AG not asking for TRO in lawsuit against pay hike

Attorney General Edward Manibusan has clarified that he is not asking for a temporary restraining order in his lawsuit against Finance Secretary Larrisa Larson to stop her from paying the governor, lieutenant governor, and lawmakers the salary increases provided in Public Law 19-83.

Manibusan, through assistant attorney general Michael Witry, filed Friday a notice of errata to make a correction that will confirm the Superior Court’s understanding that he is not asking for a TRO.

Witry said Manibusan is also not seeking an accelerated motion timeline in the lawsuit.

Witry made the clarification after Superior Court Presiding Judge Robert C. Naraja issued an order on Friday directing Manibusan to clarify whether he is seeking an accelerated timeline on his motion or if he is seeking a TRO.

Naraja said that in his notice of motion, Manibusan stated he was moving under NMI Rules of Civil Procedure 65(b), titled “Temporary Restraining Order; notice; hearing; duration.”

However, Naraja said, the AG’s motion and supporting memorandum does not request a TRO.

The judge noted that there is significant overlap between NMI Rules of Civil Procedure 65(a), titled “Preliminary Injunction,” and NMI Rules of Civil Procedure 65(b).

Currently, Naraja said, the court is of the impression that Manibusan is not requesting a TRO and is not requesting an accelerated motion timeline.

Yet, Naraja said, out of an abundance of caution, he would like Manibusan to clarify his position.

Naraja also stated that the court anticipates that Larson will need a separate lawyer to represent her in the lawsuit.

The judge said the statute provides that the AG generally acts as counsel for “all departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of the Commonwealth,” subject to the availability of funds.

Naraja said the statute also provides that separate outside counsel may be retained.

In this case, Naraja said, it seems likely that Larson would need separate legal counsel.

Naraja ordered that the parties indicate how they plan to proceed in light of the foregoing statutory provision.

In Manibusan’s notice and response, Witry said in regards to Naraja’s concern regarding legal representation, the OAG is cognizant of the conflict and confirms that the Office of the Attorney General will not provide representation to Larson.

Manibusan’s lawsuit alleges that Public Law 19-83, which provided the salary increases, is unconstitutional because the Advisory Commission that recommended the increase was not validly constituted, and that such the increase recommended by the commission for the Legislature exceeded the change in an “accepted price index” since the last time the salary was adjusted.

Manibusan asked the court to issue preliminary and permanent injunctions to prevent Larson from implementing the law.