In Sept. 2009, Chief Judge Alex Munson denied attorney Bruce Jorgensen’s motion for an expedited hearing on the case representing anonymous retirees identified only as Jane Roe and John Doe.
These retirees want the local pension agency placed under receivership to free it from political influence.
In his decision, Munson told Jorgensen he can file another motion for an expedited hearing when all the parties named in the case have answered.
More than a dozen people were named as defendants, including Gov. Benigno R. Fitial and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.
In several briefs he filed in federal court late on Dec. 29, 2009, Jorgensen said the anonymity of his clients should not be an issue citing the case of Roe v. Wade.
“Those seeking to maintain anonymity in this proceeding — at least until such time as the court disposes the matter of class certification19 — have far more at stake than labor complaints,” said Jorgensen.
“Moreover, the claims at issue here impact a far broader and wide-reaching societal segment, with exponentially greater potential for governmental retribution as to plaintiffs and their CNMI situated relatives,” he added. “Given this circumstance, there is near certainty that one plaintiff shall withdraw from this proceeding should anonymity be precluded at this time by the court.”
The case of Jane Roe, et al, versus Henry Wade, district attorney of Dallas County, was the 1973 landmark decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court legalizing abortion.
The high court sided with the plaintiffs, who were anonymous.
Jorgensen is asking the federal court to schedule a hearing on the Retirement Fund on Jan. 14. 2010.
He also filed opposition to the defendants’ motions to dismiss the case; a cross-motion to compel and for additional relief; and a cross-motion for receivership, equitable accounting, judgment on creditor’s bill, equitable injunctive relief and class action certification.
“First and foremost is the necessity of appointing an equity receiver to initiate an equitable accounting while simultaneously invoking measures to expeditiously, aggressively, vigorously and without CNMI/Board/Fund political subservience or constraint, engage in non-collusive, independent, arms-length, and bona fide activities designed to enforce and collect upon the $231 million judgment,” he said.
“In facilitating this necessity, the court may unequivocally fashion such equitable or remedial relief as appropriate, including but not limited to issuing a creditor’s bill, providing affirmative/prohibitive injunctive measures, providing declaratory relief, or otherwise,” he added.
The Retirement Fund won by default its lawsuit against the CNMI government. Last year, the Superior Court awarded the agency $231 million in unpaid contributions as of April 2009.
The cash-strapped CNMI government wants the Fund to be paid based on its available resources.
