Court yet to rule on IPI’s emergency TRO

All Commonwealth Casino Commission commissioners and Gov. Arnold I. Palacios have been served notices of Imperial Pacific International (CNMI) LLC’s second request for a temporary restraining order to stay the ongoing revocation proceedings. Meanwhile, the court has yet to issue a ruling on IPI’s emergency request for a TRO.

CCC chair Edward C. Deleon Guerrero; vice chair Rafael S. Demapan; commissioners Mariano Taitano, Martin Mendiola, and Ramon M. Dela Cruz; CCC executive director Andrew Yeom; and Palacios were served notices of IPI’s second request for a TRO against the proceedings to revoke IPI’s casino gaming license.

Meanwhile, the court has decided to rule on IPI’s request for a TRO based on the briefs submitted by all parties instead of setting a motion hearing on the matter.

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.

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

Because of this, IPI, through lawyers Stephen Nutting and Michael Chen, is again 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.”

The temporary restraining order seeks to bar the CCC from proceeding with deliberation and voting for the revocation hearing of IPI’s casino license on April 2.

According to the 28-page memorandum in support of the TRO, IPI argues that its due process rights were violated because four of the five CCC commissioners served as the hearing officers in the revocation proceedings (despite oral motions made by IPI that they be disqualified).

In addition, IPI argues that having these hearing officers violates IPI’s due process rights because these commissioners have significant personal interests in the outcome of the proceedings.

IPI also argues that the CCC, with the five commissioners as the voting members for the revocation hearing, is ill-fitted to adjudicate the complex legal issues for two reasons: potential conflict of interests and institutional incompetency and lack of resources.

Because of this, IPI argues that the decision whether to revoke IPI’s casino gaming license should be made by a court.

In addition, IPI claims that if the deliberation proceedings move forward, with all five commissioners as decisionmakers, the revocation of IPI’s license would be a virtual certainty.

IPI has two pending lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the NMI, which claims the CCC lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate claims arising from the Casino License Agreement.

According to IPI’s lawsuit, IPI committed in 2014 to a long-term investment of $3.14 billion to the CNMI for the development of a casino and hotel complex after the parent company of IPI, Best Sunshine International Ltd., was awarded an exclusive license to operate a casino in CNMI.

Plaintiff’s commitment was memorialized in the CLA between IPI and CNMI, which was represented by CNMI’s Lottery Commission and its acting attorney general.

Under the CLA, the authority of the Lottery Commission ceased and the Office of the Governor and the Commonwealth Casino Commission became charged with implementing and enforcing the CLA.

Under the CLA, IPI is required to pay an annual license fee of $15 million.

IPI now claims that, despite the significant license fee it already paid, the CNMI went around the CLA and enacted by statute and regulation an annual “regulatory fee” of over $3 million to be paid by IPI above and beyond its annual license fee.