ATTORNEY Joseph Horey said the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s full approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine does not affect the substantive merits of the lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs against the fire department and its commissioner.
His clients are the nine former firefighters who were terminated for insubordination following their refusal to take the Covid-19 vaccine as required by the CNMI Governor’s Directive 2021-002.
On Tuesday, Superior Court Judge Joseph N. Camacho instructed the parties to file their supplemental briefs “as the posture of the case and some issues may or may have not changed.”
He ordered the parties to file their supplemental briefs on or before Aug. 31, and reminded them of the Sept. 7 deadline for their proposed orders.
Generally, the judge said, the court accommodates the parties when they need more time and grants their request for an extension of a deadline.
But because “this case has far-reaching ramification beyond the parties as it also affects the whole CNMI community it is important that the court issues its decision without unnecessary delay,” the judge added.
Therefore, he said, Sept. 7 is a hard deadline. “There will be no extension. To provide guidance, calm anxieties and address concerns for the plaintiffs and defendants as well as the CNMI community, it is imperative that the court issues its decisions.”
The nine terminated firefighters are asking the Superior Court to declare their terminations invalid and unlawful, and to set their terminations aside.
The plaintiffs are Paul Acebedo, Jose K. Angui, Allen T. Calvo, Cain C. Castro, Argenon A. Flores, Derek B. Gersonde, Shawn DLR Kaipat, Philip Kalen and Adam J. Safer.
They named as defendants the Department of Fire and Emergency Medical Services and its commissioner, Dennis Mendiola, in his official and personal capacities.
The defendants are represented by Assistant Attorneys General Keith Chambers II and Abbi Novotny, who have asked the court to deny the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction.
They said the plaintiffs cannot show that “an intrusion rising to the level of a constitutional violation occurred” because no “unconsented physical intrusion” of any kind occurred.
