A CLASS action lawsuit against the local government alleging racial discrimination and violation of voter rights may soon be heard before District Court of Guam Chief Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood, if the plaintiff – Arnold “Dave” Davis – files a reply to the government's response to a motion by Aug. 23.
The Chief Judge issued the order last week, indicating that once Davis files his reply, the court will review it and thereafter schedule the matter for a hearing.
Davis, who is suing the local government claiming he was denied from registering in the Decolonization Registry which was to be used for a plebiscite on Guam's political status, wants his case to proceed to trial despite a magistrate judge's recommendation for a dismissal and the government's request for a delay.
The magistrate judge recommended a dismissal of the case on the grounds that the matter was not ripe enough for judicial review.
The government, meanwhile, argued that Davis has not “adequately alleged an actual injury-in-fact sufficient for this court's exercise of subject matter jurisdiction.”
Depending on the strength of the parties' arguments, the court may assess for itself whether it has subject matter jurisdiction. If the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the controversy in question, the government stated, discovery should be stayed.
No plebiscite
The government further argued that Davis even contributes to the fact that a plebiscite is nowhere near happening, and despite Davis' suggestion that “he may find government officials in order to contradict himself,” the government deemed it “simply abusive” as a kind of mischief at government expense.
“Significantly, and despite Mr. Davis' unattributed hearsay from government officials, there is no legally established date setting the plebiscite in 2014 or any other year in the immediate future, and it is Mr. Davis who makes the best argument on that particular fact,” the government wrote.
Meanwhile, although Davis has sought a political science professor as an expert witness and argued that the government would “bask in the luxury of frozen time” if their motion to stay discovery were granted, the government saw no necessity in seeking an expert witness.
Davis on Friday filed a notice of designation of expert witness Dr. Tom Brunell, senior associate dean of graduate education from the University of Texas in Dallas.
“Because the legal issues presented by plaintiff’s facial attack on Guam statutes are straightforward questions of law, defendants have not engaged an expert, nor did they have reason to even look for one before seeing what Mr. Davis’ expert had to say,” the government stated. “Now that they have seen it, defendants are even more convinced that expert testimony will not be necessary.”
