High Court issues procedural ruling in Owens v. CHC

On Wednesday, June 8, 2011 the Commonwealth Supreme Court issued a procedural ruling in Owens v. Commonwealth Health Center, interpreting the revised Northern Mariana Islands Supreme Court Rules (effective Jan. 13, 2010).

Plaintiff Alvin Owens appealed a final judgment of the CNMI Superior Court on March 12, 2008. Several days later, the defendant Commonwealth Health Center filed a notice of cross appeal. CHC’s initial deadline to file its cross appeal brief was July 8, 2010. CHC asked the Court for an extension of time to file its brief, and the Supreme Court Clerk of Court granted the extension. CHC’s filing deadline was reset to Aug. 9, 2010. CHC did not file its brief by Aug. 9, nor did it ask the Court for another extension. On Aug. 30—21 days after the filing deadline lapsed—CHC filed its cross appeal brief along with a separate motion to file a late brief. The Supreme Court Clerk rejected CHC’s motion.

CHC subsequently filed a second motion asking a single justice to review the Clerk’s denial, arguing that the Clerk lacked the authority to rule on its motion. A single justice reviewed CHC’s second motion and issued an order on Nov. 1, 2010, upholding the Clerk’s denial of CHC’s first motion. CHC then filed a third motion asking all three justices to reconsider the second motion.

In considering CHC’s third motion, the full Court determined that the Clerk had no authority to deny CHC’s first motion once the filing deadline lapsed on Aug. 9. The Court further held that, under the circumstances, all three justices were required to review CHC’s first motion.

In weighing the merits of CHC’s first motion, the full Court stated that according to the Supreme Court Rules, motions to file late briefs are “highly disfavored” under certain circumstances. As CHC allowed its filing deadline to lapse when it could have asked for another extension of time, the Court held that CHC’s first motion was highly disfavored. The Court noted that the “highly disfavored” standard was added to the Supreme Court Rules in January 2010 and that it was unique to the CNMI.

The Court further held that, generally speaking, the “highly disfavored” standard meant that the Court would not grant motions to file late briefs unless the cause of the late filing was beyond the control of the party asking for more time. The Court found that the assistant attorney general tasked with filing the cross appeal brief had knowingly allowed the filing deadline to lapse. On this ground, the Court determined that CHC could not overcome the “highly disfavored” standard. Accordingly, the Court denied CHC’s motion to file a late brief.

The Supreme Court’s full opinion is Owens v. Commonwealth Health Center, 2011 MP 6, and can be found at http://www.cnmilaw.org/supreme_11.htm.[I] (CNMI Judiciary)[/I]