Zaji Zajradhara
THE CNMI Supreme Court has granted Northern Marianas College’s motion to strike Zaji Zajradhara’s opening brief and order him to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for failure to follow rules, and why his appeal should not be dismissed as “frivolous.”
Chief Justice Alexandro Castro, Justice John Manglona, and Justice Pro Tempore F. Philip Carbullido, in a five-page order issued on March 18, 2025, also ordered Zajradhara to explain in writing and without “inflammatory and vexatious language” to the court his reasoning for:
• Why he should not be sanctioned for the lack of decorum exhibited in his emails with the Clerk of Court and opposing counsel;
• Why attorney’s fees and costs should not be awarded to NMC; and
• Why he should not be considered a vexatious litigant under 7 CMC § 2451.
Additionally, Zajradhara was ordered “not to make personal attacks to opposing counsel, court staff, and members of the bench, including any inappropriate or harassing communication.”
Earlier, NMC, represented by attorney Mark Scoggins, asked the local appellate court to sanction Zajradhara with jail time as a deterrent for his “open contempt.”
Scoggins said the high court should issue an order requiring Zajradhara to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for open contempt of the court, and why he should not be sanctioned for his “frivolous” appeal.
“Mr. Zajradhara proclaims that accountability is coming, a reference to his delusional belief that President Trump is about to swoop in and make his life all better. NMC counters that accountability should be coming for Mr. Zajradhara’s open contempt, and frivolous and abusive practices,” Scoggins said.
The high court order noted that Zajradhara has been warned to follow rules of appellate procedure and failure to do so may result in the dismissal of his appeal.
“While we can excuse a minor violation of a rule, or even a few rules, we cannot, in good faith, ignore an appeal where the violations are as egregious as those Zajradhara presents,” the justices said.
They noted Zajradhara’s failure to file a timely brief, noncompliance with formatting rules, and citation violations.
“While Zajradhara cites to legal authorities,” the justices added, “the cases cited include hallucinated case law.”
The justices said Zajradhara’s “unsubstantiated personal attacks are inappropriate. Self-represented litigants are expected to conduct themselves with the same decorum, courtesy, and professionalism as those represented by counsel.”
According to the justices, they find that “Zajradhara’s actions before this Court display a consistent pattern of disregard for court rules, resources, and staff.”
The justices said a “vexatious litigant is a person appearing on their own behalf, who repeatedly files unmeritorious motions, pleadings, or other papers, conducts unnecessary discovery, or engages in other tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.”
The justices said Zajradhara has filed 41 separate documents over the life of this appeal alone.
“Most of these documents have been inexplicably duplicative. He has filed nearly every form at least twice, requiring Clerk of Court action to properly catalogue and serve each filing. Zajradhara has also filed four separate versions of his opening brief, with little to no explanation of any distinctions between the documents,” the justices said.
“Zajradhara’s most robust filings have, however, been his appellate motions. He has filed every motion before this court in duplicate or triplicate, with only one exception. This single exception still significantly incorporated the same individual arguments from prior filings. His responses and replies to NMC have equally been filled with the same repetitive requests and broad statements contained in other documents. These motions contain unmeritorious arguments, such as his request for removal of this case to federal court. Even after we have adjudicated Zajradhara’s unmeritorious motions, he consistently continues to lodge the same arguments repeatedly without acknowledging the Court’s orders,” the justices said.
Zajradhara’s actions “show a clear pattern of disrespect or disregard for the appellate process, this court, opposing party, and its counsel. His incessant filing and refiling of unmeritorious motions has cost the Supreme Court and its staff significant time chasing nonexistent caselaw, trying to parse through his submissions. Zajradhara has had five months to comport his behavior to the expectations of the legal process,” the justices added
Previously, they denied Zajradhara’s motion for temporary stay of proceedings and motion for stay of proceedings.
Zajradhara appealed the Superior Court’s previous order granting NMC’s request for a preliminary injunction “to restrain, enjoin and prohibit” him from communicating with Small Business Development Center employees by any method [and] for any reason.”
Zajradhara was also restrained and prohibited from coming within 500 yards of the SBDC or an SBDC event.
The CNMI SBDC is located at NMC and is partially funded by a cooperative agreement between the U.S. Small Business Administration and the college. The SBDC primarily provides counseling services to small businesses and sponsors events.
NMC sought a temporary restraining order against Zajradhara, who is accused of harassing SBDC employees.
NMC also sued Zajradhara for undetermined damages to be proven at trial.
NMC asked the court for a temporary restraining order and an eventual permanent injunction restraining Zajradhara from communicating with the SBDC or its employees by any method and for any reason.
Zajradhara, who is representing himself, objected to the high court’s “repeated threat of sanctions, deeming it retaliatory for attempting to assert my rights…. The threat of sanctions is unduly harsh and creates a chilling effect on his right to present his case fairly before the court.”
In federal court, Zajradhara sued NMC, demanding $100 million in damages.
Zajradhara alleged civil rights violations, denial of access to federally funded programs, public humiliation, mental anguish, pain and suffering, false allegations/slander, attempted false arrest, extortionist threats, and retaliation.
The District Court for the NMI has dismissed Zajradhara’s claims against NMC.
Designated Federal Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood also denied Zajradhara’s motion for reconsideration.
