Pago Pago, AMERICAN SAMOA — The federal court in Honolulu is questioning whether it has jurisdiction over a lawsuit filed by four Alega residents against American Samoa Chief Justice Michael Kruse, local resident James L. McGuire and the U.S. Secretary of Interior and has ordered plaintiffs to file required briefs — without any other unnecessary documents already in court records — answering four specific questions.

Plaintiffs Steven Jay Pincus Hueter, Rosalia Tisa Faamuli, Michael S. Kirk, and Faamuli Pete Faamuli filed the first complaint on May 11th against Kruse and McGuire alleging violation of laws regarding an ex-parte communication between a judge during a High Court hearing and a private citizen and for interference with cleanup of pollution at the Alega Marine Protected Area.

On May 18th, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to include the US Secretary of Interior who has jurisdiction over the High Court of American Samoa as a defendant. Plaintiffs allege — among many things — that Kruse held “an illegal ex-parte conversation” at the High Court bench with McGuire — in violation of the American Bar Association Judicial Code of Conduct — during a Mar. 31, 2021 hearing in the High Court on the AST Telecom case.

And on May 19, 2021, plaintiffs filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Permanent Injunction against the defendants.

“From the face of the Complaint and Motion, it is unclear whether [this] court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this case,” said US District Court Chief Judge J. Michael Seabright in a court order last Thursday.

“The court therefore ORDERS Plaintiffs to submit supplemental briefing on the Motion for TRO to address” four specific questions, he said.

The questions are:

•           What are the legal bases for plaintiffs' claims? That is, what laws do Plaintiffs allege each of the defendants have violated? Among other matters, plaintiffs should specifically address the law that governs ex parte contacts made by Article IV judges.

•           What is the legal basis for subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims against the Secretary of Interior — under a 1975 case heard by the US Ninth Circuit Court. (For the legal scholars and attorneys - locally and off island following this case, the judge is referring to the 1975 case of King v. Morton, 520 F.2d 1140.)

•           What is the legal basis for subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims against Kruse and McGuire?

•           What is the legal basis for the court to order injunctive relief against Kruse and/ or McGuire?

Seabright also ordered that plaintiffs submit a brief of not more than 20 pages by June 18th. Plaintiffs' briefing is limited to addressing the specific questions raised in the court’s order.

Additionally, plaintiffs “are prohibited from attaching any additional exhibits or other documents unless they are directly responsive to these specific questions.”

Plaintiffs — in this case and its other multi million dollar separate cases against AST Telecom, ASG officials and others — have a habit of filing more than 50 pages of motions, including documents already filed in the case, causing hundreds of pages of court documents.

For example, on plaintiffs related complaints against AST Telecom, along with current and former ASG officials, plaintiffs resubmitted again and again several pages of previously submitted documents, including exhibits such as photos of hanging cable wires in Alega.