OPINIONS

OF THE

TRIAL DIVISION

OF THE

HIGH COURT OF AMERICAN SAMOA

(2003)

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. 

**********