IPI objects to over $30K in attorneys’ fees filed by 7 workers

Imperial Pacific International (CNMI) LLC is opposing the request for payment of over $30,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs made by seven workers who are suing IPI and its contractor and subcontractor over accidents at the worksite of IPI’s casino-resort project in Garapan.

In its opposition to attorneys’ fees filed last Friday before the U.S. District Court for the NMI, IPI, through counsel Kelley M. Butcher, said plaintiffs’ request for over $30,000 in fees is simply unreasonable and unsustainable in this case.

“Any award of fees should be substantially less than the exorbitant amount plaintiffs seek to recover,” Butcher said.

The seven workers, through their two counsels, have requested the court to award them $31,801 in attorneys’ fees and $156 in costs in connection with their motion to compel.

At a hearing last Dec. 12, U.S. District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona granted the workers’ counter-motion to compel IPI to respond to their discovery requests. Manglona ordered IPI to respond to all discovery requests.

The judge also granted the workers’ motion to impose sanction on IPI and ordered the company to pay attorneys’ fees to the plaintiffs/workers for bringing the motion to compel.

In plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs filed in court recently, attorney Bruce Berline and the New York-based lawyer Aaron Halegua said they were forced to spend considerable time researching and responding to IPI’s discovery objections, participating in teleconferences, opposing IPI’s motion for a protective order, and preparing their own motion to compel.

Berline and Halegua said their request for an award reflecting 72.74 hours of attorney time and 11.98 hours of paralegal time is reasonable.

They said that their proposed hourly rates of $300 for Berline and $417 for Halegua are all reasonable.

Berline claimed he had spent 4.44 hours or for a total amount of $1,332. Halegua claimed he had spent 68.3 hours or for a total amount of $28,481.

In IPI’s opposition, Butcher said plaintiffs have failed to show the reasonableness of their hourly rates or the reasonableness of the number of hours claimed to have been expended in connection with the discovery dispute.

Butcher said plaintiffs only submitted the declaration of their counsel concerning the reasonableness of their attorneys’ hourly rate.

“That is simply insufficient evidence,” said Butcher, adding that the rates charged by Halegua are based on factors other than the rates in the CNMI.

This case, the IPI lawyer said, does not present any unique considerations or skill which cannot be found in the CNMI and therefore need specialized off-island counsel.

She noted that plaintiffs’ hourly rate for their paralegal is based on New York rates and not CNMI rates.

She said plaintiffs also have not submitted any declaration from their paralegal establishing his qualifications and skill.

Butcher said there is no explanation as to why a paralegal in the CNMI was insufficient or lacked the competence to render paralegal services needed for this case.

She said the court’s minute entry establishes that the judge awarded attorney fees only for plaintiffs’ counter motion to compel.

Butcher said Manglona did not award any fees in connection with plaintiffs’ opposing IPI’s motion for a protective order or motion to stay.

Yet, she said, plaintiffs seek recovery of fees associated with their opposing and responding to IPI’s motion for a protective order.

“Those fee should be disallowed as they are beyond the scope authorized by the court,” Butcher added.

The plaintiffs—Tianming Wang, Dong Han, Yongjun Meng, Liangcai Sun, Youli Wang, Quingchun Xu, and Xiyang Du—are suing IPI, MCC and MCC’s subcontractor Gold Mantis Construction Decoration (CNMI) LLC.

The plaintiffs, who are all Chinese nationals, are suing the defendants for alleged forced labor in violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Re-authorization Act, forced labor in violation of the CNMI Anti-Trafficking Act, negligence, and liability for employees of subcontractor.

The workers 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.

In its response to the lawsuit, IPI, through counsel, said any wage claims by the plaintiffs are barred because they voluntarily illegally entered the CNMI to work.