Case: 13-16941, 02/07/2014, ID: 8971543, DktEntry: 21, Page 1 of 94 Docket Nos. 13-16941 and 13-17089 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT __________________________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GOVERNMENT OF GUAM, Defendant-Appellant. __________________________________________________ APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF GUAM FRANCES M. TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE CASE NO. 02-00022 __________________________________________________ APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF __________________________________________________ SANDRA C. MILLER WILLIAM N. HEBERT OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR OF JAY D. TRICKETT GUAM Counsel of Record Ricardo J. Bordallo Governor’s Complex CALVO FISHER & JACOB LLP Adelup, Guam 96910 One Lombard Street, Second Floor Telephone: (671) 475-9370 San Francisco, California 94111 Facsimile: (671) 477-4826 Telephone: (415) 374-8370 Attorney for the Office of the Governor of Facsmile: (415) 374-8373 Guam Attorney for the Defendant-Appellant on behalf of the Defendant-Appellant Government of Guam Case: 13-16941, 02/07/2014, ID: 8971543, DktEntry: 21, Page 2 of 94 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ...................................................................... 3 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ............................................................................ 5 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................................................................... 6 I. Background of the Guam Clean Water Act litigation ...................................... 6 II. The Receiver admits that its remaining projects are significantly over budget and will cost more than the remaining amount of the Consent Decree Funding ............................................................................................................ 8 III. The Attorney General refused to support the Government of Guam’s opposition to the Receiver’s planned use of the Consent Decree Funding ... 10 IV. The Government of Guam repeatedly requests substitution of counsel in order to meaningfully participate in the district court proceedings .............. 11 V. The Government of Guam brings multiple motions to stay and appeals the district court’s denials of substitution of counsel .......................................... 18 VI. The Receiver awards new contracts for the closure of the Ordot Dump which exceed its budget for those contracts by $26 million .................................... 21 STANDARD OF REVIEW ................................................................................... 22 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................................. 23 ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................... 25 I. The district court abused its discretion when it prevented the Government of Guam from replacing its conflicted and disloyal attorneys ........................... 25 i Case: 13-16941, 02/07/2014, ID: 8971543, DktEntry: 21, Page 3 of 94 A. As the Government of Guam’s attorney, the Attorney General owed its duties to the Governor of Guam and his authorized representatives .......... 25 B. Notwithstanding its duties to the Government of Guam, the Attorney General began concurrently representing the Receiver .............................. 27 1. The May 10, 2013 amended substitution of counsel was supported by unrebutted evidence showing that the Attorney General represented the Receiver .................................................................................................... 27 2. The Attorney General then expressly admitted it represented the Receiver .................................................................................................... 31 C. The district court abused its discretion by failing to allow the Government of Guam to substitute new counsel for the Attorney General after the Attorney General had clearly abandoned the Government of Guam in favor of the Receiver ............................................................................................ 32 1. The Attorney General’s representation of the Receiver created a conflict of interest .................................................................................................. 33 2. The Attorney General’s conduct revealed that its relationship with the Office of the Governor was completely broken ....................................... 35 3. Despite the Attorney General’s public abandonment of the Government of Guam, the district court refused to allow the Government of Guam to substitute new, loyal counsel .................................................................... 36 4. The district court’s failure to recognize that the Government of Guam’s lawyers had abandoned it infected all of the decisions under review and should be reversed under the de novo standard ........................................ 38 D. The district court’s refusal to reconsider its prior rulings was also an abuse of discretion ................................................................................................. 39 II. The district court erred by failing to conduct a meaningful inquiry into the Attorney General’s representation of the Receiver and potential conflict of interest ............................................................................................................ 40 ii Case: 13-16941, 02/07/2014, ID: 8971543, DktEntry: 21, Page 4 of 94 III. Orders issued by the district court while it prevented the Government of Guam from being meaningfully heard are void ............................................ 42 A. The Government of Guam was entitled to be heard with respect to the Receiver’s plans to procure new contracts to close the Ordot Dump that exceeded its budget ..................................................................................... 43 B. The district court’s denial of the Government of Guam’s substitution of counsel prevented the Government of Guam being heard in subsequent proceedings regarding the Ordot Dump closure projects ........................... 44 C. Proceedings conducted after the district court’s denial of the Government of Guam’s substitution of counsel are void ................................................ 45 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 46 iii Case: 13-16941, 02/07/2014, ID: 8971543, DktEntry: 21, Page 5 of 94 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Allen v. Academic Games Leagues of Am., Inc., 831 F. Supp. 785 (C.D. Cal. 1993) ....................................................................... 25 Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................3, 4 Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................ 40 Concat LP v. Unilever, PLC, 350 F. Supp. 2d 796 (N.D. Cal. 2004) .................................................................. 25 Estate of Merchant v. C.I.R., 947 F.2d 1390 (9th Cir. 1991) .............................................................................. 22 Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972) ......................................................................................... 42, 43 Gates v. Shinn, 98 F.3d 463 (9th Cir. 1996) .................................................................................... 4 In re Center Wholesale, Inc., 759 F.2d 1440 (9th Cir. 1985) ....................................................................... 24, 45 In re Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 129 U.S. 206 (1889) ................................................................................................ 4 In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 803 F.2d 493 (9th Cir. 1986) ......................................................................... 22, 38 iv Case: 13-16941, 02/07/2014, ID: 8971543, DktEntry: 21, Page 6 of 94 Jackson v. Ylst, 921 F.2d 882 (9th Cir. 1990) .................................................................. 23, 25, 34 Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 2000) ................................................................................ 23 Lewis v. Lane, 816 F.2d 1165 (7th Cir. 1987) ................................................................. 23, 40, 41 Lim v. City of Long Beach, 217 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2000) .............................................................................. 22 Manchin v. Browning, 170 W. Va. 779 (1982) ......................................................................................... 27 Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194 (1993) ....................................................................................... 44, 45 Santos v. Camacho, Civ. 04-00006, 2006 WL 581251 (D. Guam Mar. 10, 2006) ................. 26, 33, 35 Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 1993) .................................................................................. 39 Stewart v. Gen. Motors Corp., 756 F.2d 1285 (7th Cir. 1985) ....................................................................... 25, 34 Stone v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850 (9th Cir. 1992) .................................................................................. 3 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)