ASSISTANT Attorney General Keisha Blaise has asked the federal court to dismiss Imperial Pacific International’s lawsuit against the Commonwealth Casino Commission with prejudice.
In a 24-page motion to dismiss, Blaise, who represents the commission, said IPI’s lawsuit should be dismissed for four reasons: (1) this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims as all its causes of action are barred by the doctrine of res judicata; (2) IPI has failed to properly serve defendant; (3) IPI fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted because its claims are untimely and barred by the statute of limitations; and (4) IPI fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted because the commission lacks the capacity to sue and be sued.
IPI’s civil complaint against CCC alleges breach of the casino license agreement or CLA.
IPI, through attorneys Stephen Nutting and Michael Chen, sued CCC for unconstitutional impairment of contract and violation of the contracts clause of the U.S. and CNMI constitutions.
The lawsuit also alleges violation of the takings clause, and violation of the due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
IPI, which demands a jury trial, wants the District Court for the NMI to issue a declaration stating that IPI is exempt from or not subject to the terms of the regulatory fee because of the express terms of the CLA entered into by IPI and CNMI prior to the enactment of the annual regulatory fee statute.
IPI also wants the court to issue an injunction against CCC to prevent the enforcement of the regulatory fee statute and the collection of the annual regulatory fee; or mandate that CCC exempts IPI from the annual regulatory fee, given the express terms of the CLA entered into by IPl and CNMI prior to the enactment of the annual regulatory fee statute.
In addition, IPI requested the court to issue a declaration stating that the regulatory fee statute, as applied to IPI, is unconstitutional.
IPI likewise wants the court to order CCC to pay restitution for all the regulatory fees paid by IPI in the past.
Res judicata
But according to CCC, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over IPI’s claims.
Blaise said IPI’s claims are all barred by the doctrine of res judicata. “Res judicata, also known as claim preclusion, bars litigation in a subsequent action of any claims that were raised or could have been raised in the prior action.”
She said “IPI seeks to relitigate matters that were previously addressed in prior enforcement actions.”
Blaise noted that the constitutional issues raised by IPI in this new case could have been presented as a defense in the initial action before the commission.
But “IPI did not avail of that opportunity,” she added.
As a result, IPI is barred from presenting “all defenses that could have been asserted in a previous action between the same parties on the same cause of action, even if such contentions were not raised,” Blaise said.
“The principles of judicial efficiency, fairness, and the finality of prior judgments support the dismissal of these current actions with prejudice. The Commission, a forum of competent jurisdiction, decided on the merits. Later, that decision was affirmed by the Superior Court and the NMI Supreme Court. Therefore, IPI’s attempt to circumvent the principle of finality by bringing up a previously available defense in this new action should not be rewarded and this Court should dismiss this action with prejudice,” Blaise said.
