Previous Story
DoF appeal vs. order imposing payment of attorney’s fees junked
|
Posted on Aug 07 2005
The CNMI Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by the Department of Finance and its former Secretary Frank B. Villanueva against a Superior Court order directing them to pay a poker company attorney’s fees and costs or to request a hearing.
The High Court dismissed the appeal based on lack of jurisdiction. Consequently, the Sept. 3, 2003, Superior Court order in favor of Pacific Amusement, Inc. stands.
The trial court order had declared that Pacific Amusement is entitled to nominal reimbursement of fees and costs related to the court action.
It had directed Pacific Amusement to provide specific amounts of fees and costs claimed. It declared that the government would have to pay the claimed fees or request a hearing upon Pacific Amusement’s submission of the claimed amount and supporting documents.
The High Court cited the general rule that only final trial court orders are appealable.
“An order which establishes liability without fixing the amount of recovery may be final and immediately appealable only if the determination of damages will be mechanical and uncontroversial: i.e. a ministerial task,” the Supreme Court stated in its opinion issued sometime last week.
“Here, the damage determination encompasses substantial issues and is therefore not merely a ministerial task,” the High Court said. “Computing the money owed to Pacific Amusement is not guaranteed to be mechanical.”
The High Court junked the government’s contention that the case provides an exception to the “final order” rule. The Supreme Court said than an exception cited by the government applies only to orders involving unsettled issues of national importance where immediate review would result in judicial economy.
It further junked another “final order” rule exception cited by the government, saying that the issue sought to be appealed would be reviewed as part of a final judgment.
“The only situation where an issue would not be reviewable as part of the final judgment is where the order at issue involves ‘an asserted right the legal and practical value of which would be destroyed if it were not vindicated before trial’,” The Supreme Court explained.
