Previous Story
NMI asks for dismissal, says US reply ‘too long’
|
Posted on Jan 29 2009
Lawyers for the CNMI have asked the Washington D.C. Federal District Court to dismiss the U.S. government’s latest reply to the federalization lawsuit because the United States’ brief exceeded the number of pages allowed.
On Friday, lawyers for the U.S. government filed their latest motion to dismiss the federalization lawsuit. The reply was 33 pages long— eight more than the 25-page maximum. The United States failed to ask for a page extension beforehand.
“The length of defendants’ reply grossly exceeds the limits imposed by Local Civ. R. 7(e),” lawyers for the CNMI wrote. “It also raises new arguments for the first time, to which the Commonwealth has had no opportunity to respond. Accordingly, the court should strike the reply.”
Also, the CNMI lawyers asked the court to schedule a hearing as soon as possible regarding the United States’ arguments in their motion to dismiss the suit, which seeks to block the implementation of the Immigration and Nationality Act to federalize local immigration laws. The new law, unless delayed, will go into effect June 1.
For their part, lawyers for the U.S. government said that filing the 33-page brief was not deliberate. It was a mistake made by the undersigned counsel, who consulted the page limit rules several weeks before and thought it was 35, not 25, according to the U.S.’ reply. Lawyers for the U.S. did not realize the mistake until the CNMI filed their motion to strike, the motion stated.
However, the U.S. has asked the court to grant a page extension and accept the 33-page reply because, the lawyers said, the CNMI brought up additional arguments in their last reply that was not in the initial complaint.
Pursuant to local rule, the counsel for the United States called the CNMI lawyers before filing the motion asking for the extension, according to the U.S.’ motion. When asked to identify the new arguments brought up by the U.S. government, the lawyers for the CNMI declined. During a follow-up phone call, lawyers for the CNMI identified three new arguments, which the U.S. denies, according to the motion.
The United States does not object to setting oral arguments in the case.
