Dynasty current, ex-workers oppose move to dismiss suit

Over 500 current and former foreign workers of Tinian Dynasty Hotel and Casino have opposed the company owner’s move to dismiss their lawsuit, asserting that they have good cause why service of their complaint was not timely made.

Alternatively, Mok asked the U.S. District Court for the NMI to grant his clients’ extension of time to serve Tinian Dynasty’s owners with their lawsuit.

The workers allege that the owners and management of Tinian Dynasty lied to them about their immigration legal status.

Hong Kong Entertainment (Overseas) Investments Ltd. and Mega Stars Overseas Limited, through counsel Sean E. Frink, asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit due to delayed service of the summons and complaint.

Frink said the workers filed the lawsuit on Feb. 4, 2015, and that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure requires that, without good cause, service of the summons and complaint must be made upon each defendant within 120 days after the complaint is filed.

Frink said 120 days after Feb. 4, 2015, was June 4, 2015.

The lawyer said the service of the complaint and summons did not take place upon either defendant on or before June 4, 2015.

Instead, he said, despite an agreement between counsel made in March 2015 for simplified service of process upon counsel, Hong Kong Entertainment has not yet been served and Mega Stars was not served with either the original complaint or the first amended complaint and summons until Aug. 14, 2015.

The first amended complaint was filed on July 21, 2015.

In the workers’ opposition, Mok agreed that the complaint was filed on Feb. 4 and that service of an amended complaint was not effectuated until Aug. 14, 2015.

However, Mok said, defendants were very much aware of the reasons why plaintiffs did not serve the original complaint filed on Feb. 4, 2015, as counsel for the respective parties had been in communication since February 2015 regarding the lawsuit.

In fact, Mok said, during these communications, defendants’ counsel had requested no less than two extensions of time to respond to the complaint. He said the first request was made on Feb. 11, 2015, about a week after the complaint was filed.

He said defendants’ counsel had stated to his office that he was going off-island and wanted an additional month to respond to the complaint.

Mok said his office agreed out of courtesy that defendants’ counsel could file a response to the complaint on March 20, 2015.

Mok said that, in early March 2015, counsel for the respective parties had a telephone conversation that plaintiffs’ counsel intended to file an amended complaint in order to possibly add additional plaintiffs to the lawsuit as well as potentially new claims.

Mok said defendants’ counsel made a second request to extend time to respond to the complaint in April 2015. Again, he said, the counsel indicated he was going off-island and wanted to ensure that he had enough time to respond. Once again, Mok said, his office agreed out of courtesy.

He said by keeping defendants’ counsel apprised of the situation, his office was exercising good faith and courtesy in ensuring that wasted time and effort was not unnecessarily expended by all sides.

The plaintiffs alleged in their lawsuit that the owners and management of Tinian Dynasty lied that they were legally authorized to work despite the denial of their CNMI-only Transitional Worker (CW-1) petitions.

The amended complaint adds a claim of constructive fraud against Tinian Dynasty’s owner, Hong Kong Entertainment Overseas Investments Ltd., and HKE majority shareholder, Mega Stars Overseas Limited.

The lawsuit has 15 named plaintiffs and 500 unnamed co-plaintiffs.

Tinian Dynasty recently announced about the full closure of both the casino and the hotel before the end of this month.