RDL, INC./CIDA, INC., dba PACIFIC DESIGN BUILD
AMERICAN SAMOA COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Defendant.
High Court of American Samoa
CA No. 113-01
May 12, 2003
 There is no basis for reconsideration of a denial of a summary judgment motion.
 Judicial economy is not a factor
the court may consider under T.C.R.C.P. 56.
Before KRUSE, Chief Justice, LOGOAI, Chief Associate Judge, and ATIULAGI,
Counsel: For Plaintiffs, Charles V. Ala`ilima and Marie A.
For Defendant, Paul Miller
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
 On April 16, 2002, we denied defendants motion for partial summary judgment. In essence,
we determined that there were still
genuine issues of material fact to be resolved which would require a
trial. Almost one year later, on April
2, 2003, defendant renewed their same motion, citing more or less the same evidence but
interpreting it in a different light. There is no basis for reconsideration of a denial of a summary judgment motion. We will not entertain a motion which asks us
to undertake the same analysis we have already undertaken.
 Ironically, at oral argument counsel stated “judicial
economy” as one reason for reconsideration, in that we would be spared having
to sit through six or more days of trial. But “judicial economy” is just not a factor
that a T.C.R.C.P. 56 evaluation admits.
The Court may not abdicate its responsibility to provide a forum for
resolving factual disputes simply because it might save it time. If anything is a waste of judicial economy,
it is duplicitous motions requiring the Court’s attention.
Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment is
It is so ordered.