Ex-VIP services host insists claim for fraud vs IPI clear, convincing

A former VIP services host at the Imperial Pacific Resort and Casino insists that the fraud claim in her lawsuit against its owner, Imperial Pacific International (CNMI) LLC, is clear and plausible or convincing.

Shirline Loh, through counsel William M. Fitzgerald, however concedes that her Commonwealth wage claim brought under local law should be dismissed on statute of limitations grounds.

On Loh’s fraud and conversion claim, Fitzgerald said money was given by customers to IPI with the direction that it be given to VIP hosts as “tips.”

Fitzgerald discussed the “tips” issue in Loh’s opposition to IPI’s motion to dismiss her lawsuit.

The lawyer said Loh’s supervisor, Yuki Xia, acting on behalf of IPI, received this money and fraudulently converted it.

He said money intended for Loh was not received by her because of the wrongful conduct of Xia, acting on behalf of IPI.

Loh is suing IPI for allegedly not paying her minimum wage and overtime wages and refusing to give her customers’ tips.

Loh’s claims for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Minimum Wage Hour Act, and conversion and fraud.

Loh is demanding that IPI be made to pay her the minimum wage and overtime pay. She also wants her share of tips.

IPI, through counsel Kelley M. Butcher, then moved the U.S. District Court for the NMI to dismiss Loh’s Commonwealth wage claim and claim for fraud.

Butcher said the Commonwealth wage claim alleged in the complaint should be dismissed with prejudice as they are barred by the statute of limitations.

Dismissal with prejudice means Loh can no longer re-file the wage claims.

Butcher said the fraud claim should be dismissed as it fails to allege all of the elements of fraud and fails to allege fraud with particularity.

Loh is a citizen of Singapore. She currently resides there. According to Fitzgerald in the complaint, Loh worked for IPI from Oct. 15, 2015 to August 2016.

Butcher said Commonwealth law clearly sets forth a six-month limitation period for unintentional wage claims and a one year statute of limitations for intentional wage claims.

Butcher noted that a reading of the complaint in this case shows that it was filed more than one year after Loh’s separation from employment from IPI.

In Loh’s opposition to the motion to dismiss, Fitzgerald said the plaintiff has complied with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s requirement to supply the who, what, when, where, and how in a fraud claim.

Fitzgerald said IPI has also not supplied legal authority to support dismissal of Loh’s claims for fraud.

Fitzgerald said there is no mystery or question as to what Loh claims happened here, and IPI has been on clear notice of the specific claim it must defend.

Citing precedent cases, the lawyer said Loh has been fully and clearly provided sufficient facts to allow it to prepare “an adequate answer.”