THE Superior Court has dismissed a businesswoman’s lawsuit against 11 alien workers after she failed to prosecute the case during the past four years.
In dismissing with prejudice Margie B. Tudela’s lawsuit against M.A. Gafur Miah and 10 other alien workers, Associate Judge Virginia Sablan-Onerheim said that the plaintiff’s conduct in not prosecuting the case constitutes unreasonable delay.
“Clearly, plaintiff’s failure to prosecute for four years and five months, absent good cause, flies in the face of the public’s interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation and the court’s need to manage its docket,” said Sablan-Onerheim.
The judge said the court finds that dismissal is appropriate because Tudela has “clearly ignored her responsibilities to prosecute the lawsuit and that defendants have been prejudiced as result thereof.”
Court records showed that in 1997, Tudela, owner of the Pyramid Enterprises, filed the complaint alleging fraud and deceit against nine defendants. The complaint also alleged one count of breach of employment contract against two other co-defendants.
The nine defendants filed their answer to the complaint and filed counterclaims against Tudela for fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation and breach of contract.
Miah filed his answer in a form of letter he wrote to the plaintiff’s counsel, Joe Hill, stating that he did not defraud Tudela and it was her who breached the contract to provide jobs to them.
Tudela filed in 1998 her answer to the defendants’ counterclaims.
On Dec. 3, 2001, the court heard arguments on the motions. Hill appeared for Tudela while attorney Pamela Brown represented the nine defendants.
Sablan-Onerheim, in her order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss, noted that after filing her answer to the counterclaim in Jan. 1998, Tudela took no further action in this case.
“Plaintiff failed to request for a status conference or a trial date at any time prior to filing of defendants’ motion to dismiss on July 31, 2001. In fact, plaintiff did not make any appearance in this case until defendants filed this motion which is pending before the court,” she said.
The judge said that at the Dec. 3 hearing, the plaintiff’s counsel, in response to the court’s inquiry, informed the court that Tudela had relocated to the U.S., and that although she was not present at the hearing, she wanted to proceed with her case.
“Clearly, plaintiff’s actions in relocating to the U.S. mainland suggests plaintiff’s lack of interest in this case,” Sablan-Onerheim said, adding that lesser sanctions “will not cure plaintiff’s unreasonable delay, therefore, dismissal is the proper sanction.”
