Woodruff admits clients have no unified position

Attorney Stephen Woodruff has admitted that his clients-a group that is suing Department of Homeland Secretary Janet Napolitano and other federal officials over the implementation and enforcement of the CNMI-only transitional worker Final Rule-have not come to a unified position about the future direction of the lawsuit.

Woodruff said yesterday that experience since U.S. District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona denied their motion for preliminary injunction has been a realization of irreparable harms to businesses and foreign workers, if not to plaintiffs.

Woodruff added that there has been endless frustration with the continuing (and in some senses increasing) botched implementation by Department of Homeland Security (and the U.S. Department of State) of the transition to federal immigration.

The lawyer issued the statements in response to Saipan Tribune’s request for comments regarding a senior U.S. Department of Justice’s lawyer’s disclosure that the plaintiffs do not seem to be interested in pursuing the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs in the case are Bonifacio V. Sagana, Manuel T. Vilaga, Gerardo G. De Guzman, Hector T. Sevilla, Carlito J. Marquez, Eduardo M. Elenzano, and Jong Ho Lee.

The respondents are Napolitano, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services District Director David Gulick, U.S. Labor Secretary Hilda L. Solis, and U.S. Department of Labor District Director Terrence Trotter.

The plaintiffs’ lawsuit challenges the implementation and enforcement of the CW Final Rule, which according to Woodruff, is both procedurally and substantially defective.

Theodore W. Atkinson, a senior litigation counsel of the DOJ’s Civil Division, has informed the district court that the cost of flying from Washington, D.C. to Saipan for the hearing in person is not justified since the plaintiffs do not seem interested in pursuing their case.

Atkinson said the plaintiffs have been given four separate extensions of time to file an amended complaint but they have not done so to date.

Woodruff said the injury that needs redress is actually of much larger scope than the current lawsuit.

“The difficulty is determining how to deal with that situation, because the complaint clearly needs amendment, including possible joinder and dropping of parties,” Woodruff added.