Manglona denies bid to amend her order that dismissed lawsuit

The federal court has denied an investor’s motion to amend the dismissal order in his lawsuit against attorney Ramon K. Quichocho and landowner Joaquin Q. Atalig.

In denying Sin Ho Nam’s motion, U.S. District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona said the record does not show any intention for the court to retain jurisdiction after the dismissal of the case.

“The parties’ themselves did not ask the court to retain settlement enforcement authority when they stipulated to dismiss the case with prejudice,” said Manglona in a written order issued last week.

Nam sued Quichocho and Atalig for breaching a land lease agreement when they terminated a 55-year lease less than two years later despite having already paid $218,000.

U.S. District Court for the NMI visiting judge Mark W. Bennett found Quichocho and Atalig liable to Nam for breach of contract.

Bennett stated in his order that Nam’s remedies or question of damages and the entirety of his claim for breach of fiduciary duty against Quichocho will proceed to trial.

On Sept. 12, 2011, attorneys Colin Thompson and Michael Dotts, counsel for Nam and Quichocho respectively, moved to dismiss all claims and counterclaims after reaching a settlement. The terms of the settlement were not publicly disclosed.

Manglona dismissed the lawsuit on Oct. 18, 2011, following the parties’ agreement.

On Nov. 15, 2011, Nam, through Thompson, asked the court to enforce the settlement agreement.

On Dec. 27, 2011, Manglona denied Nam’s motion to enforce the agreement due to lack of jurisdiction. Manglona said a court has jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement only if it expressly retained such jurisdiction or otherwise embodied the settlement contract in the dismissal order.

Last month, Nam asked the court to amend the dismissal order. Thompson said the amendment is needed so that the court can enforce the settlement.

In her order last week, Manglona said a court has authority to correct a mistake arising from an oversight or omission whenever one is found in an order. Manglona said that Nam asserts that the failure to expressly retain jurisdiction was just an oversight or omission.

While Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(a) allows a court to correct some of its own errors, Manglona said that it does not allow it to fix the parties’ own mistakes.