District court extends TRO

The U.S District Court for the NMI ordered an extension for the temporary restraining order granted by the Superior Court in the lawsuit filed by Imperial Pacific International (CNMI) LLC and its subsidiaries against the Commonwealth Casino Commission.

U.S. District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona ruled yesterday to extend further Superior Court Associate Judge Kenneth Govendo’s TRO that expired yesterday. The TRO had already been extended once.

In a phone conference with Manglona yesterday, she found good cause to extend the TRO, saying that CCC would not suffer damage if it is prohibited from releasing the consolidated audited financial statements of IPI and its subsidiaries, Grand Marianas (CNMI) LLC and Imperial Pacific Properties LLC, until a preliminary injunction is ruled upon.

“Having considered the arguments of both counsels, the court finds at this time good cause to extend the TRO. Without an extension, the closeness in timing of removal and the expiration of the state court TRO would effectively prevent plaintiff from obtaining a decision on the merits of the case,” she said.

Manglona was also persuaded to grant the extension of the TRO on other grounds, including irreparable harm to IPI if the financial information is released and because denial of the TRO would moot the case.

Manglona extended the TRO to Aug. 2, 2019.

IPI, its subsidiaries, and CCC are scheduled to return to the district court on July 30 to argue their stance on the merits of the case and whether a preliminary injunction is necessary.

At the district court hearing, IPI lawyer Phillip Tydingco argued that there is good cause to extend the expired TRO as the local court would not have granted a TRO in the first place if good cause did not exist.

Also, Tydingco argued that the case was removed from the CNMI Superior Court to the federal court just two days before the local court was scheduled to release its decision on a preliminary injunction in the case, so it’s only fair to give IPI the chance to present why they feel strongly against the removal of the case and that would not be possible without the extension.

“Because the question here is not whether the TRO should have been issued, but whether the court decides if there’s good cause for our extension. We submit that the state court found that the TRO was properly granted indeed. Another basis of good cause is that, now that this case has been removed, we should be given sufficient opportunity and time to present our position on removal. Otherwise, if the TRO is not extended, then this opportunity to be fairly heard on this matter is thwarted by virtue of a removal that was filed two days before a decision,” he said.

Assistant attorney general Benjamin Petersburg argued that the removal was proper as it satisfied the requirements of being filed 30 days after the initial pleading was submitted to the court.

Petersburg said that because IPI filed their pleadings on June 24, CCC’s last day to file for removal was the July 23 and although it was sudden, it was within the deadline requirement.

Petersburg filed the notice of removal on July 23 removing the matter from the Superior Court, where IPI had initially filed the petition for a preliminary injunction, to the district court.

The OAG wants the lawsuit that IPI and its subsidiaries filed against the commission moved to the U.S. District Court for the NMI, believing that the federal court has original jurisdiction over the matter.