Ex-law clerk moves to strike Naraja’s motion to dismiss

The former law clerk of Superior Court Presiding Judge Roberto Naraja, who accuses the judge of spying on him virtually even after his contract had already expired, is asking court to strike the presiding judge’s motion to dismiss his lawsuit.

Robert Mang, who is suing Naraja for allegedly spying on him virtually, has moved to strike the judge’s motion for dismissal on the grounds of misstatement of law.

According to Mang’s motion, Naraja cited the wrong restatement in his motion to dismiss.

“Defendant cited to the Restatement of Torts published in 1965. Updates for Physical and Emotional Harm were published in 2009 and 2012. It creates a material difference because the defendant relies on a requirement for illness or bodily harm in the earlier version of the Restatement of Torts. However, the newer version of the Restatement of Torts allows for recovery for serious emotional disturbance under the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress,” he said.

Mang argues that the seriousness of the material misstatement of law cannot be understated.

“Presiding Judge Naraja, through Attorney General [Edward] Manibusan and the chief of his Civil Division made the material misstatement of law in a court filing seeking to have a pro se civil rights case dismissed,” he said

Because of this alleged misstatement, Mang is asking the Superior Court strike the entire motion to dismiss because the defense’s assertion “relies on a material misstatement of law and, because there is no other sanction available, striking the motion to dismiss is warranted.”

“As no other sanction is available, the plaintiff respectfully requests that the court strike the entire motion to dismiss as well as the subsequent motions to dismiss because they incorporated the same material misstatement of law. If plaintiff’s ongoing spying accusations are accurate, defendant was aware that it was repeating the same misstatement of law in the subsequent filings,” said Mang.

Superior Court judge pro tem Arthur Barcinas is set to hear both party’s arguments in a motion hearing today.

According to Mang’s lawsuit, his employer extensively spied on him, even after his employment contract had already expired.

“It started as work-from-home monitoring in or about June 2021 and is still ongoing despite my clerkship concluding in October 2021. The CNMI overlooked the need to disclose the lack of expectation of privacy in their personal manual, my contract, or on the laptop itself. They gained access to my internet in Maryland by duping my elderly parents into joining the scheme,” Mang said.

Mang alleges that the Superior Court has mostly used the spying to contact 22 other judges he interviewed with during and after his clerkship.

“I can only speculate about their motives, but it appears the Superior Court is offended that I overlooked disclosing that I had failed the bar exam to Presiding Judge Naraja and by my desire to cut the clerkship short. It is difficult to even speculate about why they continued for so long or why they would believe that to be a lawful means of redressing their issues with me,” he said.

As relief, Mang wants the court to award him actual damages, general damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, treble damages, and other relief the court finds appropriate.

In addition, the plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for his injuries, including a breach of fiduciary duties, mental agony, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, continued emotional distress, medical care, lost earnings, and diminished future earnings in an amount to be proven at trial.

Mang also seeks non-economic damages for lost wages, pain and suffering, mental agony, loss of enjoyment of life and diminished future earnings

Lastly, the plaintiff seeks punitive damages, in an amount to be proven at trial, for the court’s bad faith, intentional or negligent infliction of emotion distress, breach of contract, and displaying actual malice while acting recklessly.