Category Litigation

Appellant John Newton, dba Pago Pago Consultants, appeals the Trial Division’s dismissal of his breach of contract claim against ASTCA. The appeal challenges the court’s ruling that the 2010 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was not an enforceable contract due to the absence of a written mutually agreed upon start date. Newton argues that this interpretation is both legally and factually incorrect, as performance under the MOU began immediately with ASTCA’s transmission of listings and Newton’s acceptance of the data, which satisfied the intent and practical effect of the “mutually agreed upon date” clause.

Newton further asserts that ASTCA materially breached the Agreement by failing to deliver complete, usable subscriber listings necessary to produce telephone directories—an obligation it had fulfilled in prior contracts for over a decade. The court also misread Newton’s request for a count of listings, falsely interpreting it as a demand for listing accuracy, based on erroneous testimony by ASTCA’s contracting officer.

Additionally, Newton details multiple instances of the trial court mischaracterizing evidence, failing to review submitted files, and exhibiting bias in interpreting communications. Appellant requests reversal of the dismissal, a finding of breach, and a remand for assessment of damages.

Filing the Notice of Appeal. An appeal permitted by law as of right from the trial division, the land and titles division, or the district court to the appellate division shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the clerk of court within the time allowed by 4 ACR. Failure of an appellant to take any step other than the timely filing of a notice of appeal does not affect the validity of the appeal, but is ground only for such action as the appellate division (or a single judge of the appellate division as specifically provided for in these rules) deems appropriate, which may include dismissal of the appeal.

The basis for this motion is that this Court erred in its decision when it found the contract to be unenforceable due to the parties' failure to "agree upon a delivery date for ASTCA's subscriber listings." It is Plaintiff's position that despite the ambiguity of the language of the contract, the Parties understood their obligations under the contract and the urgent nature of the information that was to be provided.  Furthermore, that any ambiguity in the contract should be construed against ASTCA as the drafting party and it was therefore its choice of language that created the ambiguity in the first place.

This response to the Opinion and Order of 6/27/23 criticizes the document, highlighting various errors and omissions. It argues that the court did not adequately review the trial or supporting exhibits and questions the judge's understanding of the case. The response disputes derogatory remarks about the time lapsed in the litigation and asserts that the delays were not caused by the plaintiff.

The response discusses issues related to the bench trial, particularly the impact of Langkilde's testimony by deposition and the abrupt ending of the trial. It also challenges claims that the plaintiff was difficult to work with, citing a witness's testimony and the absence of supporting evidence.

An Arbitrary Rule Set by Kruse for this Trial In a pretrial hearing, Kruse ordered that Gwen Langkilde would not appear at trial because she is a sitting judge and for her to be questioned in open court would be…

The notes pointed out inconsistencies and potential contradictions in Gwen's testimonies, particularly regarding accuracy requirements and responsibilities for the General Information section. The court's acceptance of Gwen's version of facts in the MOU was criticized, and there were claims of misunderstandings and obfuscations throughout her testimony. Additionally, it was emphasized that Newton's proposed contract was never executed, rendering those discussions irrelevant to the case.

This absence of a telephone directory goes against the policy mandates of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which is the licensing authority under which ASTCA is allowed to operate its telephone service. The present Contract, which has a termination date of December 1, 2015, has been made impossible to perform even in part due to the defendant's continued refusal to supply Plaintiff with its subscriber list. The plaintiff seeks damages for the breach of contract committed by the defendant.