[Note: link to Notice of the Absence of a Necessary and Indispensable Party, mentioned in this posting.]
From: Ali`i Mana`o Nui Lanny Sinkin
Those challenging the Na’i Aupuni process in Federal Court filed an appeal from the District Court’s decision to deny their request for a preliminary injunction. That appeal is now before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Before the District Court ruled, the Kingdom filed a Notice of the Absence of a Necessary and Indispensable Party. That notice brought to the court’s attention that the King and the Kingdom are not represented in the case. The notice also informed the District Court that the Kingdom, as a sovereign, would not agree to come within the jurisdiction of the District Court.
If there is a necessary and indispensable party not represented in a case and that party cannot be brought within the jurisdiction of the court, then the court lacks perfected jurisdiction and has to dismiss the case.
The District Court treated the notice as a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and denied the motion. The District Court made no inquiry into the questions raised about the indispensable nature of the Kingdom’s participation or the jurisdictional implications of the Kingdom’s assertion of sovereign immunity.
The Kingdom has now filed a similar notice to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the form of a letter to the judicial panel that will hear the Na’i Aupuni case appeal. Attached are (1) the letter to the Ninth Circuit (2) the transcript of the very brief discussion I had with the Court and (3) the original notice filed at the District Court.