LUCKY DEV. CO. v. TOKAI

2 Citing cases

  1. New Shintani Corp. v. Quitugua

    8 N. Mar. I. 646 (N. Mar. I. 2011)   Cited 1 times

    This reliance is misplaced, however, because we have never addressed the specific question presently before the Court. The trial court cited Rogolofoi v. Guerrero, 2 NMI 468 (1992) and Lucky Development Co., Ltd., v. Tokai, USA, Inc., 3 N. Mar. I. 343 (1992), in support of its conclusion. Yet both cases are readily distinguishable.

  2. In re Roy

    8 N. Mar. I. 6 (N. Mar. I. 2007)   Cited 1 times
    Noting that counsel, without excuse, failed to file a brief for four months

    The opportunity for a hearing must also be given in those situations where a hearing would assist the court in its decision as to whether sanctions should be imposed or not." Lucky Dev. Co., Ltd. v. Tokai, U.S.A., Inc., 3 N. Mar. I. 343, 363 (1992); see Sonoda, 3 N.M.I at 541 (stating that before the court may exercise its inherent power to impose sanctions, the court must give the attorney fair notice and a hearing on the record). An opportunity to respond in writing to an order to show cause regarding sanctions and a chance to be heard at a hearing provide adequate due process.