In an 11-page order, Judge David A. Wiseman held that JG’s counterclaim has an independent basis for jurisdiction.
Wiseman also stated that the counterclaim is compulsory because it arose from the same transaction or occurrence as the commonwealth’s claim and therefore does not require an independent basis for jurisdiction.
The governor’s special legal counsel, Howard Willens, appeared on behalf of the government during the hearing on March 19 while attorney Michael W. Dotts represented JG.
The commonwealth earlier argued that dismissal of JG’s counterclaim was required under the law because the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of the law in the absence of an appropriate administrative hearing and decision by the Department of Public Lands secretary.
The court’s opinion of June 8, 2007 was not final and could not support the counterclaim because the court failed to file a separate document embodying the court’s judgment, the government added.
JG said the commonwealth invoked the court’s jurisdiction, and that the company does not have to rely on the court’s order because laws do not have to be reviewed by the court before they can be enforced.
Wiseman said the argument that needs to be addressed is whether court has jurisdiction to hear JG’s counterclaim.
He said the commonwealth’s reasoning is flawed when it argued that the basis for JG’s counterclaim did not even exist at the time the government filed the suit.
The judge said the CNMI trial court applied tests in determining if a counterclaim rose from the same transaction.
Wiseman said the claim and counterclaim arose out of the same set of facts, born out of the events which transpired in connection with the mining permit issued to JG that was later revoked by DPL.
“The claim and counterclaim are logically, legally and factually similar, and even if the court agreed that JG’s counterclaim does not have an independent basis for jurisdiction, the counterclaim should not be dismissed,” the court said.
The government issued a permit to JG for a 20-year term to mine pozzolan and basalt on the northern island of Pagan on Sept. 8, 1995.
The Fitial administration revoked this permit and last January the court affirmed this decision.
JG’s counterclaim seeks a declaratory judgment holding that the company paid its dues that were owed but those fees were accepted by the commonwealth.
JG also maintains that its commercial mining permit reinstated by the Legislature over the governor’s veto in 2006 is valid and in accordance with the law.
The commonwealth filed a writ of mandamus requesting the Supreme Court to vacate the order which permitted JG to amend its counterclaim pending in the trial court.
The Supreme Court issued its ruling on June 23, 2008 and stated that the trial court did not err in permitting JG to amend its answer to include a counterclaim.
