Source: http://www.asbar.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1697:2asr3d173&catid=82&Itemid=254
Timestamp: 2014-07-29 18:51:25
Document Index: 575865806

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 43', '§ 43', '§ 43', '§ 43', '§ 16', '§ 4']

HomePrivacy & TermsCasesThird-Series2ASR3dAmerican Samoa Gov’t; Johnson v. American Samoa Gov’t; Johnson v. TAIMANE JOHNSON, Plaintiff,
[2ASR3d174] [1] Under T.C.R.C.P. 12(b)(6), review of a motion to dismiss is limited to whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims regardless of the likelihood of recovery, and in reviewing a motion to dismiss, the pleadings should be construed in favor of the claimant, and the burden of demonstrating that there is no claim is upon the party moving to dismiss. [2] A complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim only where it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. [3] Under T.C.R.C.P. 12(b)(6), a defense of immunity is a proper basis for granting a motion to dismiss, and a government entity is immune from suit unless it consents to suit through legislation or by acting in a non-governmental capacity. [4] Under A.S.C.A. § 43.1201 (the Government Tort Liability Act (GTLA)), the ASG is subject to a limited waiver of its immunity from suit for actions based in tort. [5] The ASG waives its immunity when it acts in a proprietary fashion, such as when it establishes and operates a bank or acts as a landlord, but immunity is specifically preserved under A.S.C.A. § 43.1203 for claims arising out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit or interference with contract rights.
[6] Under A.S.C.A. § 43.1211, a plaintiff may seek recourse against ASG employees individually for false arrest, and a claim for tortious conduct may be pursued against such employees who acted out of their own negligent conduct while acting within the scope of their employment or who acted outside of the scope of the employment. [7] A.S.C.A. § 43.1203(b) does not exclude all intentional torts from the Government Tort Liability Act (GTLA), and a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is a proper claim against ASG under the GTLA, and exclusion from the Government Tort Liability Act is limited to the torts specifically enumerated.
[9] Under A.S.C.A. §§ 16.2002, 16.2003-.2004, and A.S.C.A. § 4.0301(a)(9), the American Samoa Community College may sue and be sued, the Board of Higher Education is an agency of the ASG that may not sue or be sued, the Land Grant Program is a program and not an agency, and may not sue or be sued, and the Department of Public Safety, as an agency of ASG established under and not being able to sue or be sued, it is not a proper named party under the Government Tort Liability Act.. [10] Police officers, as individual employees of ASG, are not proper defendants while a party is pursuing a claim against ASG under the Government Tort Liability Act. Before RICHMOND, Associate Justice, and AFUOLA, Associate Judge.