World Resort ordered to pay add’l $136K

The federal court has found the owner of World Resort Saipan liable to pay $136,665 in statutory damages to its terminated executive on top of the $136,665 that the jury earlier awarded to the executive.

U.S. District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Alex R. Munson ruled that, considering the facts presented in the case and the fact that the money paid to an employee under an employment contract are considered wages, the court finds the amount of unpaid wages recovered by Yu Suk Chung to be $136,665, which is the total amount the jury awarded Chung for his breach of contract claim.

Munson amended the judgment to include $136,665 for statutory damages that World Corp., owner of the hotel, is liable to pay Chung.

The judge said none of the evidence or arguments for Chung’s breach of contract claim presented to the jury suggest that the award for breach of contract went beyond unpaid wages.

Munson said the only possible damages the jury could have awarded was an $80,000 salary for three years and a $10,000 moving bonus, which are both “legal tender of the United States,” and an apartment rental for three years, worth no more than $1,500 maximum per month, private school tuition for Chung’s child, and provision for a vehicle, which are either “board, lodging or other facilities which are customarily furnished by such employer to his or her employees.”

Court records show that in 2004, Chung, through counsel Colin Thompson, sued World Corp. for breach of written and oral contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, wrongful discharge, and intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress.

In December 2005, the jury found that the plaintiff was able to prove all of the elements of his breach of contract claim against World Corp.

As to the fraudulent misrepresentation claim, there was a hung jury or there was no decision because the jurors were not unanimous in their verdict.

Thompson and former Attorney General Robert T. Torres represented Chung in the trial. Attorneys David J. Lujan, Ignacio Aguigui, and Matthew Gregory served as counsel for World Corp.

Chung, through counsel, then moved the federal court to amend the judgment to include statutory damages equal to the amount of wages the jury awarded him.

The statutory damages provision provides that “in any action taken directly by or on behalf of a nonresident worker, notwithstanding any other remedies that may apply, the worker that prevails in such action shall recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, and court costs.”

World Corp., through counsel Aguigui, asserted that this section does not apply to the case because it only applies to the prevailing party in either an administrative action brought by a nonresident worker or a civil action brought by the Attorney General.

World Corp. argued that this section on statutory damages is inapplicable because Chung prevailed on a breach of contract claim and not a claim under the Nonresident Workers Act.

Munson said that, on the face of the statute, it clearly states that it applies to “any action taken by a nonresident worker.”

“Accordingly, the plain meaning of the statute indicates that the statutory damages provision applies to a situation like this one,” Munson said.

On other legal issues, the judge said because the judgment will be at least $273,330, the court denies the defendant’s motion for costs and denies defendant’s motion to amend judgment to include its costs.

On Chung’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs, Munson denied it without finality.

According to the statute, Munson said, Chung may be entitled to attorney’s fees and costs that were incurred due to his breach of contract claim.

However, the judge pointed out, because a mistrial was declared on the fraudulent misrepresentation claim, “it is premature to grant plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs.”

On the issue of sanctions, Chung moved the court for sanctions in the amount of reasonable expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees, incurred for proving certain facts that Chung alleges the defendant failed to admit.

However, Munson said, because a mistrial was declared on the fraudulent misrepresentation claim, “the interests of judicial economy require the court to defer this motion until the conclusion of the trial.”