Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Supreme Court of the Marshall Islands

Pacific Basin, Inc v Mama Store [2007] MHSC 1; 3 MILR 34 (17 May 2007)

3 MILR 34

IN THE SUPREME COURT
REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS

S.CT. CASE NO. 06-07
(High Ct. Civil No. 2005-056)

PACIFIC BASIN, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

-v-

MAMA STORE,
Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT

MAY 17, 2007

CADRA, C.J.
GOODWIN, A.J. pro tem[1], and KURREN, A.J. pro tem[2]

Argued and Submitted March 14, 2007

SUMMARY:

On the date set for trial, Defendant failed to appear, and default judgment was entered for Plaintiff. Defendant filed a timely motion for relief from default judgment and for a new trial, but the motion was denied. Defendant appealed. The Supreme Court found the trial court had not abused its discretion in granting default judgment and denying relief from that judgment because Defendant’s counsel’s neglect to appear at trial was not excusable, and thus an insufficient justification. The dismissal was affirmed.

DIGEST:

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – Due Process – Procedural: Procedural "due process" only requires adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard.

2. JUDGMENTS – Grounds to Vacate – MIRCP Rule 60(b): A trial court has the discretion to deny a Rule 60(b) motion to vacate a default judgment if (1) the plaintiff would be prejudiced if the judgment is set aside, (2) defendant has no meritorious defense, or (3) the defendant’s culpable conduct led to the default. This tripartite test is disjunctive.

3. APPEAL AND ERROR – Review – Discretionary Matters – Motion to Vacate Judgment: The reviewing court reviews the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for an abuse of discretion.

4. APPEAL AND ERROR – Review – Discretionary Matters: Under the abuse of discretion standard, the reviewing court will reverse only where no reasonable person would have acted as the trial court did.

5. APPEAL AND ERROR – Review – Discretionary Matters – Motion to Vacate Judgment: Because review of the denial of Rule 60(b) relief is deferential, the reviewing court must affirm if the trial court adequately considered the reasons for neglect and the reasons did not compel a finding of excusable neglect.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY CADRA, C.J.