The plaintiffs — Tianming Wang, Dong Han, Yongjun Meng, Liangcai Sun, Youli Wang, Qingchun Xu, and Duxin Yan —have alleged that they were victims of a forced labor and human trafficking scheme while employed by IPI’s contractor and subcontractor — MCC International Saipan Ltd. Co. and Gold Mantis Construction Decoration (CNMI).
Represented by New York lawyer Aaron Halegua and local attorney Bruce Berline, the plaintiffs want the court to award them a total of $31,801 in attorney’s fees and $156 in court costs.
But IPI attorney Kelley M. Butcher said the requested amount is “simply unreasonable and unsustainable in this case.”
She added, “Any award of fees should be substantially less than the exorbitant amount [the] plaintiffs seek to recover.”
Butcher said the 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.
She said the plaintiffs only submitted the declaration of their counsel concerning the reasonableness of their attorneys’ hourly rates. “That is simply insufficient evidence,” she added.
She also noted that the rates charged by Halegua are based on factors other than the rates in the CNMI.
“This case does not present any unique considerations or skill which cannot be found in the CNMI and therefore need specialized off-island counsel,” Butcher added.
In their motion for attorney’s fees and costs, the workers’ lawyers stated that 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.
Their request for an award reflecting 72.74 hours of attorney time and 11.98 hours of paralegal time is reasonable, the plaintiffs’ lawyers said.
On Dec. 12, 2019, District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona denied IPI’s second motion for stay or suspension of proceedings.
The judge also denied IPI’s motion for a protective order that seeks to prevent all discoveries in the workers’ lawsuit pending the resolution of IPI’s motion to stay or suspend the proceedings in this case.
She granted the workers’ counter motion to compel IPI to respond to their discovery requests, and ordered IPI to respond to all discovery requests.
Butcher said Judge Manglona did not award any fees in connection with the plaintiffs’ opposing IPI’s motion for a protective order or motion to stay.
Yet the plaintiffs are seeking recovery of fees associated with their opposing and responding to IPI’s motion for a protective order, Butcher said. “Those fees should be disallowed as they are beyond the scope authorized by the court.”
The jury trial for the civil lawsuit was set for Feb. 2, 2021 at 10 a.m.
