FORMER Superior Court law clerk Robert Edward Mang III wants the court to issue an order striking Presiding Judge Robert Naraja and the Office of the Attorney General’s motion to dismiss Mang’s lawsuit.
Mang made the request under Rule 11 “for material misstatement of law due to monetary sanctions being unavailable.”
On Dec. 29, 2022, Mang filed a complaint seeking damages, among other things, under the Americans with Disabilities Act against the presiding judge in his official capacity.
Mang was Judge Naraja’s law clerk from Oct. 2020 to Oct. 2021.
Mang’s lawsuit alleges violations of the ADA, breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Mang, who represents himself, is asking the court for an order awarding him an unspecified amount of damages and legal costs.
Judge Naraja, represented by Assistant Attorney General Alison Nelson, has requested the court to dismiss the complaint, saying that “the court lacks personal jurisdiction over plaintiff’s complaint because plaintiff failed to properly serve the Presiding Judge with the summons and complaint.”
Moreover, Nelson said, the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s tort claims because “plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by failing to present his claims to the Attorney General prior to filing a lawsuit and because certain remedies sought by plaintiff are barred by the Government Liability Act.”
In addition, she said “plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and fails to meet the liberal pleading standard under Rule 8(a).”
Mang is requesting the court to strike the motion to dismiss because “the defense…relies on a material misstatement of law.”
He said he is not seeking monetary sanction.
“As no other sanction is available, plaintiff respectfully requests that the court strike the entire motion to dismiss as well as the subsequent motions to dismiss because they incorporated the same material misstatement of law. If plaintiff’s on-going spying accusations are accurate, defendant was aware that it was repeating the same misstatement of law in the subsequent filings,” Mang said.
He also accuses the defense of having ex-parte communications with the court.
Ex-parte communication is “any communication between a party to a legal proceeding and the judge or juror, without the knowledge or presence of the other party.”
Judge Pro Tem Arthur Barcinas has scheduled a hearing for Tuesday, Nov. 28 at 10 a.m.
Previously, AG Edward Manibusan certified that Judge Naraja was “acting within the scope of [his] office or employment at the time of and in connection with alleged incidents out of which the claims in plaintiff’s amended complaint arose.”
