‘Public interest is not served by preventing casino law process’

Superior Court Associate Judge David A. Wiseman agrees with Gov. Eloy S. Inos and the CNMI government that public interest would not be served by granting attorney Ramon K. Quichocho’s motion for preliminary injunction that seeks to prevent the government from performing any rights and/or obligations under the casino law pending the resolution of his lawsuit.

In an order Friday that denied Quichocho’s motion, Wiseman said that granting the preliminary injunction at this stage would actually harm the public interest in that any chance of remedying the current fiscal crisis will be chased away from the initial vetting process, and the entire casino project—“albeit how contrived the laws conceiving it may be—will be dead in the water before its fiscal viability is demonstrated.”

Wiseman acknowledged and agreed with Quichocho that there is a general public interest in enjoining improper expenditures and preventing the incidental effects of corruption and government officials exceeding the scope of the authority vested in them.

The judge, however, stated that the public interest will be better served by refusing to stop the review process as it stands now, allowing the process to further proceed, and addressing Quichocho’s legal arguments and factual allegations as the present case progresses through its evolution—which may end in a monetary judgment deemed adequate to address Quichocho’s concerns.

Wiseman stressed the possibility of rendering a monetary judgment in the form of compensatory damages for Quichocho.

Wiseman agreed with Inos and the government insofar as Quichocho, to date, has only claimed monetary loss as the irreparable harm to support his motion, and “unsupported allegations to some harrowing injury to the people of the CNMI through purportedly displaced allocations of public funds.”

Wiseman said the real injury Quichocho claims is the $400,000 to be spent to hire the consultants to investigate the applicants.

Wiseman said this amount may be compensated in the form of compensatory damages as part of the ultimate disposition of the case, and thus no preliminary injunction is necessary at this stage.

Thus, the judge said, he finds that the first factor—threat of irreparable harm—does not weigh in favor of granting Quichocho’s motion for a preliminary injunction at this point.

In his motion, Quichocho claims that “unless enjoined and restrained by the court, defendants’ wrongful acts and conducts will cause…immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage because the CNMI’s health, safety, and wellbeing will continue to be compromised and jeopardized, as the [CNMI’s resources] are diverted to fund an illegal contract.”

Quichocho further argues that there is no adequate remedy at law for the injuries suffered and may continue to be suffered because it will be impossible to determine the precise amount of damage in terms of the safety, health, and well-being lost.

Inos, the CNMI government, and the Lottery Commission, through the Office of the Attorney General, argue that Quichocho merely requests relief for monetary harm, specifically the $400,000 alleged to be spent on the contracts presented, and that the lawyer only alleges conclusory and unsupported harms to CNMI citizens by way of being unable to pay for vital care at the CNMI’s only hospital, without presenting any evidence that the money alleged to be spent on the various contracts would otherwise be appropriated to the hospital.

Last June 12, Wiseman issued a two-page order that denied Quichocho’s motion for preliminary injunction. Wiseman said a more detailed decision shall be forthcoming.

The hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction was held on May 30, 2014. Quichocho appeared for himself. Assistant attorney general David Lochabay appeared for the CNMI government and for Inos in his official capacity. Assistant attorneys general Reena Patel and Teresita Sablan represented the governor in his personal capacity and for the Lottery Commission, respectively.

Quichocho filed the lawsuit for himself and on behalf of the CNMI taxpayers, challenging the constitutionality of the casino law.

He is suing Inos, the CNMI government, and the Lottery Commission for alleged violation of the CNMI Constitution, illegal expenditure of public funds, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of trust.

Quichocho asked the court to issue a judgment declaring the casino law and any expenditure of public funds under that law unconstitutional and unlawful.

Quichocho argued, among other things, that the Commonwealth Casino Commission and not the Lottery Commission is the sole authority to expend the $2 million in non-refundable application fees.