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> ong>Caseong> MDL ong>21ong>-ong>1564ong>, No. 3011 ong>Docong>ument ong>Docong>ument 6, 2407/12/20ong>21ong>, 11 25-32 Filed Filed 06/25/ong>21ong> Filed 05/27/ong>21ong> 3135847, 06/24/ong>21ong> Page Page92 16 15 ong>ofong> ong>ofong> 28 ong>ofong> 15 27 PageID 104 ong>ofong> 27 #: #: 2353 1355 that [] Kernan, as a controlling person ong>ofong> Oriska Insurance Company, has demonstrated his untrustworthiness” and “directing [] Kernan to terminate his ownership capacity at Oriska Insurance Company, including but not limited to providing legal or engineering services, or insurance agency services, by himself or by any member ong>ofong> his family or relative, directly or indirectly, to Oriska.” Id. The Superintendent issued a final determination and order adopting the hearing ong>ofong>ficer’s recommendation. Id. (citing N.D.N.Y. 18-cv-1030, Dkt. No. 47-4 at 3-4). Despite these restrictions, Kernan went on to represent Oriska in a subsequent insurance action in the Northern District ong>ofong> New York. Id. The court terminated his representation in that action on the grounds that he had violated both provisions ong>ofong> the NYSDFS’s order. Id. at *7-9. The Appellate Division ong>ofong> the New York Supreme ong>Courtong>, Fourth Department, suspended Kernan from the practice ong>ofong> law in New York for a period ong>ofong> five years following his felony conviction or until the termination ong>ofong> his federal term ong>ofong> probation, whichever was longer. In re Kernan, 66 A.D.3d 1497, 1497 (4th Dep’t 2009) (initial order ong>ofong> suspension); In re Kernan, 73 A.D.3d ong>21ong>9, 220 (4th Dep’t 2010) (final order ong>ofong> suspension). In reaching its conclusion, the Fourth Department considered the fact that Kernan’s “misconduct was willful and appears to have been committed for personal gain, and that respondent has failed to express remorse for his misconduct.” 73 A.D.3d at 220. The Fourth Department reinstated Kernan on June 12, 2015. See In re Kernan, 129 A.D.3d 1556, 1556 (4th Dep’t 2015). Kernan was reinstated to practice law in the Eastern District ong>ofong> New York around the same time. (In re Kernan, 10-mc-351, Order Reinstating Kernan (Dkt. 3).) The Eastern District ong>ofong> New York then disbarred him again, after he was directed by ECF order on two separate occasions to provide the court with proong>ofong> ong>ofong> his admission to practice law and failed to do so. (In re Kernan, 15

ong>Caseong> ong>Caseong> 1:ong>21ong>-cv-01366-NGG-SJB 1:ong>21ong>-cv-014ong>21ong>-NGG ong>Caseong> ong>Caseong> MDL ong>21ong>-ong>1564ong>, No. 3011 ong>Docong>ument ong>Docong>ument 6, 2407/12/20ong>21ong>, 11 25-32 Filed Filed 06/25/ong>21ong> Filed 05/27/ong>21ong> 3135847, 06/24/ong>21ong> Page Page93 17 16 ong>ofong> ong>ofong> 28 ong>ofong> 16 27 PageID 104 ong>ofong> 27 #: #: 2354 1356 10-mc-351, Order (Dkt. 5); Nov. 7, 2018 ECF Order; Order (Dkt. 6).) Almost two years later, in August 2020, Kernan submitted a request for reconsideration. (In re Kernan, 10-mc-351, Mot. for Reconsideration (Dkt. 7).) He was readmitted to the District on August 25, 2020. (In re Kernan, 10-mc-351, Aug. 25, 2020 ECF Order.) Kernan also applied for readmission to the Northern District ong>ofong> New York. The Northern District revoked his admission after initially accidentally readmitting him, and he challenged the revocation in the ong>Secondong> ong>Circuitong>. In re Kernan, 783 F. App’x 106 (2d Cir. 2019). He was represented in that litigation by attorney Frank Policelli, who is counsel for Oriska in the 29 pending actions before this court. See id. Kernan ultimately withdrew his appeal, and it does not appear that he has been reinstated in the Northern District ong>ofong> New York. REMAND OF THE REMOVED ACTIONS A. Legal Standard A defendant may remove an action from state court to federal district court if the latter court has original jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), and if the applicable procedural requirements are satisfied, 28 U.S.C. § 1446. “The right ong>ofong> removal is entirely a creature ong>ofong> statutes and . . . [the] statutory procedures for removal are to be strictly construed.” Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002). “In light ong>ofong> the congressional intent to restrict federal court jurisdiction, as well as the importance ong>ofong> preserving the independence ong>ofong> state governments, federal courts . . . resolv[e] any doubts against removability.” Lupo v. Human Affairs Int’l, Inc., 28 F.3d 269, 274 (2d Cir.1994) (citing Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108 (1941)). On a motion to remand to state court, “the burden falls squarely upon the removing party to establish its right to a federal forum by competent proong>ofong>.” R.G. Barry Corp. v. Mushroom 16

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