IPI was ordered in August to pay the plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees amounting to over $93,000 by Sept. 24. This came as a result of repeated failure of IPI to abide by court orders.
Represented by attorney Michael Dotts, IPI had moved for a payment deadline extension, which the court allowed. The deadline was then moved to Oct. 24.
On Oct. 27, the plaintiffs filed a notice of noncompliance, informing the court that they had not received any payment from IPI.
The plaintiffs are seven construction workers from China who have sued IPI and its former contractor and subcontractor, MCC International Saipan Ltd. Co. and Gold Mantis Construction Decoration (CNMI).
The plaintiffs have alleged that they were victims of a forced labor and human trafficking scheme while employed by contractor and subcontractor of IPI.
On Nov. 17, the plaintiffs moved the court for an order to show cause against IPI.
On Dec. 2, the court ordered IPI to show cause as to why the court should not find IPI and Browne in contempt; not to incarcerate Browne; and award the plaintiffs attorneys’ fees.
A hearing was scheduled for today, Dec. 10.
However, IPI filed a response on Dec. 4, indicating that it had paid the sanctions that very day.
But the plaintiffs said IPI and Browne should still be found in contempt for violating the court order and that the plaintiffs should be awarded attorneys’ fees for litigating the order to show cause.
Given that IPI complied with the court’s award, the court said it does not need to impose personal fines or incarcerate Browne.
Browne’s request for a court-appointed counsel was also denied.
According to the court, the plaintiffs showed clear and convincing evidence that both IPI and Browne had violated the court order.
In its response to the order to show cause, IPI stated that between Sept. 21 and Nov. 18, it received over $57.5 million through returned funds and checks.
On the day that payment of the sanctions was due, IPI only had just over $7,000 in its bank account.
IPI received $125,000 from its parent company on Nov. 12, but did not tender any amount to the plaintiffs until Dec. 4, when its response to the court order to show cause was due.
Based on these facts, IPI was found in contempt of court.
Browne was found in contempt of court due to his role in directing payments elsewhere on behalf of IPI despite having full knowledge of the court order.
The court said plaintiffs are also entitled to a compensatory civil contempt award for the actual loss that they suffered, including the attorneys’ fees in litigating the order to show cause to secure compliance by IPI.
The plaintiffs, who are represented by attorneys Aaron Halegua and Bruce Berline, have until Dec. 15 to submit certified time sheets for the hours expended litigating the order to show cause so that the court can determine a reasonable award in attorneys’ fees.
The order to show cause hearing that was set for Dec. 10 was vacated.
