7 workers want IPI held liable for $38K attorneys’ fees

The seven workers who are suing Imperial Pacific International (CNMI) LLC and its contractor and subcontractor over the alleged injuries they suffered in accidents at the worksite of IPI’s casino/resort project in Garapan have asked the federal court to award them $31,801 in attorneys’ fees and $156 in costs.

At a hearing last Dec. 12, U. S. District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona granted the workers’ counter-motion to compel IPI to respond to their discovery requests. Manglona ordered IPI to respond to all discovery requests.

The judge also granted the workers’ motion to impose sanction on IPI and ordered the company to pay attorneys’ fees to the plaintiffs/workers for bringing the motion to compel.

Manglona ordered the workers’ lawyers, Bruce Berline and Aaron Halegua, to submit by last Thursday, Dec. 19, their motion for attorneys’ fees and costs related to the filing of the counter-motion to compel.

In the plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs filed in court last Thursday, Berline and New York City-based Halegua said they were forced to spend considerable time researching and responding to IPI’s discovery objections, participating in teleconferences, opposing IPI’s motion for a protective order, and preparing their own motion to compel.

Berline and Halegua said their request for an award reflecting 72.74 hours of attorney time and 11.98 hours of paralegal time is reasonable. Not included in that computation were the legal research performed by a third lawyer, time spent on the motion to stay, and Halegua’s travel time to Saipan for oral argument., they said. They even further reduced Halegua’s hours by 10 percent, they added.

They said that their proposed hourly rates of $300 for Berline and $417 for Halegua are all reasonable.

The lawyers said that Halegua’s normal billing rate of $450 an hour at his New York City law firm and far higher rates awarded to comparable attorneys further underscore the reasonableness of the rate he is asking for.

Berline claimed he had spent 4.44 hours, for a total amount of $1,332. Halegua claimed he had spent 68.3 hours, for a total amount of $28,481.

In the hearing held last Dec. 12, Manglona denied IPI’s second motion to stay or suspend the proceedings in the seven workers’ lawsuit.

Manglona also denied IPI’s motion for a protective order that seeks to prevent all discovery in the workers’ lawsuit pending the resolution of IPI’s motion to stay or suspend the proceeding in this case.

In IPI’s motion for a protective order, its then-general counsel, Phillip J. Tydingco, said such an order is warranted since allowing discovery to proceed in light of IPI’s motion to stay defeats or otherwise undermines the purpose and intent of the mandatory stay.

Tydingco added that this would cause IPI to “suffer annoyance, oppression as well as the deprivation of certain protections and rights associated with criminal proceedings.”

In plaintiffs’ opposition to IPI’s motion for a protective order, Halegua and Berline said IPI’s motion for a protective order must be rejected as it clearly just one more tactic to delay discovery.

The plaintiffs—Tianming Wang, Dong Han, Yongjun Meng, Liangcai Sun, Youli Wang, Quingchun Xu, and Xiyang Du—are suing IPI, MCC and MCC’s subcontractor, Gold Mantis Construction Decoration (CNMI) LLC.

The plaintiffs, who are all Chinese nationals, are suing the defendants for alleged forced labor in violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Re-authorization Act, forced labor in violation of the CNMI Anti-Trafficking Act, negligence, and liability for employees of subcontractor.

The workers alleged, among other things, that they were forced to work long hours for below minimum wage under extremely dangerous conditions at the casino-resort worksite.