By Cherrie Anne E. Villahermosa
Variety News Staff

THE federal court has denied a nonresident worker’s motion for partial summary judgment against a garment factory she sued over unpaid wages.
U.S. District Court for NMI Chief Judge Alex R. Munson denied the motion of Maria Elvie Concillado, who sued Top Fashion Corp. for breach of contract and nonpayment of wages amounting to $66,369.05.
Munson in his order yesterday said the garment factory has successfully raised several genuine issues of material fact.
The judge said summary judgment can be rendered if the “pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
According to Munson, the general denial in the Top Fashion’s answer that a contract was formed was sufficient to allow the factory to introduce evidence in opposition to the motion relating to the formation of the contract.
Munson’s order stated that the court may not weigh conflicting versions of fact on the motion for summary judgment.
He said the genuine issues of material fact will need to be resolved by the jury after hearing and seeing all witnesses and other evidence placed before them by the parties.
The order stated that among the issues of fact are: whether or not the plaintiff altered the hourly rate in the contract signed by Top Fashion Personnel manager Felix Hofschneider or successfully obtained his signature on the contract, either with his complicity or otherwise without the defendant’s knowledge or approval; whether the plaintiff’s failure to ever object to a lesser wage after she allegedly was to begin receiving $10.50 per hour is consistent with her contract-based claim; whether the plaintiff genuinely believed she was going to be paid $10.50 per hour, when she subsequently asked at least twice in writing for an additional raise and whether Hofschneider’s two letters purporting to confirm plaintiff’s income in order that she could bring her two children to the CNMI were done with the knowledge and consent of Top Fashion Corp.
The plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was heard yesterday.
She was represented by counsel Colin M. Thompson while Top Fashion Corp. was represented by Michael W. Dotts.
Concillado filed her complaint against Top Fashion on Sept. 29, 2006.
The defendant filed its answer to the complaint on Oct. 27, 2006.
The court put the case on an expedited track and set the trial for June 25, 2007.
Discovery then began and the parties exchanged interrogatories, requests for production of documents and admissions.
The defendant’s amended answer states that the plaintiff committed fraud in the execution with regard to the 2003 contract in one or two ways.
The amended affidavit stated that the amendment of the answer seeks to plead fraud as an affirmative defense to conform to information gathered during the course of discovery.
The affidavit stated that the contract provided a wage rate of $4.40 per hour but before the contract was submitted to the Department of Labor, the plaintiff changed the top page to a new page that stated the false wage rate of $10.50 per hour.
The affidavit stated that the plaintiff inserted the $10.50 per hour figure into the contract as her compensation.