Houston said the CNMI government, which plaintiff Mary Frink named as defendant, was right in its argument that the federal court has no jurisdiction over the case.
Frink filed her case in federal court on Jan. 20 on grounds that the CNMI government violated her Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by taking her property without just compensation.
She is seeking just compensation for her property, which at the time of taking in 2000, was valued at $75,498.80, including interest, costs and attorneys’ fees.
The CNMI government then filed a motion to dismiss Frink’s case on grounds that she has no cause of action arising directly under the U.S. Constitution or that of the CNMI and that she has not exhausted all local court procedures available to her.
The judge ruled in favor of the CNMI’s third argument.
“Defendant’s third argument challenges this court’s jurisdiction to entertain plaintiff’s claim. For the reasons set forth below, the court grants defendant’s motion to dismiss on ground that this court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claim at this time,” the judge wrote in his order.
The CNMI said other plaintiffs brought their case to the local court before proceeding to the federal court.
Frink’s case, however, can still be re-filed as the judge dismissed it without prejudice.
The judge said the Fifth Amendment does not require that compensation be paid prior to the taking or at the time of the taking.
He cited the case of Williamson County Regional Planning Commission versus the Hamilton Bank of Johnson City wherein the U.S. Supreme Court held that the applicable state law allowed a property owner to bring an inverse condemnation action to obtain just compensation in state court.
“Because plaintiff had not utilized that procedure nor shown such procedure to be inadequate prior to filing a claim to federal court, the court found the takings claim was not ripe,” the visiting judge added.
