American Samoa factsSamoa-American facts
American-Samoa Bar Association
and VAILU'U & SONS TRUCKING, Kläger, v. Building Services of Samoa, Inc ; Moru Mane ; Sallie Mane ; et American Samoa Government, Defendants. Claimant. Building work by samoa, inc. The American Samoa Goverment, the Crossclaimant, the Crossclaimant, the American Samoa Goverment, the Crossclaimant, the Crossclaimant, the Crossclaimant, the Crossclaimant, the Crossclaimant, the Crossclaimant, the Crossclaimant, the Crossclaimant, the Crossclaimant, the Crossclaimant, the Crossclaimant, the Crossclaimant, the Crossclaimant, the Crossclaimant, the Crossclaimant, the Crossclaimant
2 ] When the relocating person presents a semblance of a summarized judgement, the load is shifted to the non-moving person to "present concrete facts that show that there is a real problem for the trial". "3 "3]"Only litigation over facts that could influence the result of the action under applicable law" is "material", and such litigation is "genuine" only if the proof s are such that a rational fact-finder could make a judgement for the immovable side.
A tribunal must clarify all substantive questions in a dispute in favour of the immovable entity, but conclusive, unspecific claims are not enough to survival an application for a summarised judgement, and absent facts are not suspected. 6 ] In order to provide evidence of a summarised judgement, the person who opts for a summarised judgement may use authorisations in the minutes; declarations on oath are not always required.
C. R.C.P. 8(a) advocates an apparently lenient plea of"...a plea...should (1) contain a brief and simple explanation of the right to exemption, stating that the plea is justified, and (2) a request for a decision on the right to which he considers himself to be justify. "8 "8] If a claimant does not file a suit that may be dismissed under T.C.R.C.P. 8(a), the defendant may request the tribunal to reject the suit under T.C.R.C.P. 12(b)(6).
The alleged "no theft of facts " formulated in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-6 (1957), "an action should not be rejected because it has not brought an action, unless the claimant can clearly demonstrate that he has no facts to substantiate his action that would justify his liberation", is a misconstrued paragraph that cannot be understood verbatim.
10 ] The reasonableness standards require a claimant to have sufficient reasonable facts to maintain a right to satisfaction of T.C.R.C.P. 8(a) and to overcome a T.C.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) challenged. 12 ] Seemingly fleeting facts in a civilian, per se lawsuit are constructed more openly than pleas formulated by a lawyer. 13 ] In a T.C.R.C.C.C.P. 12(b)(6) appeal, the court's order to interpret the plea for material fairness, T.C.R.C.P. 8(f), is not compelling that the tribunal should consider everything that is considered truthful in a plea.
14 ] Well presented facts are deemed to be correct, but well presented facts are still submitted for consideration by the court: if the well presented facts, if they are based on the "experience and good sense" of the tribunal, do not raise a right on which legal protection can be afforded, the suit must be dismissed. 15 ] The submission of a plea in law for violation of the agreement presupposes that (1) a agreement, (2) the claimant's payment or an apology for the non-performance, (3) the defendant's violation and (4) the plaintiff's damages are asserted therefrom.
16 ]A T.C.R.C.C.C.P. 12(b)(6) defence is based on the face of a right to alleviation. 17 ] If a petitioning petitioner claims well-guided facts that would satisfactorily address the element of a violation of the agreement, a T.C.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) defence contained in a defendant's response cannot be tried and is submitted to the decision and order by a summarized judgement.
18 ] If the tribunal approves the amendment of a brief in accordance with T.C.R.C.P. 15(a), the revised brief shall refer to the date of the first filing of the initial brief as if the revised brief had been submitted on the date of the initial brief. 19 ]An infringement suit based on a writing agreement must be commenced within 10 years of the date of the infringement, unless "expressly stated otherwise".
20 ]A defendant against an action may plead of limitation in order to reject the action for failing to lodge the action in due time. 21 ]Admission in written submissions is a fact of expedited procedure. 22 ] An amendment to a written submission refers to the date of filing of the unchanged initial written submission.
Neither shall the rights included in the modified written statement lapse if the initial written statement was submitted before the expiry of the statutory time-limit. 23 ]A defence against the prescription, which could not come into force before court, is defeated by the jurisdiction and the order by means of summarized judgement.
24 ] Laughter is a fair rule which excludes the right to legal protection if (1) the salmon's components are fulfilled and (2) a judgement of a tribunal exists. 26 ]An action for failure to fulfil obligations which does not violate the statutes of limitation of that territory shall not be dismissed by laughing either. 27 ] If a claiming party is right to point out that the Protocol and the Act cannot prove the defence of an immovable person and the immovable person has been informed of the request for a summarised judgement and submits inadequate or unbacked allegations in its defence, then that defence is duly the object of an order by a summarised judgement.
30 ] A naked defence can be defeated from a reactive plea; a so concerned faction can move to change the reactive plea so that it contains well-placed facts that justify the defence. The Government of American Samoa ("ASG") placed a building order with Building Services of Samoa ("CSS") on or about January 8, 2001.
In 2001 ASA started to implement the order, but missed to provide service personnel, to finance its sub-contractors and to finish the Masausi project on time. Between January 2001 and February 2002, the agreement was reviewed by the company and renewed until February 12, 2002.
On 8 April 2002 ADG agreed to end its agreement with Commodore Security and signed a GMP covering agreement to complete the Masausi project. About " 66,000 dollars more than would have been paid by SHA if just the commitments under the construction agreement had been made. "Azg' s Changed Response to Cross-Claim at 2, Pac.
Samoa Services, CA No. 43-02 (Litigation Department November 7, 2011). As of June 3, 2002, however, a" Answer, Counter-claim and Cross-claim" was filled . "In this plea, it responds to the complaint of PGC and VST and then counterclaims VST. VST's rebuttal claims that VST has accepted to use the devices of the company for a charge; the royalty owed by VST is $4,510.
2 ] CSS's cross-claim against ASG alleges that the cross-defender[ASG] is the retention of monies generated by results of operations beyond those claimed by claimants. This funding has already been made available to cover the payment to Masausi Roads for the sub-contractors of Masausi Roads in accordance with the agreements and promises made to them. and crossclaim " de 4, Pac.
Servant of Samoa, CA No. 43-02 (Litigation Department June 3, 2002). This court approved GMP's request for intervention on 20 April 2004. The" Response to Intervenor's complaint, counterclaim and counterclaim " was submitted by Carl Zeiss on 4 May 2005. "5 "5] In this plea, GMP claims that it overestimates the amount of money due and owed by the company (whereby the real amount of $19,830 was calculated).
At the oral proceedings on March 16, 2007, that court ordered PGC's motion for the commencement of the proceedings on September 27, 2007. "On 7 November 2011 ASG, now headed by Counsel Daniel Woods, reacted by submitting its "Combined Motion for Leave to File to Amended Answer zu CSS's Crossclaim and[**8**] Memorandum in Support.
" For the Masausi project agreement a counterclaim against CSF was to be made. For the sake of fairness and given that the entire basic lawsuit that led to this lawsuit related to the same building agreement, we allowed CAS to modify its initial response (to CSS's crossclaim initially submitted by CAS on August 8, 2002) to enter into a violation of the agreement against CAS.
Servs. of Samoa, CA No. 43-02, slip opt. at 2-3 (Trial Div. Dec. 29, 2011) (Order allowing ASG's request for holiday to change the response to the counterclaim). Refer to T.C.R.C.C.P. 15(a). As of January 10, 2012, ASG's modified answer/cross claims were mistakenly referred to as "Answer to modified counter-claim".
The ASG submitted its "Request for a Summarised Judgement on the three positive defensive measures of the CSS" (hereinafter "Request for a Summarised Judgement") on 12 January 2012. The ASG argued in its request for a summarized judgement that the T.C.R.C.P. 12(b)(6), laughing and limitation reservations of the CSF cannot enter into force at the hearing and should now be decided by a summarized judgement.
In agreement with the SASG, we give a summarised judgement deciding on these three particular objections. 1-4 ] A summarized judgement is correct if the minutes show that there is no real situation and the relocating person is eligible for a judgement. T.C.R.C.C.C.P. 56(c). If the relocating person submits a primary fact case for a summarized judgement, the load is shifted to the non-moving person to "present concrete facts that show that there is a real problem for the process".
" T.C.R.C.C.P. 56(e). "Litigation over facts that could influence the result of the action under applicable laws is "material", and such a litigation is only "genuine" if the proof s are such that a rational fact-finder could make a judgement for the immovable entity. In a controversial case, a tribunal must clarify all the facts in favour of the immovable entity, but conclusive, unspecific claims are not enough to enable a claim for a summarised judgement to be survived, and there is no suspicion of facts that are not there.
She is Samoa Gov't, 21 A. S. R. 2d 60, 66-7 (Litigation Department 1992). This tribunal adopted most of the Rules of Civil Procedure in 1981 when it issued its Rules of Procedure ("T.C.R.C.C.C.P."). Distinguishments between the provincial versions of Rule 56 and T.C.R.C.P.56 are only stilistic, not material.
T.C.R.R.C.P. 56, for example, does not expressly state that a person requesting a summarised judgement may refer to actual authorisations or provisions in the minutes which justify a presumption of justification for the summarised judgement. If it declares that a person seeking a summarized judgement must submit an oath to prove presumption of judgement, it is wrong.
See T.C.R.C.C.C.P. 56(c) ("The requested judgement shall be given immediately if the....inspection of the files...shows that there is no real fact and the relocating person has a right to a judgement"). Here the ASG is based exclusively on adequate approvals and legal questions; Accordingly, we have decided that the ASG has made credible the summarised judgement from the approvals which the ASG has taken from the protocol and summarised in this application.
See T.C.R.C.C.C.P. 56 (c). 7-8 ] T.C.R.C.C.C.P. 8(a) and T.C.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) are inseparable. T.C.R.C.P. 8(a) advocates an apparently lenient plea specification, "A plea...shall (1) contain a brief and simple explanation of the debt, stating that the plea is justified for an exemption, and (2) a request for a decision on the exemption to which he considers himself justified.
" T.C.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) is a defence under private law. In the event that a claimant who does not bring an action which may be satisfied under T.C.R.C.P. 8(a) in a lawsuit, a counterclaim or a payment in return, the defendant may request the tribunal to reject the action under T.C.R.C.P. 12(b)(6).
While this cited paragraph has confused the jurists, a verbatim explanation of this paragraph would allow those who seek alleviation to say nothing at all in their writs and yet still face a 12(b)(6) challenged survival. Tweombly, 550 U.S. 544, 561 (2007) ("In such a focussed and verbatim reading[**13**] of Conley's "no put of facts", a completely conclusive petition would outlive an application for dismissal if the petitions were to leave open the option that a claimant could later raise a series of[undisclosed]"facts" in favor of recovery").
In the Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly case, the Supreme Court interpreted this particular section of Conley in the Light of the previous résumé of the specific claims of the appeal, which the Court reasonably considered to be generous, in order to do justice to the Conley Court.
It is best to forget the sentence as an imperfect, negativ shine of an acceptable plea: once a demand is sufficiently formulated, it can be substantiated by the presentation of all facts that agree with the claims in the appeal. In order to outlive a T.C.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) appeal, the Supreme Court in Twombly expressed a level of reasonableness; a claimant must present sufficient reasonable facts to uphold a demand.
Refer to Id at 557; T.C.R.C.C.P. 8(a). 13-14 ] In a T.C.R.C.C.C.P. 12(b)(6) appeal, the court's order to interpret the plea for substantive fairness, T.C.R.C.P. 8(f), is not compelling that the tribunal should consider everything that is held to be correct in a plea. According to Iqbal's and Twombly's interpretations of rules 8(a) and 12(b)(6), the "naked allegations" of a plea are not taken into account at all, but only well-guided facts.
Well-guided facts are still submitted to the Court's examination: if the well-managed facts, if they are based on the "experience and good sense" of the Tribunal, make no claims on which legal protection can be afforded, the action is dismissed. With regard to ASG's cross-claim, we are now asked whether a brief verdict on the defence of Case 12(b)(6) is appropriate - whether at this stage Case 12(b)(6) could retain a T.C.R.C.P. defence.
16-17 ] A T.C.R.C.C.C.P. 12(b)(6) defence is based on the face of[**16**] a right to alleviation (ASG's modified answer/cross-claim). Here ASG's modified Answer/Cross-claim, in his face, fulfils his load under T.C.R.C.C.P.P. 8(a) by claiming well managed facts that would gratify the components of a treaty-break. SASG alleges that SASG and SSS concluded a letter of intent on 8 January 2001 concerning the Masausi Road and Drainage Reconstruction Project, for which SASG was to act as general contractors (contract); that SASG made payment to SASG in accordance with the agreement (performance);
On CSS' Cross-Claim ASG's Changed Answer at 2-3, Pac. Samoa Services, CA No. 43-02 (Litigation Department November 7, 2011). Not only did the Society plead for a treaty violation (a "naked assertion"), but instead provided sufficient well-founded facts that would relieve the Society if it were so.
At the hearing ASG must demonstrate precisely these facts in order to deserve alleviation. T.C.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) defence by legislation is not enough to overcome such a legal battle now as in court. Accordingly, we hereby concede to the ASG's request for a summarized ruling on the T.C.R.C.C.C.P. 12(b)(6) defence of this particular defence of this particular case.
T.C.R.C.P. 15(c) states that"[w]if the action or defence brought in the revised statement of case arises from or was sought to be brought in the behavior, transactional or incident described in the initial statement of case, the change shall refer to[the] date of the initial statement of case. "18 ] Under T.C.R.C.C.C.P. 15(a) we have permitted the ASG to change its response and to counterclaim against them.
Servant of Samoa, Inc. CA No. 43-02 slip at at 2-3, (Trial Div. Dec. 29, 2011) (Arrangement, the ASG's motor for permission to change the response to cross-claim). We' ve decided that the fairness the change-needy, CSS-own cross-claim against the goverment affects the same deal and the same event (the basic building agreement between ASG and Masausi Project CSS).
Consequently, ASG's revised reply refers to the date on which ASG first submitted its reply to the CSS request, 9 August 2002. 0120 (5) provides that "[a]ctions....may be brought...after they have arisen" and that "actions based on agreements in writing or a judgement of a judicial authority must be instituted within 10 years", unless "otherwise expressly stated".
" Accordingly, an infringement suit based on a letter of intent must be filed within 10 years of the date of the infringement, unless expressly stated otherwise. In the event that a defendant defends himself against an action, he may plead the limitation of actions in order to reject the suit for failing to lodge the suit in due time.
21-22 ] Here the defence against the limitation of actions of ASG's modified Answer/Cross-Claim is inadequate. The approval of Masausi is interpreted as the fact that ASG and another company, Masausi, signed a building agreement on January 8, 2001. Refer ends T.C.R.C.C.P. 8(d) ; CSS's "Answer to Amended Counterslaim[sic]" bei 1, Pac.
Servant of Samoa, CA No. 43-02 (Litigation Department January 10, 2012). 18] ASG's Amended[**19**] Answer/Cross-claim refers to the date of original submission, 9 August 2002. T.C.R.C.C.C.P. 15(c). It took less than two years from the date of conclusion of the building agreement to the date of submission of the answer by the ASG (from which the modified answer/cross claims refer to ASG).
Re-registration is far within the limitation of 10 years for contractual conflicts arising from a contractual break. 23 ] On the basis of the previous analyses, CSS' limitation of actions could not be observed during the hearing. Accordingly, we are granting ASG's request for a summarized judgement with regard to the limitation of actions of CSF.
24-25 ] Laughter is a fair rule which excludes appeal if (1) the salmon's components are fulfilled and (2) the Court has discretionary powers. 26 ] Here Salaches could not exclude ASG's[**20**] modified answer/cross-claim for breaches of agreement for legal reasons. Therefore, CSS' demand that we consider it inappropriate to submit a proposal on time is naturally inaccurate.
2, 4] Moreover, the arguments of Unjustified Social Security Security that it will be inappropriately biased are not supported by any valid affidavit or protocol. Summarised appeals must contain acceptable facts which indicate a real question of substantive facts which would justify a hearing (if a determination of facts would reveal the facts which were used to pronounce a judgment).
27 ] Here the claims of CSF are inadequate and are not supported. Correct reference to a summons procedure in which we find that the case of Case Law is missing, that there is no real problem of substantive facts and that a summons is appropriate as it applies to this particular defence - consequently, the defence of Case Law cannot be taken to court.
According to Iqbal and Twombly, the Bundesbezirksgerichte [**21**] had to clarify another question: whether the "plausibility standard", which results from the Supreme Court's reading of the Bundeszivilprozessordnung 8(a) for a "brief and simple application ", is also relevant to defendant when invoking a defence under the Bundeszivilprozessordnung 8(b)(1)(A), according to which a defendant should "state in brief and simple words its defence for any application against it.
See T.C.R.C.C.C.P. 8(b) ("A political group must state its position briefly and succinctly on any claims asserted...."). The Supreme Court or any district court has not dealt with the use of the validity level when invoking a positive defence. Here ASG induces us to attack CSS's T.C.R.C.C.C.P. 12(b)(6), limitation periods and laughing defences under this new version of the validity standards (as it refers to defense).
20] See T.C.R.C.C.P. 12(f). This burgeoning burden on the credibility standards is convincing and we find that all three of the above-mentioned defence mechanisms should be met by cohesive security solutions. See CSS's "Reply to amended counterclaim[sic]" at 1-2, Pac. Servant of Samoa, CA No. 43-02 (Litigation Department January 10, 2012). In Iqbal and Twombly's speciality standards, the final listing of discretionary checks would amount to "naked allegations" for which we would not give importance.
In fact, we would cancel this defence of CSF, but for a ruling that already has the same thing. The ASG's application for a summons against T.C.R.C.C.C.P. 12(b)(6), limitation and prescription is approved. 1 ] We are not aware of the initial conditions of the building agreement between ASG and CSF, since in ten years of legal disputes neither of the parties has voluntarily submitted a copy of the initial building agreement.
2 ] In its reply to the counterclaim lodged on 7 June 2002, the VST rejected its own defence. 5 ] The action brought here by Case No. 1 of CSF against ASB is more specific than the initial action (filed on 3 June 2002); however, it seems that CSF has changed its initial action without causing that court to do the same.
See T.C.R.C.C.C.P. 15(a). 10 ] Neither CPSS nor ASA have taken the step of invoking T.C.R.C.P. 41(b) to reject the actions of PGC and VST. 13 ] "The SASG does not submit any affidavit or other proof in relation to its memoir and application. Servant of Samoa, February 1, 2012 (Trial Div. February 3, 2012).
However, see T.C.R.C.C.C.P. 56(a) ("A person who wishes to make a demand, a cross action or a declaration may..... decide in his favour all or part of it, with or without the assistance of an affidavit. 14 ] In fact, the claims cited by the ASG to endorse ASG's Motion for Summarization Decision have never been withheld.
See T.C.R.C.C.C.P. 8(d). 15 ] We have adopted the Twombly-Iqbal plausibilty standards in the case of Vergara v. American Samoa Government, CA No. 86-11, slip opt. at 5 (Trial Div. Feb. 9, 2012) (command on default motor motors to dismiss). There has always been this level of credibility, even at the point of Conley-Conley's apparently contradictory attitude (to allow "naked claims" to live through a dispute under regulation 12(b)(6)) seemed contradictory because of a misconception of jurists and academics.
16 ] We find this declaration of conformity with the principles of ordinary laws and in the case of the firm we use it. 17 ] We do not believe whether the ASG's assertion that a treaty between ASG and CSF is enough to stand up to a T.C.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) challenger - whether enough well-founded facts have been put forward to enforce all aspects of a treaty - because CSF has conceded such a treaty.
Refer to T.C.R.C.P. 8(d) (CSS has not disputed the Masausi Agreement between itself and ASA in its Respondent's Respondent's Answer to-Added Counterclaim [sic] submitted on 10 January 2012; this assertion is therefore deemed to be accepted). There is no indication as to whether there was an infringement (as this question was not addressed in the present request for a ruling ), except that an infringement would have been conceivable only in 2001 or 2002, while the building agreement was in force.
Refer me la réponse modifiée de Siehe ASG à la demande reconventionnelle de Crossclaim de 2-3, Pac. Samoa Services, CA No. 43-02 (Litigation Department November 7, 2011). 19 ] ASG refers to Mageo v. Government of American Samoa, for the assertion that ASG is always resistant to laughter and limitation periods. Id. 882 (among others: "It is the constitution that the limitation period does not violate the government of American Samoa with regard to the country.
In this infringement suit, we consider it superfluous and therefore refuse to refer to this term of parliamentary parliamentary parliamentary immunity, as we can rule on this request on other grounds. 20 ] To heal a beaten defence for the failure of the credibility standards, one would change his plea. See T.C.R.C.C.C.P. 15.