[24 FSM R. 122]

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2022-030

Decided: May 16, 2023

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiff:            Salomon M. Saimon, Esq.
                                     P.O. Box 911
                                     Kolonia, Pohnpei FM 96941

For the Defendant:       Kathleen M. Burch, Esq.
                                     20 Forrest Place
                                     Atlanta, Georgia 30328

HEADNOTES

Civil Procedure – Injunctions; Civil Procedure – Motions – Stipulated; Constitutional Law – Freedom of Expression

When a stipulation asks the court to include in its order what amounts to a request for injunctive relief that has possible implications on protected expressive conduct, the court, in the public interest, must treat it with care. Paul v. Lambert, 24 FSM R. 122, 123 (Pon. 2023).

Civil Procedure – Motions – Stipulated

Matters affecting the public interest cannot be made the subject of stipulations so as to control the court's actions in respect of such matters. Paul v. Lambert, 24 FSM R. 122, 123 (Pon. 2023).

Civil Procedure – Motions – Stipulated

Good grounds must exist for the court to issue an order even for an order that is consented to by the other parties, but the court will deny the stipulated motion without prejudice when good grounds might exist for a more narrowly drawn order. Paul v. Lambert, 24 FSM R. 122, 123 (Pon. 2023).

Civil Procedure – Motions – Stipulated

When a motion is in the form of a stipulation, it would be inappropriate to grant only a portion thereof. Paul v. Lambert, 24 FSM R. 122, 123 n.1 (Pon. 2023).

COURT'S OPINION

DENNIS L. BELCOURT, Associate Justice:

This matter comes before the Court on joint motion of Petitioner Erick Paul and Real Party in Interest Esmond B. Moses, in which they request that the Court amend its judgment (the Memorandum of Decision entered on December 21, 2022 [Paul v. Lambert, 24 FSM R. 13 (Pon. 2022)] to order that Petitioner pay to the Real Party in Interest the sum of $4,286.54, as costs, within 30 days of entry of this order amending judgment, and, if he does so, he shall not bear statutory interest; that Petitioner shall be ordered "to not repeat the allegations that the Real Party in Interest committed perjury"; and that the Court dismiss Real Party in Interest's request for attorney's fees.

No opposition having been received from Respondent, and finding good grounds, the Court would grant the motion in part that Petitioner pay to the Real Party in Interest the sum of $4,286.54 for costs, which, if paid within thirty (30) days of entry of this amendment to the judgment, shall not bear statutory interest, and denying Real Property in Interest's request for attorney's fees.

However, insofar as the stipulation asks this Court to include in its order that Petitioner refrain from repeating allegations of perjury, that component of the stipulation, broadly drawn as it is, amounts to a request for injunctive relief that has possible implications on protected expressive conduct, about which this Court must treat with care, in the public interest. O'Sullivan v. Panuelo, 10 FSM R. 257, 262 (Pon. 2001) (Until such time as the plaintiff demonstrates the allegedly defamatory nature of the publications at issue, either by way of trial or proper motion accompanied by admissible supporting evidence, the requested order cannot lawfully issue); cf. Yang v. Western Sales Trading Co., 11 FSM R. 607, 618 (Pon. 2003) (The public interest weighs in favor of issuing a preliminary injunction when the injunction is limited in scope to protect the public from defendants' statements which are more likely to mislead than to inform the public). "It is . . . established that matters affecting the public interest cannot be made the subject of stipulations so as to control the court's actions in respect of such matters." 73 AM. JUR. 2D Stipulations § 4, at 539 (1974).

Good grounds must exist even for an order that is consented to by the other parties. Chuuk v. FSM, 20 FSM R. 373, 375 (Chk. 2016) (failure to oppose motion is consent to the motion, but court cannot grant motion without good grounds). Good grounds might exist for a more narrowly drawn order. This Court thus denies the stipulated motion without prejudice.¹

Footnotes:

¹ As the motion was in the form of a stipulation, it would be inappropriate to grant only a portion thereof.