PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

High Court of American Samoa

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> High Court of American Samoa >> 2012 >> [2012] ASHC 2

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

Vergara v American Samoa Government [2012] ASHC 2; CA 86-11 (9 February 2012)

OPINIONS


OF THE


TRIAL DIVISION


OF THE


HIGH COURT OF AMERICAN SAMOA


(2012)


HUBERT VERGARA,
laintiff,


v.


AMERICAN SAMOA GOVERNMENT, and DOES I through X,
Defendants.
___________________________________


High Court of American Samoa
Trial Division


CA No. 86-11


Feb. 9, 2012


[1] The court is not constrained to view complaints penned by an attorney as laxly as the court would one authored by a pro se litigant.


[2] “A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief...shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (2) a demand for judgment for the relief to which he deems himself entitled.” T.C.R.C.P. 8(a). Under T.C.R.C.P. 8(a), a plaintiff must allege enough facts to sustain a claim; additionally, the plaintiff’s complaint (composed of such claims) must be plausible.


[3] A defendant may challenge a complaint’s plausibility under a T.C.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) motion.


[4] The test employed when determining the plausibility of a complaint is two-fold. First, the court must accept all allegations contained in a complaint as true provided the facts are not merely legal conclusions veiled as facts (“naked assertions”). Accordingly, if the facts are “naked assertions,” the court need not consider those facts as true. Secondly, only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a T.C.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) motion. The second prong is “context specific” and the court draws from its own experience and common sense when making this determination. Therefore, when the court looks upon the well-pleaded facts and those facts permit the court to infer only the possibility of misconduct, and nothing more, the complaint fails because it [**5**] alleges but does not show its pleader is entitled to relief.


[5] When the plausibility of a complaint is questioned and shown by an opposing party to be lacking, the pleader’s failure to show entitlement to relief violates T.C.R.C.P. 8(a) and the complaint is subject to dismissal under T.C.R.C.P. 12(b)(6).


[6] Where a plaintiff’s complaint is muddled with “naked assertions” the court need not consider those assertions true, and where the claims are so distorted that they permit the court at most to infer the mere “possibility of misconduct;” the Complaint fails the plausibility standard and is subject to dismissal under T.C.R.C.P. 12(b)(6).



PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/as/cases/ASHC/2012/2.html