Betty Johnson, on behalf of herself v. ELOY S. INOS, Governor of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BETTY JOHNSON, on behalf of herself,
and as representative of a class of similarly
situated persons,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ELOY S. INOS, Governor of the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands; ADELINA C. ROBERTO, Fund
Trustee and Vice Chairwoman; NACRINA
BARINAS, Fund Trustee; RICHARD S.
VILLAGOMEZ, Fund Administrator;
LARISSA LARSON, Acting Secretary of
CNMI Finance Department; CNMI
GOVERNMENT; NORTHERN
MARIANA ISLANDS RETIREMENT
FUND; NORTHERN MARIANA
ISLANDS RETIREMENT FUND
BOARD OF TRUSTEES; CNMI
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE; CNMI
DOES, 1-95 in their official and personal
capacities,
Defendants - Appellees,
v.
No. 13-17241
D.C. No. 1:09-cv-00023
MEMORANDUM*
FILED
OCT 19 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

JANET U. MARATITA, Proposed
Intervenor; JESUS I. TAISAGUE,
Proposed Intervenor,
Movants - Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of the Northern Mariana Islands
Frances Tydingco-Gatewood, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 15, 2015**
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The parties are familiar with the facts of the case and we do not repeat them
here. Proposed intervenors Janet U. Maratita and Jesus I. Taisague appeal the
district court’s denial of their Ex Parte Motion to Lift Stay (Motion to Lift the
Stay) for the purpose of pursuing a motion to intervene in a class action brought by
Betty Johnson, on behalf of herself and similarly situated persons who were
beneficiaries of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)
Defined Benefit Plan.
1. Every court possesses inherent power to “control the disposition of the
causes on its docket with economy of time and effort,” which calls for the
“exercise of judgment.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936).
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 2 of 3 --

Accordingly, we review the district court’s denial of the Motion to Lift the Stay for
abuse of discretion. Valvidivia v. Schwarzenegger, 599 F.3d 984, 988 (9th Cir.
2010). Under the abuse-of-discretion standard, we cannot reverse the district court
order absent a “definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a
clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of relevant
factors.” Id.
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Motion to
Lift the Stay. The court reached its decision after considering: (1) the burden of
litigation, (2) lack of changed circumstances, (3) gross underfunding of the
Retirement Fund, and (4) the risk of placing 4,000 retirees’ benefits at further risk.
In addition, the court did not err by requiring a showing of “changed
circumstances” as a prerequisite for lifting the stay. The district court’s order
demonstrates that the court considered the totality of the circumstances and
properly exercised its discretionary power in refusing to lift the stay.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --