Clarence D. Kightlinger - Page 5

                                        - 5 -                                         

          Plaintiffs' economic advantage.  All of the factual allegations             
          revolved around the Defendants' wrongdoing in violations of the             
          above-mentioned laws.  There were no factual allegations                    
          regarding any personal injury.                                              
               The Plaintiffs based their claims on four counts consisting            
          of two separate counts for RICO Act violations, one count for               
          unlawful interference with prospective economic advantage, and              
          one count for punitive damages.  As required by the RICO Act, the           
          two counts for RICO Act violations alleged injury to the                    
          Plaintiffs' business and property.  Under the count for unlawful            
          interference with prospective economic advantage, the Plaintiffs            
          alleged that the Defendants' actions interfered with the rights             
          of the Plaintiffs to "enjoy the fruits and advantages of their              
          industries and efforts as employees". (Emphasis added.)3                    
          Finally, by their count for punitive damages, the Plaintiffs                
          claimed that the Defendants' negligent conduct caused "severe               
          economic and financial harm as well as other damages" to the                
          Plaintiffs.  No mention was made of any physical or emotional               
          injury under any of the four counts.                                        
               Pursuant to the class action, all AHP employees affected by            
          AHP's relocation to Guayama, Puerto Rico, received a legal notice           
          of class action.  Petitioner was a member of this class action              

          3  Not relevant here, the class action also alleged                         
          interference with the Union's right to receive dues income from             
          its members.                                                                

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011