TAIWAN SIMON ENTERPRISES CO., LTD., ) CA No. 56-92
v. ) ORDER DENYING MOTION
) TO DISMISS OR IN THE
KAO YA FISHERIES COMPANY, ) ALTERNATIVE TO QUASH
Defendant in Personam. )
TAIWAN SIMON ENTERPRISES CO., LTD., ) CA No. 70-92
v. ) ORDER OF CONSOLIDATION
THE F/V KAO YA #3, Her Cargo, )
Freight, Equipment, Engines, Mast, )
Boats, Anchors, Cables, Chains, )
Rigging, Tackle, Furniture, and )
All Other Necessaries Appertaining )
to the Vessel, )
Defendant in Rem, )
KAO YA FISHERIES COMPANY, )
Defendant in Personam. )
Before RICHMOND, Associate Justice, MATA`UTIA, Associate Judge, and LOGOAI, Associate Judge.
Counsel: For Plaintiffs, Afoa L. Su`esu`e Lutu
For Defendants, Togiola T. A. Tulafono
Defendant Kao Ya Fisheries Company has appeared specially in CA No. 56-92 for the purpose of moving the Court to dismiss that action or in the alternative to quash the summons on the grounds that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this defendant. This motion came on regularly for hearing on July 15, 1992. The Court, having considered the documents on file in CA No. 56-92 and counsel's arguments, finds that plaintiff has established a prima facie case of jurisdiction over defendant in this action in that:
1. Plaintiff's verified complaint alleges that defendant is doing business in American Samoa by owning four fishing vessels which have used or are using Pago Pago as their home port and has failed to pay plaintiff $438,644.77 for provisions and other operational requirements furnished by plaintiff, also doing business in American Samoa, to these vessels, from which it is reasonably inferred that some, and perhaps all, of the underlying transactions occurred in American Samoa.
2. Plaintiff's verified complaint further alleges that defendant is associated with two other business entities in American Samoa, which are under the supervision and control of two individuals, respectively, who are defendant's "local agents and directors."
Therefore, defendant Kao Ya Fisheries Company's motion to dismiss the complaint or in the alternative quash the summons in CA No. 56-92 is denied. Plaintiff must, of course, still establish jurisdiction over this defendant by a preponderance of the evidence before the end of the trial of this action.
At the hearing on this motion, the parties stipulated that in the event the Court denied the motion, CA No. 56-92 and CA No. 70-92 would be consolidated for all further proceedings. Therefore, these two actions are now consolidated.
It is so ordered.
LYLE L. RICHMOND
MATA`UTIA TUIAFONO LOGOAI SIAKI
Associate Judge Associate Judge