Michael J. Gioda v. Saipan Stevedoring Company, Inc.

855 F.2d 625 Michael J. GIODA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SAIPAN STEVEDORING COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellant. No. 86-2435. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Aug. 13, 1987. Decided Aug. 18, 1988. Thomas C. Sterling, Klemm, Blair, Sterling & Johnson, Agana, Guam, for defendant-appellant. Douglas F. Cushnie, Saipan, CM, for plaintiff-appellee. Upon transfer from the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands (Appellate Division). Before POOLE, KOZINSKI and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges. O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge: 1 We are presented with a question of first impression involving the appellate jurisdictions of the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands and of this court. The appellate division of the district court determined that a statutory change enacted while this appeal was pending divested it of jurisdiction. It consequently ordered transfer of the matter to this court. 2 We conclude that we must reject transfer because the appellate division may indeed hear this appeal. We therefore remand for further proceedings. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS 3 Gioda worked for Saipan Stevedoring Company, Inc. ("Saisteve") as a night security guard at…

We are presented with a question of first impression involving the appellate jurisdictions of the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands and of this court. The appellate division of the district court determined that a statutory change enacted while this appeal was pending divested it of jurisdiction. It consequently ordered transfer of the matter to this court.

We conclude that we must reject transfer because the appellate division may indeed hear this appeal. We therefore remand for further proceedings.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

Gioda worked for Saipan Stevedoring Company, Inc. (“Saisteve”) as a night security guard at Commercial Point, Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (C.N.M.I.). While he was on duty, he was shot.

Gioda brought a negligence suit in the trial division of the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands against Saisteve, claiming $250,000 damages. At the time, only the district court could hear the case; the Commonwealth Trial Court’s jurisdiction did not extend to matters involving local law in which the amount in controversy exceeded $5000. See C.N.M.I. Const., Art. IV, § 2. The jury returned a verdict for Gioda awarding him…

dissenting.

I disagree with little in the majority’s scholarly and well-reasoned opinion — except the bottom line. While the court’s *631 logic is flawless, it reaches a result that is difficult to square with judicial efficiency and common sense. The court is sending the case to the Appellate Division of the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, 5,625 miles away, whence it will inevitably sail back to us across the Pacific. On its return, the case will appear in precisely the same posture as it does today; we will owe the appellate division’s opinion no deference. Guam v. Yang, 850 F.2d 507, 511 (9th Cir.1988) (en banc). The net effect will be the multiplication of attorney’s fees and airfares for the litigants, and additional work for the three appellate division judges and three other judges of this court who will have to address an issue that stands fully briefed and argued and ready for decision by us today.

If the law were clear and there were no way of avoiding such an absurd result, I would have to go along with this transoceanic badminton match. But the law is not clear. As the majority aptly notes, this is the forgotten case, the situation Congress simply…