Case ID: am-samoa-3d_6/html/0039-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STANCRIS SALES COMPANY, Appellants, v. J.J. YONG aka JUM-YONG CHUM aka Mr. Chung aka YUNG CHUNG KIM, PETELO UTI and SO KUN JOO dba MALAEIMI VALLEY MART, Appellees.
    High Court of American Samoa Appellate Division
    AP No. 12-99
    August 2, 2002
    
      Before KRUSE, Chief Justice, WALLACE, Acting Associate Justice, MOLLWAY, Acting Associate Justice, MAMEA, Associate Judge, TUPUIVAO, Associate Judge.
    Counsel: For Appellant, Katopau Ainu'u For Appellees, Paul F. Miller
    
      
      The Honorable J. Clifford Wallace, Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit, serving by designation of the-Secretary of the Interior.
    
    
      
      The Honorable Susan Oki Mollway, United States District Court Judge, District of Hawaii, serving by designation of the Secretary of the Interior.
    
   OPINION AND ORDER

The trial court awarded summary judgment to appellees finding that appellant’s cause of action for' fraud was barred by the statute of limitations. Specifically, the court found that .appellant “knew or should have known” the evidentiary basis of his claim by a certain time frame. Stancris Sales Co., v. Yong, CA No. 47-99, slip op. at 4 (Trial Div. Sept. 9, 1999) (Order Granting Defense Motion for Summary Judgment).

We find that the statute of limitations presents a triable issue of fact and therefore conclude that summary judgment is not appropriate; T.C.R.C.P. Rule 56. We accordingly reverse and remand.

Appellee’s motion for T.C.R.C.P. Rule 11 sanctions is denied.

It is so ordered.