Judge declines to dismiss discrimination suit vs CUC, official

Superior Court Associate Judge Kenneth L. Govendo has denied the Commonwealth Utilities Corp. and CUC Tinian deputy director Evelyn Manglona’s motions to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a family that is suing them for alleged discrimination.

In a written order yesterday, Govendo ruled that the court has jurisdiction over the lawsuit and that the plaintiffs’ complaint against Manglona has sufficiently alleged facts to support a claim for a denial of equal protection.

Sylvester H. Palacios, Rosita C. Palacios, and Kayla Adrianne C. Palacios filed the lawsuit against CUC and Manglona in September 2011, seeking an injunction and damages.

The plaintiffs, through counsel Ramon Quichocho, alleged that they have been discriminated against and were denied their rights to due process and equal protection.

According to court records, Sylvestre Palacios filed a billing dispute with CUC on Aug. 9, 2007, for his electric fuel charges. He did not indicate the amount he is disputing.

As a result of the dispute, Palacios’ account reflects an unpaid balance. It took four years for CUC to respond to the billing dispute. Throughout that time, CUC disconnected the plaintiffs’ water and power services on three separate occasions.

The first two occasions, CUC realized its error and reconnected the services. However, CUC refused to reconnect the third time unless the disputed amount is paid.

On Sept. 15, 2011, Kayla Palacios, a qualified individual with disabilities under the American with Disabilities Act, went to the CUC office on Tinian to apply for power and water services under her name. CUC refused to accept Kayla Palacios’ application and payment for connection fees.

On Sept, 22, 2011, the court granted the plaintiffs’ ex parte motion for temporary restraining order and commanded CUC to reconnect the plaintiffs’ power supply. CUC was also barred from disconnecting the services while the disputed billing amount has yet to be adjudicated.

CUC and Manglona, through the Office of the Attorney General, filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit.

Manglona maintains that she did not discriminate against the plaintiffs based on Kayla Palacios’ disability or in any way as to give rise to an equal protection claim.

Plaintiffs argued that dismissal is not appropriate since Manglona is not entitled to qualified immunity.

CUC moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiffs have failed to exhaust all administrative remedies.

In denying the motion, Govendo said he finds that the complaint has sufficiently alleged facts to support a claim for a violation of equal protection. Govendo said that Manglona’s motion to dismiss the third cause of action for failure to state a claim is denied.

On the jurisdiction issue, Govendo pointed out that the Superior Court has original jurisdiction over all civil actions. This case, the Govendo said, is a civil action.

Therefore, the judge said, CUC will not succeed in dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.