Previous Story
$61.9K legal fees sought vs IPI
7 workers hire third lawyer in New York
Seven former workers that are suing Imperial Pacific International (CNMI) LLC asked the federal court on Friday to award them $61,934 in attorneys’ fees in connection with their motion for sanctions in their lawsuit.
Earlier on Tuesday, U.S. District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona ordered IPI to pay a total of $29,459 in attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by seven former workers in connection with their countermotion to compel IPI to produce some documents.
Friday’s request for award of $61,934 relates to Manglona’s order last April 16, when she found IPI in civil contempt for violating the court’s two orders on discovery. Manglona granted the former workers’ motion to sanction IPI. At that time, Manglona said that if IPI fails to comply with the deadlines ordered that day, a monetary sanction of $2,000 a day will be imposed until IPI complies.
Berline
In their motion for attorneys’ fees and costs filed Friday, the workers, through counsels Aaron Halegua and Bruce Berline, said the $61,934 is reasonable, particularly given that IPI violated two court orders and the success of their motion upon which the court granted virtually all requested relief, including a finding of civil contempt against IPI.
Halegua
New York-based Halegua is demanding $47,404 in attorney’s fees for 118.51 hours of work at a rate of $400 an hour, while local attorney Berline is demanding $8,022 for 26.74 hours a rate of $300 an hour. Halegua’s paralegal, Jacob Kessler, is requesting $508 for 4.07 hours at a rate of $125 per hour. Another lawyer, Times Wang, is demanding $6,000 in attorney’s fees for 15 hours of work at $400 an hour.
Halegua and Berline said Wang, a 2011 graduate of New York University Law School who speaks Mandarin, provided significant assistance in preparing the workers’ motion for sanctions.
Halegua and Berline said they do not seek costs relating to the printing/photocopying of legal cases, exhibits, and other documents in preparing their briefs and in preparation for oral argument.
The plaintiffs, who are now based in China, are suing IPI and its contractor, MCC International Saipan Ltd. Co., and subcontractor, Gold Mantis Construction Decoration (CNMI) LL, over the alleged injuries they suffered during accidents at the worksite of IPI’s casino/resort project in Garapan.
The plaintiffs 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.
IPI, through counsel, said any wage claims by the plaintiffs are barred because they voluntarily illegally entered the CNMI to work.
