Star Marianas Air (S2, Tinian) and the Commonwealth Ports Authority have both filed motions to the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) Superior Court asking to overturn a mid-October summary judgment concerning alleged breaches of an airline use agreement signed by both parties.

Star Marianas is a commuter airline. ch-aviation PRO airlines data reveals it flies between Guam International, Saipan, Rota International, and Tinian using a fleet of Piper (single piston) PA-32-300 Cherokee 6s and Piper (twin piston) PA-31-350 Navajo Chieftains. The Ports Authority manages and operates airports around the CNMI. The two parties entered into an airline use agreement in 2009 that, among other things, established charges payable by Star Marianas to use the airports and what facilities and services the Port Authority would provide.

In December 2020, Star Marianas sued the Port Authority, alleging they had breached six sections of the airline use agreement. The Saipan Tribune reports the alleged breaches pertained to ss. 7.01, 7.02, 7.05, 7.06, 7.07, and 7.10. Specifically, Star Marianas alleged that;

  • s.7.01 details charges on a per-passenger basis for the agreement's first year. Star Marianas alleges the Port Authority continued to impose those first-year charges for the lifespan of the airline use agreement;
  • s.7.02 requires the Port Authority to calculate Star Marianas' user charges based on actual usage of the airport's services and facilities, which the airline says the Port Authority failed to do;
  • s.7.05 states that the Port Authority should calculate those charges based on the actual cost of providing the services and facilities, which the airline alleges it failed to do;
  • ss.7.06 and 7.07 stipulate that the fees and charges should be recalculated annually based on the criteria in ss.7.01, 7.02, and 7.05. The complaint alleges the Port Authority failed to do this; and
  • s.7.10 requires the Port Authority to calculate rates and charges for preceding fiscal years and determine any overpayments or underpayments. The airline alleges the Port Authority did not do this.

In September 2023, Superior Court Associate Judge Joseph Camacho denied Star Marianas' request for partial summary judgment. He said the airline had "not demonstrated absence of genuine issues and entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law."

However, on September 27, the same judge reversed course, granting partial summary judgement after deciding that the Port Authority did breach ss.7.05 and 7.08 of the airline use agreement. However, Camacho declined to provide a full judgement, electing to send it to trial, because he found in favour of some of the Port Authority's counterclaims, noting that Star Marianas had also breached s.7.13 of the airline use agreement because of non-payment.

"The court has determined that Port Authority breached s.7.05 for annual adjustments and s.7.08 concerning the proposed budget," the judge wrote. "Regarding Port Authority’s counterclaim, Star Marianas did not dispute the non-payment; however, the court found that Star Marinas had indeed breached s.7.13. A summary judgment is granted when there are no genuine disputes as to material facts, and the movant is entitled as a matter of law. Adding to that, questions of fact are not decided in a summary judgment. The court has found breaches by Port Authority and a breach by Star Marianas, but the specific monetary extent of these breaches has yet to be established or substantiated.”

Star Marianas and the Port Authority have both filed motions appealing this outcome. Robert T. Torres, representing the Port Authority, says Camacho made several errors of law in his decision, while Mark Scoggins, representing Star Marianas, said the partial judgement needed correcting "for this case to proceed efficiently."

Camacho has set down December 12, 2023, as the hearing date to determine the judgement disputes and any monetary damages payable.