including future litigation, and may be capable of repetition yet evading review. Narruhn v. Chuuk State Election Comm'n, 18 FSM Intrm. 634, 635-36 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2013).
A motion to dismiss for mootness will be denied when the court record demonstrates that the action in question has occurred in the past, and but for the injunction, would have occurred in this instance absent the issue being considered, the action in question will likely occur in the future, thereby effectively evading review save for the application of the doctrine of "capable of repetition, yet evading review." Narruhn v. Chuuk State Election Comm'n, 18 FSM Intrm. 634, 636 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2013).
* * * *
REPEAT R. SAMUEL, Associate Justice:
This matter was originally presented as a Motion to Dismiss, in the Alternative, Offer of Judgment, filed by the Defendants on March 1, 2013. Plaintiff filed an Opposition on March 12, 2013. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are correct; two justiciable issues remain: (1) whether Chuuk State Election Commissioners are authorized to travel from the State of Chuuk, for the purposes of conducting the election at the voting sites; and (2) whether the Chuuk State Election Commissioners are authorized appear in person at the voting locations.
A case or dispute becomes moot when the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. FSM v. Louis, 9 FSM Intrm. 474, 482 (App. 2000).
A case must be one "appropriate for judicial determination," that is, a "justiciable controversy," as distinguished from a "difference or dispute of a hypothetical or abstract character," or one that is "academic or moot." The controversy must be "definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests." Ponape Chamber of Commerce v. Nett Mun. Gov't, 1 FSM Intrm. 389, 401 (Pon. 1984) (quoted with approval in In re Sproat, 2 FSM Intrm. 1, 5 (Pon. 1985)). See also In re Sproat, 2 FSM Intrm. at 4 n.2.
A case would therefore fall within the exception to the mootness doctrine "because it may have
a continuing effect on future events, including future litigation and may be capable of repetition yet evading review." FSM v. Udot Municipality, 12 FSM Intrm. 29, 49 (App. 2003) (citing FSM v. Louis, 9 FSM Intrm. 474, 483 (App. 2000).
After holding a hearing, the court issued a temporary injunction on March 1, 2013 effectively prohibiting defendants from (1) traveling from the State of Chuuk, for the purposes of conducting the election at the voting sites; and (2) appearing in person at the voting locations. Defendant has now filed a suggestion of mootness with this Court, and Plaintiffs have filed a response. The Defendants filed a motion captioned as "Motion to Dismiss, in the Alternative, Offer of Judgment." In said motion, Defendants assert that "[a]s a result of the preliminary injunction, Defendants are prohibited from conducting or supervising the election . . . [g]iven that Defendants are now prohibited from conducting or supervising the election, and given that all four causes of action pled in the Complaint are predicated on Defendants' conducting the election, it appears that the March 2013 election will have taken its course without the Defendant Commissioners conducting it." See Def.s' Mot. to Dismiss, in the Alternative, Offer of Judgment.
It is undisputed that the Defendants were temporarily restrained from traveling to conduct the election on March 1, 2013, and that this status ripened into a complete bar from the present Commissioners being capable of conducting the March 5th, 2013 election. From that date forward it is plain that Defendants can have no interest whatever in the events occurring at the polling sites for the election on March 5th 2013.
Conceding this fact, Plaintiffs urge that the Court issue a ruling "clarifying that all election commissioners, not only the current ones, must remain impartial and therefore are not allowed to actually conduct the polling places or run the elections." See Plaintiffs' Opp'n to Mot. to Dismiss; Cross Motion for J. on the Pleadings; Mot. to Dismiss Civil Rights and Due Process Claims; Mot. to Set Aside Trial; Motion to Release Bond at 3.
The Court finds that this is an issue which is "capable of repetition, yet evading review" as that term has been used in our cases dealing with mootness. Once the March 5th 2013 election has been concluded, the issue of actually conducting that particular election becomes moot. The doctrine that allows for an exception when the challenged act is of such short duration that the appellant cannot obtain review before the issue becomes moot: and there is a reasonable expectation that the same action will occur again if the issue is not considered. The Court record demonstrates that the action in question has occurred in the past, and but for the injunction, would have occurred in this instance as demonstrated by the testimony of Commissioner Rufus Petewon. Accordingly, absent the issue being considered, the action in question will likely occur in the future, thereby effectively evading review save for the application of the aforementioned doctrine.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as there are still remaining justiciable issues.
* * * *