[24 FSM R. 459]

APPEAL CASE NO. C2-2020
(CSSC-Appeal-No. 001-2015)

Decided: April 3, 2024
Corrected: April 5, 2024

BEFORE:

Hon. Beauleen Carl-Worswick, Associate Justice, FSM Supreme Court
Hon. Larry Wentworth, Associate Justice, FSM Supreme Court
Hon. Dennis L. Belcourt, Associate Justice, FSM Supreme Court

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiff:           Mohammed Kutty, Jr., Esq.
                                    Chuuk Attorney General
                                    Office of the Chuuk Attorney General
                                    P.O. Box 1050
                                    Weno, Chuuk FM 96942

For the Defendant:      Jack Fritz, Esq.
                                    P.O. Box 788
                                    Weno, Chuuk FM 96942

HEADNOTES

Appellate Review – Motions

Motions for procedural orders may be acted upon at any time, without awaiting a response, and any party adversely affected by such action may by application to the court request reconsideration, vacation, or modification of such action. Chuuk State Land Mgt. v. Jesse, 24 FSM R. 459, 460 (App. 2024).

Appellate Review – Motions; Civil Procedure – Motions – For Reconsideration

A motion for reconsideration is available when a party is adversely affected with an order of the court, or clerk. Nevertheless, this power should be used sparingly and only when justice so requires. It is not a tactical loophole to circumvent a full hearing on the merits, nor a vehicle for relitigating matters properly decided and within the appellate division's discretion. Chuuk State Land Mgt. v. Jesse, 24 FSM R. 459, 460 (App. 2024).

Appellate Review – Motions; Civil Procedure – Motions – For Enlargement

The appellate court is given broad discretion to enlarge time upon a showing of "good cause," and "good cause" is defined as any legally sufficient reason. Chuuk State Land Mgt. v. Jesse, 24 FSM R. 459, 460 (App. 2024).

Appellate Review – Motions; Civil Procedure – Motions – For Enlargement

A case's complexity, change of counsel, and the personal health are sufficient reasons to grant an enlargement. Chuuk State Land Mgt. v. Jesse, 24 FSM R. 459, 460 (App. 2024).

COURT'S OPINION

BEAULEEN CARL-WORSWICK, Associate Justice:

On March 4, 2024, Appellees, through attorney Jack Fritz ("Fritz") filed Jesse's Motion for Reconsideration and Vacation of the presiding Justice's order enlarging time for appellant to file its brief. Under Appellate Rule 27(b),

Notwithstanding the provisions of (a) of this Rule 27 as to motions generally, motions for procedural orders, including any motion under Rule 26(b), may be acted upon at any time, without awaiting a response, and pursuant to rule or order of the court, motions for specified types of procedural orders may be disposed of by the clerk. Any party adversely affected by such action may by application to the court request reconsideration, vacation, or modification of such action.

(emphasis added). Thus, a motion for reconsideration is available when a party is adversely affected with an order of the court, or clerk. Nevertheless, this power should be used sparingly and only when justice so requires. It is not a tactical loophole to circumvent a full hearing on the merits, nor a vehicle for relitigating matters properly decided and within the appellate division's discretion. "It is clear from the face of Rule 26(b) that the appellate court is given broad discretion to enlarge time upon a showing of 'good cause.'" Kimoul v. FSM, 4 FSM R. 344, 346 (App. 1990). "'Good cause' is defined as '[any] legally sufficient reason.'" Heirs of Benjamin v. Heirs of Benjamin, 17 FSM R. 621, 627 (App. 2011). The complexity of the case, change of counsel, and the personal health are sufficient reasons to grant an enlargement. Nor will it create a dangerous runaway precedent. A further enlargement for the appellant isn't expected and a hearing date will be set soon.

Upon RECONSIDERATION, before the full panel, the Court AFFIRMS the deadline for Appellant's brief to be filed on, or before, April 26, 2024.