Power Firm Asks High Court To Deny StarKist Access To Cold-store ff

Source: Samoa News

The American Samoa Power Authority has asked the High Court to deny the StarKist Samoa motion for reconsideration, saying that the cannery is occupying ASPA property without legal right.

The 1.024 acres of land in question were leased in March 2000 to StarKist and the cannery built a cold-storage facility on the land, which it continues to use.

The lease was for nine years and the cannery had the option to renew the lease, provided StarKist notified ASPA in writing of its intent to renew at least 90 days before expiration of the initial lease term.

However, StarKist failed to give ASPA written notice to renew the lease, which expired Feb. 28, 2009, and ASPA made a demand for possession in writing, serving the written demand on StarKist around Aug. 10, 2010.

A trial court ruled in November that in accordance with local statute, “ASPA is entitled to judgment for possession of the premises” and “ASPA is entitled to the issuance of a writ of possession restoring the premises unto ASPA.”

In its motion for reconsideration and/or new trial, StarKist, through local attorney Jennifer Joneson, argued among other things that ASPA “failed to prove that it has a legal right to possess the site that StarKist’s freezer occupies at this time.”

Joneson contends that the governor of American Samoa is the proper American Samoa Government official to determine the future use of ASG land. Therefore, ASPA’s request for a summary eviction order directed to Starkist should be denied, Joneson said in her motion early last month.

Responding to the StarKist motion, ASPA through the local firm of Ashley & Murphy contends that reconsideration is appropriate if a trial court is presented with newly discovered evidence; committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or there has been an intervening change in controlling law.

“Here, plaintiff has done nothing but reiterate the issues it presented to the court at trial,” ASPA argued in its Dec. 27 motion.

“There are no new facts, no new arguments and no new legal authority to suggest that the court committed an error. Thus there is no substantial reason to change the decision” ASPA said.

According to the law firm, ASPA has the right to occupy the land in question and to evict StarKist. It contends ASPA is no longer bound by the arbitration clause.

“StarKist continues to argue that, although the lease is ‘ineffective’, the arbitration clause must be enforced,” ASPA says.

“The court has already rejected both of these arguments, holding that the lease was valid but the arbitration clause was no longer binding because the leased had expired,” ASPA’s attorney points out. “StarKist again offers no ‘substantial reasons’ why this conclusion should be changed.”

In conclusion, ASPA attorneys said the StarKist motion “is nothing more than a delaying tactic”.

The ultimate issue is whether StarKist or ASPA has a right to possession of the subject property and ASPA’s claim derives from statutory transfer (ASCA 15.0106) from “continuous and uncontested” control of the premises, according to the ASPA attorneys.

“StarKist’s only claim to this property is the lease from ASPA. The lease having expired, StarKist now occupies the property without any legal right or justification,” said ASPA attorneys. “The motion for reconsideration must be denied.”

The StarKist motion is set for a hearing on Jan. 6, 2011, according to court records.