7ASR3d103

RDL, INC./CIDA, INC., dba PACIFIC DESIGN BUILD

COLLABORATIVE, Plaintiffs,

 

v.

 

AMERICAN SAMOA COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Defendant.

 

High Court of American Samoa

Trial Division

 

CA No. 113-01

 

May 12, 2003

 

 

[1] There is no basis for reconsideration of a denial of a summary judgment motion.

 

[2] Judicial economy is not a factor

the court may consider under T.C.R.C.P. 56.

 

Before KRUSE, Chief Justice, LOGOAI, Chief Associate Judge, and ATIULAGI,

Associate Judge.

 

Counsel: For Plaintiffs, Charles V. Ala`ilima and Marie A.

Lafaele

 For Defendant, Paul Miller

 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 

[1] On April 16, 2002, we denied defendants motion for partial summary judgment.  In essence,

we determined that there were still

genuine issues of material fact to be resolved which would require a

trial.  Almost one year later, on April

2, 2003, defendant renewed their same motion, citing more or less the same evidence but

interpreting it in a different light. There is no basis for reconsideration of a denial of a summary judgment motion.  We will not entertain a motion which asks us

to undertake the same analysis we have already undertaken.

 

[2] Ironically, at oral argument counsel stated “judicial

economy” as one reason for reconsideration, in that we would be spared having

to sit through six or more days of trial.  But “judicial economy” is just not a factor

that a T.C.R.C.P. 56 evaluation admits. 

The Court may not abdicate its responsibility to provide a forum for

resolving factual disputes simply because it might save it time.  If anything is a waste of judicial economy,

it is duplicitous motions requiring the Court’s attention.

Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment is

denied.

 

It is so ordered.

 

**********