22 garment firms in lawsuit want to be tried separately

The 22 garment companies named in the class action suit asked the federal court yesterday to try their cases separately, saying each of them is surrounded by different circumstances.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs, on the other hand, opposed the defendants’ motion to break up the case maintaining that all allegations raised in the lawsuit are identical and inter-related.

US District Court Judge Alex Munson heard yesterday the oral arguments of lawyers for both parties.

The lawsuit, which cited different allegations of labor abuse, was filed by 23 unnamed plaintiffs who worked for different garment companies on Saipan.

Edward Patrick Swan, one of the lawyers who represent five firms owned by Willie Tan, said his client-companies should not be made to respond to allegations of labor malpractice raised by workers of other factories.

Attorneys for other companies presented to the judge basically the same argument.

“Leveling broad accusations of misconduct, the complaint in this case seeks to combine claims against more than 20 defendants with nothing in common but their status as garment manufactures in the CNMI,” stated the motion for severance filed by the garment companies.

Included in the lawsuit are Advanced Textile Corp., American Investment Corp. and L&T International Corp., American Pacific Textile Inc., Concorde Garment Manufacturers Corp., Diorva Ltd. and Micronesian Garment Inc., Global Manufacturing Inc., Grace International Inc., Hansae Inc., Joo Ang Apparel, Marianas Fashion Inc.;

Marianas Garment Manufacturing Inc., Michigan Inc., Neo Fashion Inc., Suntex Manufacturing Corp., Pang Jin Sa Corp., Sako Corp., Top Fashion Corp., Trans-Asia Garment Forte Corp., United International Corp., and US CNMI Development Corp.

Each company corresponds to one or two plaintiffs, who are commonly represented by a single panel of lawyers.

The allegations mentioned in the complaint included wage underpayment, substandard housing accommodation and meals, lack of transportation provision and lack of adequate medical attention, among others.

Attorneys for the defendants said these alleged conditions are not common among the 22 companies.

“Each defendant operates a different garment factory in different location with different policies, management, wage practices and housing,” the motion stated.

It added, “Although the complaint labels the plaintiffs with the generic ‘garment workers,’ this description lumps together such diverse occupations as sewing machine operators, general laborers, and warehouse and delivery workers.”

The defendants’ lawyers said that litigating each case individually “would greatly expedite the final determination of plaintiffs’ claims.”

Pamela Parker and Timothy Skinner, lawyers for the plaintiffs, maintained that keeping the companies in a collective lawsuit is better than breaking them up into “eclectic cases.”

“Even if all cases are severed, individual depositions will find out that their complaints are similar and related,” Parker told the court via tele-conference.

She also said that these companies are basically governed by the same rules since they are members of the same organization, the Saipan Garment Manufacturers Association.

“The allegations in the complaint are mostly of the same type and the companies are following the same instructions and practices. They should remain a single case,” Skinner said in an interview with reporters after the hearing.

Munson has yet to act on the motion pending “discovery” of other facts.

“It is premature to grant the motion right now,” he said. (MCM)