ATTORNEY Bruce Berline has asked the federal court to put Imperial Pacific International LLC executives on notice that they can be held responsible, and sanctions can be imposed including incarceration, for not complying with a court order in a discrimination lawsuit.
Berline represents Joshua Gray, a former employee of IPI who has asked the court to issue an order awarding him damages and other relief as the court deemed appropriate.
In a recent motion, Berline requested the District Court for the NMI to issue an order to show cause against IPI for violating the court’s order.
Over the span of more than one year now, Berline said, IPI has “disobeyed three separate discovery orders resulting in the court finding IPI in contempt twice and, as to the third violation, in the court striking IPI’s answer and entering its default in this matter.”
He said IPI’s refusal to comply with its discovery obligations as well as the court’s orders “has resulted in extreme prejudice to the plaintiff including serious, inexcusable, delay, lost evidence and the ever-increasing lost opportunity to ever collect on a judgment.”
Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona in April issued an order striking IPI answers to the lawsuit and directed the clerk of court, Magistrate Judge Heather Kennedy, to enter a default against the defendant for failing to comply with a previous discovery order.
A default means the plaintiff has won the case but has not settled the issue of any monetary compensation for damages.
IPI, represented by attorney Stephen Nutting, filed a motion on July 8, 2021 to vacate entry of default pursuant to rule 55(c) of the Federal Rules of Procedure.
Berline, who opposes the IPI motion, said the defendant is attempting “to convince the court that good cause exists to set aside the entry of default. As part of IPI’s proof needed to set aside the default, IPI contends that its constant violations of this court’s orders were not willful or intentional. Yet, it has taken IPI only thirty days after claiming a lack of willfulness in its motion to vacate again, without excuse or any effort to rectify or take ameliorative action, violate another valid court order.”
Not only did IPI fail to comply with the fee order, Berline added, it failed to take any action whatsoever such as filing a motion attempting to seek relief from, or offer any explanation to, the court.
“Despite that obvious notice to IPI of its delinquency, IPI still has not paid plaintiff the $19,616.25 ordered by this court. IPI has not made even a partial payment to plaintiff or contacted plaintiff’s attorneys to discuss its delinquent payment,” Berline said.
He said because of IPI’s failure to obey the fee order without justification or explanation, he was forced to ask the court on behalf of his client to issue an order to show cause why an order should not be entered that holds IPI in contempt for failing to comply with the fee order.
Berline wants the court to order IPI to immediately comply with the fee order, and assess a $2,000 fine for each day that IPI fails to remit the fee award in full to the plaintiff.
The lawyer is also asking the court for an order that “notifies IPI executives that future noncompliance will result in holding the responsible individuals in further contempt with the possibility of the imposition of sanctions, including fines and incarceration.”
The court, moreover, should direct IPI’s counsel to provide a copy of the order to all IPI directors, officers, and executives, including, without limitation, Chief Executive Officer Ray Yumul and Vice President for Public Affairs Tao Xing, Berline said.
He is likewise asking for an order “requiring IPI, should it claim that it has no funds to pay plaintiff his attorney’s fees, to sell assets or direct available cash flow to satisfy the fee order; and, orders that IPI pay plaintiff attorneys’ fees and costs caused by IPI’s disobedience to the fee order and associated with this order to show cause.”
Bruce Berline
