Au v. Tsang Brothers Corp.
||Tsang Brothers Corp.
||June 5, 2015
||US District Court for the District of Guam
||Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood
||Joaquin V.E. Manibusan
|Nature of Suit:
|Cause of Action:
|Jury Demanded By:
Access additional case information on PACER
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|February 15, 2017
Decision and Order accepting in part 32 Report and Recommendations to DENY Tsang Bros 11 Motion to Dismiss Counts Three and Four of Au's Complaint. Specifically this court ACCEPTS the Report's conclusion that the exhaustion of adminis trative rights ruling Barrett-Anderson does not apply to this case; ACCEPTS the Report's conclusion that the administrative provisions of Chapter 5 of Title 22 apply only to administrative claims brought under Chapter 5 and do not apply to proce edings commenced under Chapter 3 of Title 22. As the court has determined that Chapter 5 administrative provisions are not applicable todiscrimination claims brought pursuant to Chapter 3, Tsang Bros.' 39 Objections regarding the waiver issue and Au's failure to timely appeal the GDOL's decision pursuant to the AAL are MOOT. Furthermore, this court exercises its discretion to adjudicate Au's state law claims through its pendent jurisdiction, and declines to certify the issues presented herein to the Supreme Court of Guam.. Signed by Chief Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood on 2/15/2017. (fad, )
|June 27, 2016
Report And Recommendations. The court recommends that the Chief Judge deny Defendant's 11 Motion to Dismiss Counts Three and Four of Plaintiff's complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joaquin V.E. Manibusan, Jr on 6/27/2016. (fad, )
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
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.
Why Is My Information Online?