FSM SUPREME COURT TRIAL DIVISION
Cite as Fabian v. Ruben, 24 FSM R. 337 (Chk. 2023)
FANTINO FABIAN, individually, and on
behalf of his immediate family members,
Plaintiffs,
HERMES RUDOLPH, for himself and on behalf of
Clan of Soronap of Wichap, and SORONAP CLAN,
Plaintiffs in Intervention #1,
ONCHER WALTER, on behalf of himself
and members of Tekurar's Sor Clan,
Plaintiffs in Intervention #2,
vs.
HERSIN RUBEN and MORIA MORI RUBEN,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2020-1006
ORDER DENYING DISMISSAL
Larry Wentworth
Associate Justice
Decided: November 16, 2023
APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiffs in Intervention #2:
Jack Fritz, Esq.
P.O. Box 788
Weno, Chuuk FM 96942
For the Defendant:
Stephen V. Finnen, Esq.
P.O. Box 1460
Kolonia, Pohnpei, FM 96941
* * * *
If the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the entire case because of a constitutional amendment, all the court could do would be to dismiss the case. Fabian v. Ruben, 24 FSM R. 337, 339 (Chk. 2023).
The general principle is that if the FSM Supreme Court had subject matter jurisdiction over the case or dispute when it was first filed, the court retains subject matter jurisdiction over the case until it reaches final disposition, even though a change in the parties or some other subsequent event results in a case over which the court would not have jurisdiction if it were newly filed. Courts have consistently held that if jurisdiction exists when an action is commenced, such jurisdiction may not be divested by subsequent events. Fabian v. Ruben, 24 FSM R. 337, 339 (Chk. 2023).
The Chuuk Constitution reinstated and recognized traditional rights in reefs, effective as of October 1, 1990. Fabian v. Ruben, 24 FSM R. 337, 339-40 (Chk. 2023).
"Allision" is a maritime term describing a vessel's sudden impact with a stationary object such as a submerged reef. It is often a maritime tort. A damages claim that arises from a sea-going vessel's allision with a submerged reef is a maritime case or an admiralty case. Fabian v. Ruben, 24 FSM R. 337, 340 (Chk. 2023).
When the defendants' vessel ran aground on a submerged reef, it was a maritime allision within the court's admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. Fabian v. Ruben, 24 FSM R. 337, 340 (Chk. 2023).
The FSM Supreme Court's exclusive jurisdiction over admiralty and over maritime cases is not dependent on the parties' citizenship or upon any other factor than whether it is an admiralty or a maritime case. Fabian v. Ruben, 24 FSM R. 337, 340 (Chk. 2023).
When the FSM Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction, the Supreme Court cannot dismiss a case in favor of another court in the FSM because no other court in the country has jurisdiction. Fabian v. Ruben, 24 FSM R. 337, 340 (Chk. 2023).
A court other than the FSM Supreme Court may exercise jurisdiction over a case, or part of a case, over which the FSM Supreme Court does not have exclusive jurisdiction. Fabian v. Ruben, 24 FSM R. 337, 340 (Chk. 2023).
* * * *
LARRY WENTWORTH, Associate Justice:
On October 9, 2023, the second group of plaintiffs in intervention, headed by Oncher Walter, filed their Motion to Transfer Case to the Chuuk State Supreme Court and Dismiss Case, in which they ask the court to transfer this whole case to the Chuuk State Supreme Court because the Constitution has just been amended to prohibit the FSM Supreme Court from hearing all cases where an interest in land is at issue. The defendants filed a Non Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, in which they indicate that they will "not oppose the motion to dismiss as long as it includes all parties and dismisses the entire action." No other party responded.
The motion to dismiss is denied. The reasons follow.
The second plaintiffs in intervention rely upon the recent amendment to Article XI of the Constitution which took effect in July either when the proposed amendment's ratification was certified or sometime after the polls closed on election day. The relevant constitutional provision now reads:
(b) The national courts, including the trial division of the Supreme Court, have concurrent original jurisdiction in cases arising under this Constitution; national law or treaties; and 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; except that the competent state courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction in cases where an interest in land is at issue.
FSM Const. art. XI, § 6(b). The language the amendment added is the final phrase that "except that the competent state courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction in cases where an interest in land is at issue." The second plaintiff in intervention contends that this phrase requires this court to transfer this case to the Chuuk State Supreme Court and dismiss the case. The second plaintiff in intervention further argue that there is no FSM Supreme Court admiralty jurisdiction over the case because there are no foreign citizens or interests involved since all parties are Chuukese citizens.
The defendants contend that the proper procedure would be to just dismiss the case, with the parties plaintiff having to refile the case themselves in the Chuuk State Supreme Court. If the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the entire case because of the constitutional amendment, the defendants would be correct – all the court could do would be dismiss the case.
First, there is no indication from the constitutional amendment's text that its effect was meant to be retroactive – to apply to already pending litigation. The general principle is that if the FSM Supreme Court had subject matter jurisdiction over the case or dispute when it was first filed, the court retains subject matter jurisdiction over the case until it reaches final disposition, even though a change in the parties or some other subsequent event results in a case over which the court would not have jurisdiction if it were newly filed. Gallen v. Governor, 23 FSM R. 24, 28 (Pon. 2020). Courts have consistently held that if jurisdiction exists when an action is commenced, such jurisdiction may not be divested by subsequent events. Id.
Second, it is doubtful wether there is an interest in land at issue. The cross-claims between the three groups of plaintiffs are all over which group holds the traditional rights to the submerged reef where the Miss Chuuk ran aground, damaging the reef. The Chuuk Constitution reinstated and recognized these traditional rights, Chk. Const. art. IV, § 4, effective as of October 1, 1990, Chk. Const. art. XV, § 1. A submerged reef is generally not considered land.
It is thus uncertain whether the constitutional amendment would affect submerged reefs or this already filed case. Furthermore, Section 6(b) of Article XI is not the only constitutional provision that must be considered.
The Fantino Fabian plaintiff group filed this case. The case was brought under the FSM Supreme Court's exclusive jurisdiction over maritime and admiralty cases. FSM Const. art. XI, § 6(a). The Fantino Fabian plaintiffs alleged that the defendants' vessel, the Miss Chuuk, ran aground on and damaged the submerged reef over which they held exclusive traditional rights.
This case involves a sea-going vessel's allision with a submerged reef. "Allision" is a maritime term describing a vessel's sudden impact with a stationary object such as a submerged reef, and is often a maritime tort, and a damages claim that arises from a sea-going vessel's allision with a submerged reef is a maritime case or an admiralty case. People of Tomil ex rel. Mar v. F/V Hwa Gwo No. 6, 23 FSM R. 632, 635 & n.2 (Yap 2022); People of Sorol ex rel. Marpa v. M/Y Truk Master, 22 FSM R. 14, 19 (Yap 2018); People of Gilman ex rel. Tamagken v. Woodman Easternline Sdn. Bhd., 18 FSM R. 165, 174 (Yap 2012); People of Rull ex rel. Ruepong v. M/V Kyowa Violet, 14 FSM R. 403, 415 (Yap 2006); People of Weloy ex rel. Pong v. M/V Micronesian Heritage, 12 FSM R. 613, 616 & n.1 (Yap 2004); People of Rull ex rel. Ruepong v. M/V Kyowa Violet, 12 FSM R. 192, 196 n.1 (Yap 2003); cf. Pohnpei v. M/V Ping Da 7, 20 FSM R. 1, 3 (Pon. 2015) (salvage of ship run aground on reef). The defendants' vessel, the Miss Chuuk, ran aground on a submerged reef. This is a maritime allision within the court's admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.
The FSM Supreme Court's exclusive jurisdiction over admiralty and over maritime cases is not dependent on the parties' citizenship or upon any other factor than whether it is an admiralty or a maritime case. The FSM Supreme Court therefore had exclusive jurisdiction over this case as originally filed.
When the FSM Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction, the Supreme Court cannot dismiss a case in favor of another court in the FSM because no other court in the country has jurisdiction. M/V Hai Hsiang #36 v. Pohnpei, 7 FSM R. 456, 459 (App. 1996). The court therefore cannot either dismiss this case or "transfer" it to the Chuuk State Supreme Court.
The court, however, is not adverse to having another tribunal decide those claims over which it does not have exclusive jurisdiction – the cross claims between the three groups of plaintiffs over which group or groups have traditional rights to the submerged reef damaged by the defendants' vessel, the Miss Chuuk.
The parties are therefore invited to propose how best to resolve the various plaintiffs' claims against each other to the damaged and affected reef. Any party may, jointly or singly, propose an expeditious method, process, or tribunal, by which the dispute between the various plaintiffs over the ownership of, or the rights to, the reef upon which the defendants' vessel grounded or for which damages are sought, may be resolved. The court would appreciate it if these proposals were submitted no later than December 15, 2023.
* * * *