Woodruff’s motion to allow him to continue as counsel denied

U.S. District Court for the NMI designated judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood has denied disbarred lawyer Stephen Woodruff’s motion to modify the court’s disbarment order so as to allow him to continue as counsel for former Commonwealth Health Center medical staff Dr. Gary Ramsey, who filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against the CNMI government, the Commonwealth Healthcare Corp., and others.

At a status conference last Friday, Woodruff appeared on behalf of Dr. Ramsey. Attorney Christopher Timmons appeared on behalf of defendant Jeanolivia Grant. Assistant attorney general Tom Schweiger appeared on behalf of defendant CHCC.

According to the minutes of the conference, Tydingco-Gatewood cited her ruling in the disbarment order in denying Woodruff’s request to modify.

Last month, Tydingco-Gatewood disbarred Woodruff from practice of law before the District Court. In her order issued on Thursday imposing CNMI courts reciprocal discipline of disbarment, Tydingco-Gatewood said Woodruff was given fair notice and an opportunity to be heard by the CNMI courts.

During Friday’s status conference, Tydingco-Gatewood also granted CHCC’s and co-defendants’ motion to stay proceedings until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issues the mandate in connection with defendants’ appeal.

Last month, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the CNMI retained its sovereign immunity with respect to claims arising under Commonwealth law.

“In short, we hold that the Commonwealth may not be sued without its consent on claims arising under its own laws,” according to the Ninth Circuit opinion penned by Judge Paul J. Watford and concurred by Judges J. Clifford Walace and Jerome Farris.

The Ninth Circuit judges discussed the sovereign immunity issue in their opinion that reversed the U.S. District Court for the NMI’s ruling in connection with Ramsey’s lawsuit.

The judges remanded the case to the U.S. District Court for the NMI and directed it to grant the Commonwealth’s motion to dismiss the claims at issue in this appeal. The Ninth Circuit has yet to issue mandate pertaining to its ruling.

At the status conference on Friday, Tydingco-Gatewood gave Ramsey permission to move to lift the stay of proceeding if the Ninth Circuit grants his motion for panel rehearing.

Tydingco-Gatewood denied as moot Ramsey’s emergency motion to prohibit defendant Grant from leaving the CNMI.

Timmons informed the court that Grant is already in the U.S. mainland and will make herself available for deposition there.

Ramsey, through counsel Woodruff, alleges in his lawsuit that the Commonwealth and the public corporation that runs CHC wrongfully denied him privileges at the hospital.

Ramsey named as defendants in his lawsuit the CNMI government, CHCC, CHCC chief executive officer Esther Muna, and several other present and former hospital officials.

On May 29, 2015, the court dismissed the CNMI government and CHC from the four claims in Ramsey’s lawsuit.

The court dismissed with prejudice the CNMI government and CHCC from Ramsey’s four claims: declaratory and injunctive relief—unlawful deprivation of property without due process of law, two claims of damages—unlawful deprivation of property without due process of law, and a claim of damages—unlawful deprivation of liberty and property without due process of law. Dismissed with prejudice means Ramsey could not re-file the four claims in the future.

The court also dismissed with prejudice Ramsey’s two other claims: violation of U.S. Constitution and violation of CNMI Constitution.

The dismissal leaves four causes of action to remain in the lawsuit: breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and liability of CNMI government.

The CNMI government and co-defendants, through then-Office of the Attorney General Solicitor Division chief James M. Zarones, appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

Zarones initiated the appeal from the court’s order, which held that the defendants are not entitled to sovereign immunity.