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> 2:20-cv-06291-NGG-SJB ong>Caseong> ong>21ong>-ong>1575ong>, ong>Docong>ument 6, 07/12/20ong>21ong>, 55 Filed 06/ong>21ong>/ong>21ong> 3136178, Page80 7 ong>ofong> ong>ofong> 18119 PageID #: 4396 DECLARATION OF JAMES KERNAN IN RESPONSE TO THIS COURT’S MAY 27, 20ong>21ong> ORDER TO SHOW CAong>USong>E Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1746, I hereby declare as follows: A. INTRODUCTION. 1. I am an attorney duly admitted to practice before this ong>Courtong>. 2. The factual statements made in this Declaration are based upon my personal knowledge and information and belief, the sources ong>ofong> which are my involvement in the cases and my review ong>ofong> various documents. 3. I make this Declaration in response to this ong>Courtong>’s May 27, 20ong>21ong> Order, which directed me to show cause as to why I should not be referred to this ong>Courtong>’s Disciplinary Committee in connection with my conduct in the above-captioned matters. me: 4. In its May 27 th Order (at pp. 23-26), this ong>Courtong> made the following statements about a. “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 “has imposed a substantial and unnecessary burden on the court’s administrative procedures, its staff, and its filing system.” Id. at pp. 23-24. b. I am “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” in violationong>ofong> the terms ong>ofong> my “felony conviction and the orders ong>ofong> both the Northern District ong>ofong> New York and the NYSDFS.” Id. at 24. c. “The Class Defendants did not have an objectively reasonable basis for removal ong>ofong> the Nassau County Action.” Id. at 26. d. “The Class Defendants’ failure to comply with the rule ong>ofong> unanimity is evidence that their removal attempts ong>ofong> all 7
ong>Caseong> 2:20-cv-06291-NGG-SJB ong>Caseong> ong>21ong>-ong>1575ong>, ong>Docong>ument 6, 07/12/20ong>21ong>, 55 Filed 06/ong>21ong>/ong>21ong> 3136178, Page81 8 ong>ofong> ong>ofong> 18119 PageID #: 4397 eighteen Removed Actions were objectively unreasonable.” Id. e. My “attempts on behalf ong>ofong> the Class Representatives to remove these actions were objectively unreasonable.” Id. f. “[T]he 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.” Id. 5. I address each ong>ofong> the ong>Courtong>’s statements and related issues below. C. THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE COURT. 1. MY GOOD FAITH IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANTS. 6. This ong>Courtong> stated that I had “filed eleven nearly-identical actions in this district against at least 8,773 defendants”; “[t]he 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, [my] conduct appears to rise to the level ong>ofong> harassment against them,” and “has imposed a substantial and unnecessary burden on the court’s administrative procedures, its staff, and its filing system.” Id. at pp. 23-24. 7. As discussed below, I respectfully submit that I had a legitimate foundation for naming the defendants in question. Moreover, it was never my intent to impose an unnecessary burden on the court’s administrative staff and filing system. In fact, I made every effort not to burden the ong>Courtong>’s staff and filing system and worked closely with ong>Courtong> personnel on filing the pleadings in question in order to minimize any possible burden. 8. In particular, this ong>Courtong> stated that: “The court’s ECF filing system caps the number ong>ofong> defendants that may be listed per ECF entry, and in an apparent attempt to evade those limits, Kernan has filed hundreds, if not thousands, ong>ofong> ECF 8
