Carlberg et al v. Guam Industrial Services dba Guam Shipyard et al
| Russ Carlberg, Roel D. Dacasin, Reynaldo S. Galvez, Delmario R. Cortez and Gary Chang |
| Guam Industrial Services dba Guam Shipyard and Mathew Pothen |
| 1:2014cv00002 |
| January 31, 2014 |
| US District Court for the District of Guam |
| Hagatna Office |
| Guam |
| Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood |
| Joaquin V.E. Manibusan |
| Other Labor Litigation |
| 29:2101 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
344
Order granting 329 Motion for Reconsideration. Upon reconsideration, this court concludes as a matter of law that a company that fails to provide WARN Act notice may not invoke the "faltering company" or "business circumstances&quo t; exceptions to reduce damages. Accordingly, this court vacates its rulings on Plaintiffs' first MIL and Defendants third MIL. Plaintiffs' first MIL [ECF 244] is hereby GRANTED. Defendants' third MIL is hereby DENIED [ECF 305], as it is no longer relevant whether a "plant closing" occurred. Signed by Chief Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood on 5/29/2019. (fad, )
|
|
Filing
220
Order denying Plaintiffs' 162 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying Defendants' 172 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying Defendants' 166 Motion to Strike Jury Demand Pursuant to Fed R. Civ P. 39(a)(2). Signed by Chief Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood on 9/30/2017. (fad, )
|
|
Filing
183
Order granting 126 Motion to Certify Class. Signed by Chief Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood on 3/7/2017. (fad, )
|
|
Filing
153
Order granting 101 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' gross negligence and negligence per se claims. Plaintiffs were at-will employees, and Defendants owed them no duty of care in terminating their employment under Guam law. Addit ionally, Plaintiffs' negligence per se claim is improper because it seeks to impermissibly use the WARN Act to recover common-law remedies in circumvention of Congress's intent. Finally, Plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages is STRICKEN because their negligence claims have been dismissed, and the WARN Act does not permit punitive damages. Signed by Chief Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood on 12/30/2016. (fad, )
|
|
Filing
92
Order denying 16 Motion to Dismiss; denying 35 Motion to Dismiss Complaint and Memorandum Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1); granting Plaintiffs leave to amend the Complaint in accordance with this order. The Amended Complaint shall be filed no later than fourteen days from the date of this order. Signed by Chief Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood on 3/25/2016. (fad, )
|
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Guam District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
