In opposing Imperial Pacific International (CNMI) LLC\u2019s emergency motion for stay and for an injunction pending appeal, the Commonwealth Casino Commission said that an injunction cannot be granted in the absence of irreparable harm\u2014as decided by the District Court for the NMI over a week ago. <\/p>\n
Christopher M. Timmons from the Office of the Attorney General argued that IPI should be denied an injunction pending their appeal based on the first two factors: likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe first two factors the court considers in these circumstances are the most critical. Here, appellant has failed to demonstrate both likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm. On these grounds, the motion must be denied,\u201d Timmons said.<\/p>\n
Timmons further argued that IPI failed to provide the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit with enough portions of the record so it could make a meaningful review of the District Court for the NMI\u2019s decision. <\/p>\n
\u201cAppellant\u2019s incomplete filing could thus be dismissed out of hand,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Citing procedural deficiencies, Timmons said that IPI\u2019s arguments are meritless. <\/p>\n
Timmons added that IPI has not cited any case which conflicts with the District Court for the NMI\u2019s decision to deny the original request for preliminary injunction or would mandate reversal. <\/p>\n
\u201cTo justify a stay pending appeal of a lower court\u2019s decision, \u2018the applicant must meet a heavy burden of showing\u2026that the judgement of the lower court was erroneous on the merits. IPI has not done anything of the kind here,\u201d Timmons said. <\/p>\n
According to Saipan Tribune archives, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has temporarily prohibited the CCC from disclosing IPI\u2019s confidential income tax information that is subject of a legal dispute.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In opposing Imperial Pacific International (CNMI) LLC\u2019s emergency motion for stay and for an injunction…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":24,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[900],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-306161","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-featured"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/306161","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/24"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=306161"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/306161\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=306161"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=306161"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=306161"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}