CCC: IPI fails to show it will suffer irreparable injury

In response to Imperial Pacific International (CNMI) LLC’s motion for another temporary restraining order to stay revocation proceedings, the Commonwealth Casino Commission argues that IPI fails to show it will suffer irreparable harm should the commission proceed with its revocation proceedings tomorrow. Also, it says IPI fails to show it will likely win its case against the commission.

The CCC’s first argument in opposition to IPI’s motion for another TRO is that IPI fails to show it will suffer irreparable injury should it not be granted a TRO.

“The Commonwealth Administrative Procedure Act specifically authorizes the reviewing court ‘to postpone the effective date of an agency action or to preserve status or rights pending conclusion of the review proceedings’ when called for to ‘prevent irreparable injury’. In addition, the statute provides that the reviewing court may ‘set aside’ agency action found to be contrary to ‘constitutional right’ or in excess of ‘statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitation.’ Essentially, the Act specifically authorizes the reviewing court to ‘preserve status or rights pending conclusion’ of the proceeding. So, in the event paintiff is not afforded a hearing compliant with the applicable due process requirements, the reviewing court can simply order a new hearing,” said CCC.

In addition, the CCC argues that IPI fails to show it is likely to succeed in the merits of its case against the commission.

“The asserted causes of actions all arise from the same transaction—Commission Order 2021-002. The order suspended plaintiff’s gaming license and ordered plaintiff to pay the $18.65 million for the Annual License Fee and Annual Regulatory Fee, in addition to $6.6 million in penalties. Moreover, plaintiff does not allege that it was prevented or did not have a fair opportunity to litigate the issues or claims under each of the asserted causes of actions or raise affirmative defenses. Further, in the context of administrative hearings, affirmative defenses must be raised in an answer or alternatively at the agency hearing if the other party has notice or is not prejudiced. Plaintiff did not dispute and did not raise any affirmative defense for Enforcement Actions 2020-003, 2020-004, and 2020-005. Indeed, plaintiff utterly fails to offer a compelling reason as to why it should be allowed a second or third bite at the apple years later and carte blanche to prejudice defendants and the public interest,” said CCC.

Last Wednesday, IPI filed another request for a temporary restraining order to stay the CCC’s revocation proceedings, this time claiming its due process rights will be violated if not granted one.

It was only last Feb. 27 when U.S. District Court for the NMI designated judge David Carter denied IPI’s motion for a TRO against CCC, essentially allowing the commission to move forward with proceedings to revoke IPI’s casino gaming license.

Tomorrow, April 2, the CCC is set to deliberate and vote whether to revoke or not IPI’s casino gaming license.

Because of this, IPI, through lawyers Stephen Nutting and Michael Chen, is seeking a TRO to stay the proceedings and to preserve the status quo, claiming possible violation of its due process rights, “pursuant to Rule 65 (b) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.”