Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of American Samoa

Magalasin v Nanumea [2014] ASHC 34; CA 23-14 (30 November 2014)

SLIP OPINIONS

OF THE

TRIAL DIVISION

OF THE

HIGH COURT OF AMERICAN SAMOA

(2014)

JOEL MAGALASIN,
Plaintiff,

v.

F/V SAN NANUMEA, her hull, engines, tackle, apparel, furniture, equipment, skiffs, nets, boats, and appurtenances, IMO Official Number/VIN 8102866,
Defendant In Rem,

and SANFORD LIMITED, a foreign corporation, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
Defendant In Personam.

High Court of American Samoa
Trial Division

CA No. 23-14

November 30, 2014

[1] A motion to dismiss pursuant to T.C.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) will be treated as a summary judgment motion when evidence extrinsic to the complaint is presented to and considered by the court.

[2] Conversion of a T.C.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) motion into a motion for summary judgment lies squarely with the court‘s discretion.

[3] When a court converts a T.C.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) motion into a motion for summary judgment under T.C.R.C.P. 56, the court must make the parties aware that the court is considering a motion for summary judgment by giving the parties 10 days notice of the conversion.

[4] Notice that the court will look beyond the pleadings need not be explicit because a party who submits extrinsic materials in support of or opposition to a 12(b)(6) motion is considered to be on notice that the judge may treat the motion as a motion for summary judgment.

[5] When both parties submitted extrinsic evidence for the court to consider in the form of affidavits, declarations, and exhibits, both parties were properly on notice that the 12(b)(6) motion would be treated as a motion for summary judgment.

[6] Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings and supporting papers show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

[7] Typically, in ruling on a summary judgment motion, the court must view all pleadings and supporting papers in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, treat the non-moving party's evidence as true, and draw from such evidence the inferences most favorable to the non-moving party.

[8] In matters of choice of law or forum non conveniens determinations, a trial court may have to resolve disputed factual issues prior to a trial on the merits.

[9] While it may seem inapt to allow pretrial findings of disputed facts in a converted summary judgment motion, determining proper forum after the trial is already underway is injudicious. The same reasoning applies to a choice of law determination.