High court sanctions employer, lawyer

The CNMI Supreme Court has sanctioned an employer and its counsel for filing “an entirely frivolous appeal” in connection with the CNMI Department of Labor’s order that awarded $134,096 to some alien workers.

“The appeal…is unintelligible,” according to the high court opinion penned by Chief Justice Alexandro C. Castro and concurred by associate justices John A. Manglona and Perry B. Inos.

The justices sanctioned Feng Hua Enterprise Inc. and its counsel, Robert H. Myers Jr., by requiring them to pay the complainants’ attorney fees and costs.

The justices said they are unable to properly consider the actual merits of the case.

“Accordingly, we find the appeal entirely frivolous, and under Rule 38, impose sanctions against Feng

Hua and its counsel jointly and severally,” they said.

The justices noted that Myers has a prior history of filing frivolous or untimely briefs with the high court.

According to court records, Labor awarded $134,096 to six laborers who’ve filed a complaint against Feng Hua Enterprise Inc. in 2008.

In 2009, Feng Hua filed a petition with the Superior Court for judicial review of the Labor order. In August 2012, the trial court held a status conference ordering Feng Hua to file its opening brief. Feng Hua did not comply.

In 2013, the complainants, through Joe Hill, moved to dismiss Feng Hua’s petition for failure to prosecute. About 255 days after the trial court deadline, Feng Hua filed its opening brief, indicating the brief was submitted on Sept. 24, 2014, but the court did not receive it due to an error in the electronic filing system. Feng Hua did not produce any evidence to substantiate its claim.

The trial court granted the complainants’ motion to dismiss the petition for failure to prosecute. Feng Hua appealed to the Supreme Court.

The justices said they will not waste their time on appellate briefs that egregiously fail to comport with the NMI Supreme Court Rules. The justices said this case is one of those cases where dismissal is warranted because of Feng Hua’s flagrant disregard for the rules.

“We find the violations egregious,” the justices pointed out.

First, the justices said, Feng Hua fails to include a corporate disclosure statement as required.

Second, they noted, the statement of issues is vague; it fails to articulate the issues on appeal.

Third, the justices said, the statement of the case does not comport with Rule 28, which provides that the statement must “briefly indicate the nature of the case, the course proceedings, and the disposition below.”

Fourth, the justices said, Feng Hua fails to include the statement of facts and summary of argument.

Fifth, the justices said, the argument fails to comply with Rule 28 which requires citations to “authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies.”

Sixth, the justices said, Feng Hua’s appendix does not comport with Rule 30 which requires an appellant to file docket entries, portions of pleadings, charge, findings, opinion, judgment, order, or decision relevant to the appeal.

Finally, the justices said, Feng Hua’s conclusion is not short and precise as required by Rule 28.

The justices pointed out that the appeal is inundated with egregious violations of appellate rules.