v.
BERNARD GURR and TASI
SUALI`I, Defendants.
Land and Titles Division
LT No. 08-97
May 5, 1997
[1] Plaintiffs demonstrated great
or irreparable injury where it was shown that co-landowner Defendant and his
business partner had engaged in removal and excavation of land’s natural
resources, agricultural products and timber without government permits, or the
approval of co-landowners, and had also allowed cattle to roam freely, thereby
damaging other parts of the property.
[2] Admissible evidence adduced at preliminary injunction hearing will be made part of the trial record and need not be repeated at the trial on the merits.
Before
Counsel: For Plaintiffs, Charles V. Ala`ilima and
Marie A. Lafaele
For Defendants, Malaetasi Togafau
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Plaintiffs Stanley Gurr ("Stanley") and
Peter Gurr ("Peter") applied for a preliminary injunction against
defendants Bernard Gurr ("Bernard") and Tasi Suali`i
("Tasi") to enjoin certain activities on the land known as
"Maloata" in American Samoa ("the land") during the pendency
of this action. The court heard the
application on May 1, 1997. The
parties were personally present with their counsel.
The land is registered with the Territorial
Registrar of American Samoa as owned in "fee simple" by the
"Heirs of Edwin William Gurr and Fanua Eleitano Gurr"
("heirs"). Stanley,
Peter, and Bernard are among these heirs.
Tasi is not a family member and has no title interest in the land.
The heirs who are actively concerned about
activities on the land must, as matter of family policy, approve significant
uses of the land. Bernard and Tasi
have engaged, and continue to engage, in such uses without this approval.
Bernard removes sand and other material, which
threatens erosion of the beach and
Bernard and Tasi are partners in cattle
operations on the land. The cattle
are kept within a fenced area encompassing a large portion of the land, but
often roam freely beyond the fenced area and have damaged
Stanley, Peter, and other family members
requested Bernard to terminate these activities, but Bernard has refused to do
so. The situation between Stanley
and Peter, on one hand, and Bernard, on the other, has escalated to open
hostility and potential violence.
[1]
Clearly, these activities on the land by Bernard and Tasi have caused, and will
continue to cause, great or irreparable injury to Stanley and Peter, while this
action is pending, and demonstrate a substantial likelihood that Stanley and
Peter will prevail at the trial on the merits. [1ASR3d205]
During the pendency of this action, or until
1.
Bernard, his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and
those persons in active concert or participation with them are enjoined from
removing any sand or other natural materials from the beach or elsewhere,
excavating for and constructing any road, and cutting or otherwise damaging any
rain forest on the land;
2.
Bernard and Tasi, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and
attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with them are
enjoined from engaging in any cattle operations on, and shall remove all cattle
from, the land;
3.
Tasi, his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and
those persons in active concert or participation with them are enjoined from
removing agricultural products or timber from the land, using the land in any
other manner, and entering the land.
[2]
Pursuant to T.C.R.C.P. Rule 65(a)(1), the evidence received during the hearing
on this application for a preliminary injunction which is admissible at the
trial on the merits shall be part of the record of the trial and need not be
repeated at the trial.
It is so Ordered.
**********