The Percy Program

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

Views
13 months ago

US Court of Appeals Second Circuit Case 21-1564, Doc 6, Pre-Argument Statement on Appeal 07-12-2021

  • Text
  • Oriska
  • Plaintiff
  • Kernan
  • Defendants
  • Pageid
  • Removal
  • Corporation
  • Percy
  • Representatives
  • Plaintiffs
  • Appeals
  • Circuit

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 Page102 26 25 ong>ofong> ong>ofong> 2825 ong>ofong> 27 PageID 104 ong>ofong> 27 #: #: 2363 1365 attempts were objectively unreasonable. “An order remanding [a] case may require payment ong>ofong> just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result ong>ofong> the removal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The statute as a whole, particularly the reference that an order remanding the case ‘may require payment’ ong>ofong> costs and fees, affords a great deal ong>ofong> discretion and flexibility to the district courts in fashioning awards ong>ofong> costs and fees.” Morgan Guar. Trust Co. ong>ofong> New York v. Republic ong>ofong> Palau, 971 F.2d 917, 924 (2d Cir. 1992). District courts may exercise this discretion to award attorneys’ fees where “the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.” Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005). B. Discussion The Class Defendants did not have an objectively reasonable basis for removal ong>ofong> the Nassau County Action. In Calabro v. Aniqa Halal Live Poultry Corp., 650 F.3d 163(2d Cir. 2011), the ong>Secondong> ong>Circuitong> affirmed an attorneys’ fee award following a removal attempt that was predicated on federal claims raised in a thirdparty complaint in violation ong>ofong> the well-pleaded complaint doctrine. As the basis for its conclusion that the removal attempt was objectively unreasonable, the ong>Secondong> ong>Circuitong> explained, “it is well established that a defendant may not evade [the well-pleaded complaint] rule by raising a federal question in its responsive pleadings and then attempting to remove on that basis.” Id. at 166. Consistent with Calabro, the attempted removal ong>ofong> the Nassau County Action in violation ong>ofong> the well-pleaded complaint rule here supports the conclusion that removal was objectively unreasonable. The Class Defendants’ failure to comply with the rule ong>ofong> unanimity is evidence that their removal attempts ong>ofong> all eighteen Removed Actions were objectively unreasonable. See Sherman v. A.J. Pegno Constr. Corp., 528 F. Supp 2d 320, 331 (S.D.N.Y. 25

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 Page103 27 26 ong>ofong> ong>ofong> 2826 ong>ofong> 27 PageID 104 ong>ofong> 27 #: #: 2364 1366 2007) (holding that it was objectively unreasonable for the removing party to knowingly disregard the rule ong>ofong> unanimity). The Healthcare Employers were original parties to all eighteen Removed Actions, and the Class Representatives knew or should have known the rules for service via e-filing on existing parties under New York law. Consistent with the holding in Sherman, their attempts to remove these actions without their co-defendants’ consent demonstrates that they lacked an objectively reasonable basis to do so. Further, the apparent coordination and potential misconduct ong>ofong> counsel indicate that removal ong>ofong> all eighteen Removed Actions to this court, rather than to the proper venue in the Northern District ong>ofong> New York, was objectively unreasonable. As explained above, Kernan appears to have violated terms ong>ofong> his conviction by engaging in this insurance-related litigation. And his coordination with Policelli, who was his former lawyer in disciplinary proceedings against him and the who is current lawyer for Oriska, suggests a willful attempt to evade the restriction on Kernan providing legal services to Oriska and to avoid litigation in a federal district where he was disbarred. For the reasons explained above, Kernan’s attempts on behalf ong>ofong> the Class Representatives to remove these actions were objectively unreasonable. The remanding parties are entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. If the parties cannot agree on the amount to be reimbursed, the Healthcare Employers and Mr. Lipsius should submit a bill ong>ofong> costs and a fee application to this court. CONCLong>USong>ION For the foregoing reasons, the Removed Actions are REMANDED to New York Supreme ong>Courtong>, Oneida County; the Federal Actions are DISMISSED with prejudice; requests made by counsel in the Removed Actions for attorneys’ fees and costs are GRANTED; 26

Tag-along Lawsuits against Putative Class Defendant Members: Decision Appealed, Response and Complaint