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
1 year 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> 1:ong>21ong>-cv-014ong>21ong>-NGG ong>Caseong> ong>21ong>-ong>1564ong>, ong>Docong>ument 6, 2307/12/20ong>21ong>, Filed 06/ong>21ong>/ong>21ong> 3135847, Page Page48 13 ong>ofong> 18 ong>ofong> PageID 104 #: 2332 to act on behalf ong>ofong> ong>ofong>ficers, directors, agents, or employees ong>ofong> the insurer within the meaning ong>ofong> the Act.” See also Opinion No. 09-08-05 (citing Opinion No. 08-04-30 [Aug. 11, 2009] with approval). 3. MY GOOD FAITH BASIS FOR REMOVING THE CASES TO THIS COURT, INCLUDING NASSAU COUNTY ACTION 609877/2019 AND THE ACTIONS PENDING IN COUNTIES LISTED BELOW. 23. This ong>Courtong> found (at p. 20) that: “At the time ong>ofong> removal, the cases remained in the pre-trial stage in Oneida County and had not been returned to their original counties for trial. Thus, the Class Representatives were required to file any notice ong>ofong> removal in the Northern District ong>ofong> New York, where Oneida County is situated.” 24. Although I have been unable to locate any authority directly on point, I do now appreciate the ong>Courtong>’s position. However, as discussed below, I respectfully submit that I had attempted in good faith to comply with the rules governing removal. 25. I believed that, although the cases were consolidated for purposes ong>ofong> discovery in Oneida County, the cases remained pending in their respective counties because, among other things, the trials would be conducted in those counties. I respectfully submit that my belief was reasonable under the circumstances and there is no authority ong>ofong> which I am aware to the contrary. 26. I did not believe that all ong>ofong> the cases belonged in the Northern District simply because pre-trial coordination was taking place in Oneida County. Rather, as noted above, I believed that each case should be removed to the respective federal jurisdiction ong>ofong> the court in which the trial would ultimately have taken place. This seemed logical to me and, again, I was not aware ong>ofong> any contrary authority. I certainly did not intend to engage in any improper conduct. 27. Because I believed each case belonged in the federal jurisdiction ong>ofong> the respective trial courts, I removed the cases to the various courts as required. I did not represent any clients in the Northern District because I am not admitted in that ong>Courtong>. 13

ong>Caseong> 1:ong>21ong>-cv-014ong>21ong>-NGG ong>Caseong> ong>21ong>-ong>1564ong>, ong>Docong>ument 6, 2307/12/20ong>21ong>, Filed 06/ong>21ong>/ong>21ong> 3135847, Page Page49 14 ong>ofong> 18 ong>ofong> PageID 104 #: 2333 28. With respect to the Nassau County Action 609877/2019 in particular, at the time I removed that case to this ong>Courtong> on December 29, 2020, I also believed that case was pending in Nassau County (and not in Oneida County). However, I recognize that I should have obtained the defendants’ consent because service ong>ofong> the Amended Complaint had been effected by means ong>ofong> electronic filing. I ong>ofong>fer my apologies to the ong>Courtong> and the parties. 29. Although I understand this now, at the time, I did not realize that the Amended Complaint effectively transformed the “plaintiffs” into the “defendants” within the meaning ong>ofong> 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b)(2)(A), which provides that, “[w]hen a civil action is removed solely under section 1441(a), all defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in or consent to the removal ong>ofong> the action.” (Emphasis added.) I had not realized, at that time, that by virtue ong>ofong> the Amended Complaint (which was served electronically), the plaintiffs became defendants (because they were named as defendants in the Amended Complaint) and I was required to obtain their consent. I believed, incorrectly, that they were “plaintiffs” and their consent was not required. Again, I ong>ofong>fer my apologies to the ong>Courtong> and the parties. 30. Separately, I believed that removal was appropriate from Nassau County because the Nassau County Supreme ong>Courtong> granted the intervention complaint, which set forth the ERISAbased causes ong>ofong> action. I had a good faith belief that the subject ong>ofong> the Nassau County lawsuit 609877/2019 was an ERISA regulated matter because it involved funds for benefits to employees ong>ofong> the putative class I represented. The ong>Secondong> ong>Circuitong> has explained that “ERISA’s preemption clause is ‘conspicuous for its breadth,’ … representing Congress’ aim to establish as an area ong>ofong> ‘exclusive federal concern’ the regulation ong>ofong> employee benefit plans. … Consequently, the phrase ‘relate to’ [in the preemption clause] is to be interpreted broadly, … encompassing common law causes ong>ofong> action that ‘purport[] to provide a remedy for the violation ong>ofong> a right expressly guaranteed 14

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