Previous Story
Request to dismiss cashiers’ suit vs poker arcade nixed
U.S. District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona denied yesterday the motion of a poker arcade operator to dismiss the lawsuit filed against the company by current and former cashiers, who alleged that they were not paid the minimum wage and overtime pay.
Manglona also denied Zeng American Corp.’s motion to provide a more definite statement in the lawsuit.
Manglona denied Zeng American Corp.’s motion to dismiss, saying she cannot do so without any legal basis on which to dismiss the cashiers’ claims based on the Fair Labor Standards Act’s statute of limitations.
On the issue of a more definite statement, Zeng American Corp. protests that the complaint is vague because plaintiffs Emelinda E. Sanchez and Ma. Gina Tiozon failed to state the exact dates on which their employment began and because the cashiers failed to specify the dates of and amounts of the “various deductions,” and “deposits” made.
Manglona said the exact dates of Sanchez and Tiozon’s employment and dates of the alleged deductions and deposits are all obtainable through discovery.
Moreover, Manglona said, Zeng American Corp. and its principal, Jin Dong Zeng, do not contend that the nature of the claims or relief sought are vague or unintelligible.
The judge said the defendants seek only more details that may be relevant to their defenses.
Thus, Manglona said, this is not one of the “rare occasions” on which the motion for a more definite statement should be granted and for this reason, the motion is denied.
Sanchez, Tiozon, Katrina Del Gallego Demapan, and Mary Zine G. Muhi are suing Zeng’s American Corp., owner of Happy Poker, and Zeng American Corp.’s principal, Jin Dong Zeng, for alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Demapan, Muhi, and Sanchez are current employees of defendants, while Tiozon is a former employee.
Demapan, Tiozon, Muhi, and Sanchez, through counsel Mark B. Hanson, asked the court to hold the defendants liable to pay them the minimum wage and overtime premium for all hours they worked, damages, attorney’s fees, and court costs.
The defendants then moved to dismiss the lawsuit and as an alternative, requested for a more definite statement.
