It is a fight to level the playing field to be able to compete for jobs and careers on the basis of skills and make available apprentice training to all. In 1973 Al Percy launched a class action lawsuit to give workers like him a chance to better their lot in life. It would also ensure the availability of skilled workers to build the infrastructure of the future.
Who is Al Percy? What is the lawsuit?
A short video follows below. there are also helpful and informative links on this website
ong>Caseong> ong>Caseong> 1:ong>21ong>-cv-01366-NGG-SJB 1:ong>21ong>-cv-014ong>21ong>-NGG ong>Caseong> MDL ong>21ong>-ong>1564ong>, No. 3011 ong>Docong>ument ong>Docong>ument 6, 24 07/12/20ong>21ong>, 11 25-32 Filed Filed 06/25/ong>21ong> Filed 05/27/ong>21ong> 3135847, 06/24/ong>21ong> Page Page100 24 23 ong>ofong> ong>ofong> 2823 ong>ofong> 27 PageID 104 ong>ofong> 27 #: #: 2361 1363 Link, 370 U.S. at 630-31. While dismissal is an appropriate remedy to avoid “undue delays in the dispositionong>ofong> pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars ong>ofong> the District ong>Courtong>s,” id. at 629-30, it is a “harsh remedy to be utilized only in extreme situations.” Minnette v. Time Warner, 997 F.2d 1023, 1027 (2d Cir. 1993). B. Discussion Kernan has filed eleven nearly-identical actions in this district against at least 8,773 defendants. The complaints provide general descriptions ong>ofong> the defendants as a class, but do not explain the significance ong>ofong> the specific defendants that are named. For example, the complaint in Percy v. D&D Metal Work Inc. makes the vague assertion that: Defendants are named individually and as representatives ong>ofong> a class ong>ofong> employers . . . to which the Plaintiff has demonstrated [the Percy Plan]. The Defendants are industry leaders identified as class representatives with the expectation that those industry leaders will protect the interests ong>ofong> the class, being employers to which the Plaintiff demonstrated the [Percy Plan] in an effort by the Plaintiff to persuade the specifically identified Employer Defendants which number 8,773. (ong>21ong>-cv-ong>21ong>82, Compl. (Dkt. 1) 26.) The apparently baseless identificationong>ofong> defendants suggests that there is no genuine connection between the allegations in the complaints and the thousands ong>ofong> defendants identified in the case captions. Without a legitimate foundation for naming such an extensive list ong>ofong> defendants, Kernan’s conduct appears to rise to the level ong>ofong> harassment against them, and at least one named defendant has contacted the court with concerns about being scammed. Further, his conduct has imposed a substantial and unnecessary burden on the court’s administrative procedures, its staff, and its 23
ong>Caseong> ong>Caseong> 1:ong>21ong>-cv-01366-NGG-SJB 1:ong>21ong>-cv-014ong>21ong>-NGG ong>Caseong> MDL ong>21ong>-ong>1564ong>, No. 3011 ong>Docong>ument ong>Docong>ument 6, 24 07/12/20ong>21ong>, 11 25-32 Filed Filed 06/25/ong>21ong> Filed 05/27/ong>21ong> 3135847, 06/24/ong>21ong> Page Page101 25 24 ong>ofong> ong>ofong> 2824 ong>ofong> 27 PageID 104 ong>ofong> 27 #: #: 2362 1364 filing system. This harassing and burdensome conduct alone supports dismissal ong>ofong> the Federal Actions pursuant to this court’s inherent authority to “achieve the orderly and expeditious dispositionong>ofong> cases.” Link, 370 U.S. at 630-631. This conduct also satisfies the requirements for dismissal under Federal Rule ong>ofong> Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order. The conditions ong>ofong> Kernan’s conviction and sentencing by the Northern District ong>ofong> New York prohibit him from engaging in the business ong>ofong> insurance in any state unless pre-approved to do so by the relevant state authority. See Oriska Ins. Co. v. Avalon Gardens Rehabilitation & Health Care Ctr., LLC, No. 18- cv-1030 (DNH/DEP), 2018 WL 6074693, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. ong>21ong>, 2018). In 2013, the NYSDFS entered a final order barring him from engaging in the business ong>ofong> insurance and from holding an interest in Oriska, specifically him from “providing legal or engineering services, or insurance agency services . . . directly or indirectly, to Oriska,” among other conduct. Id. at *4. He then attempted to represent Oriska in insurance litigation in the Northern District ong>ofong> New York and was disqualified from that litigation for violating the terms ong>ofong> the NYSDFS order. Id. at *9. Now, Kernan is again attempting to represent parties involved in litigation related to the business ong>ofong> insurance for the benefit ong>ofong> Oriska in both the Removed and Federal Actions. This conduct violates the terms ong>ofong> Kernan’s felony conviction and the orders ong>ofong> both the Northern District ong>ofong> New York and the NYSDFS. Accordingly, pursuant to this court’s inherent authority and Federal Rule ong>ofong> Civil Procedure 41(b), the Federal Actions are dismissed with prejudice. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS A. Legal Standard The Healthcare Employers and individual defendant Ira Lipsius seek attorneys’ fees and costs on the grounds that the removal 24