Previous Story
District Court extends stay period of class action suit dismissal order
|
Posted on Jul 23 1999
The US District Court’s dismissal order involving a class action suit filed by 23 unidentified workers against Saipan’s garment companies will not take effect until the federal court hears the other pleadings of the plaintiffs.
At yesterday’s hearing, District Court Judge Alex Munson agreed to extend the 45-day stay of his July 19 order, based on the compromise reached by the attorneys of both parties.
Munson heard the lawyers’ arguments on the motion filed Tuesday by the plaintiffs, who were seeking a stay of the dismissal order pending a Ninth Circuit Court’s ruling on their appeal.
Timothy Skinner, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs, indicated that his panel was satisfied with the comprise decision.
“For the most part the judge gave us what we’ve asked for,” Skinner said.
The 45th day of the stay period falls on Aug. 22 as the counting started from July 8, when Munson issued a verbal ruling dismissing the anonymous complaint.
However, Munson agreed to extend the stay until Sept. 8 when he hears the other pleadings by the plaintiffs, which include a request to place under seal the filing of Federal Labor Standards Act consents.
The plaintiffs have also asked that the case be continued on anonymous proceedings.
In dismissing the class action suit, Munson has ruled that the plaintiffs, identified only as “Does”, did not have sufficient claims to support anonymous proceedings. They were given 45 days to re-file their complaint with substituted names of real parties.
Michael Rubin, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs who testified yesterday at the court via tele-conference, said placing the case under seal would allow the attorneys to protect the 23 plaintiffs as well as “others similarly situated” who may want to be included in the class action suit.
Richard Pierce, one of the lawyers for the defendants, maintained that the plaintiffs did not have any factual basis for their claim of reprisal and retaliation.
“All I’ve heard are speculations and hearsay,” Pierce said.
The lawsuit alleged violations of labor and wage laws, breach of contracts, and noncompliance with the Building Safety Code. (MCM)
