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

1 year ago

US Court of Appeals Second Circuit Case 21-1575, Doc 6, Pre-Argument Statement on Appeal 07-12-2021

  • Text
  • Oriska
  • Rehabilitation
  • Nursing
  • Operator
  • Kernan
  • Defendants
  • Intervenor
  • Plaintiff
  • Removal
  • Corporation
  • Appeals
  • Circuit

ong>Caseong> 2:20-cv-06291-NGG-SJB ong>Caseong> ong>21ong>-ong>1575ong>, ong>Docong>ument 6, 07/12/20ong>21ong>, 47 Filed 05/27/ong>21ong> 3136178, Page68 22 ong>ofong> ong>ofong> 27 119 PageID #: 4357 one state law cause ong>ofong> action for breach ong>ofong> contract, which is not preempted by federal law, and the voluntariness principal bars removal by parties introduced through intervention. (See Nassau County Action, ong>21ong>-cv-6291, Am. Compl. (Dkt. 9-4) ong>21ong>-25.) To hold otherwise would deprive plaintiffs ong>ofong> their right to decide where to bring their lawsuit. See Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276, 282 (1918). The apparent coordination between the intervenor and the defendants-in-intervention suggests a willful attempt to evade the plaintiffs’ choice ong>ofong> forum, in further violation ong>ofong> the principle that plaintiffs, by virtue ong>ofong> their well-pleaded complaints, determine the removability ong>ofong> their cases. See id. It is not clear from the parties’ submissions whether this court has jurisdiction over the claims raised in the remaining seventeen Removed Actions. Because the remand issue can be resolved on procedural grounds, the court declines to decide the jurisdictional question presented in those actions. DISMISSAL OF THE FEDERAL ACTIONS A. Legal Standard District courts have the inherent authority “to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition ong>ofong> cases.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962); see also Lewis v. Rawson, 564 F.3d 569, 575 (2d Cir. 2009). In addition, Federal Rule ong>ofong> Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that a federal court may dismiss an action “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with [the Federal Rules ong>ofong> Civil Procedure] or a court order.” Smalls v. Cty. ong>ofong> Suffolk, 718 F. App’x 16, 19 (2d Cir. 2017), quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Wright & Miller, 9 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2369 (4th ed.) (“The district judge is vested with wide discretion in determining when dismissal is appropriate to enforce matters ong>ofong> docket management.”). A court may order dismissal sua sponte or on defendant’s motion. See 22

ong>Caseong> 2:20-cv-06291-NGG-SJB ong>Caseong> ong>21ong>-ong>1575ong>, ong>Docong>ument 6, 07/12/20ong>21ong>, 47 Filed 05/27/ong>21ong> 3136178, Page69 23 ong>ofong> ong>ofong> 27 119 PageID #: 4358 Link, 370 U.S. at 630-31. While dismissal is an appropriate remedy to avoid “undue delays in the disposition ong>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 identification ong>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

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