The US Constitution provides, "No person ... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." We may believe that our constitutional rights are protected by our constitution. Under our constitution, "It is the right of every citizen to be tried by judges as free, impartial and independent as the lot of humanity will admit." However, in this case, the judges blatantly breached their constitutional duties of "impartial interpretation of the laws". Consequently, Wang's constitutional rights, including his earned wages, were unjustly deprived without "the equal protection of the laws".

1. 4/26/2013 Dismissal is impermissible, in violation of the principle of justice, the Impartiality.

2. 6/26/2013 amended judgment is barred by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 59(e).

3. By cherry-picking the court rules, the presiding judge blatantly breached his constitutional duties in the dismissal judgments.

4. No employee shall be deprived of his/her constitutional right without due process of law. The low courts' dismissal failed the well-established summary judgment standard, clearly departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings.

1. 4/26/2013 Dismissal is impermissible, in violation of the principle of justice, the Impartiality.
Authority
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(a)(1)(A):
A defendant must serve an answer: (i) within 21 days after being served with the summons and complaint; or (ii) if it has timely waived service under Rule 4(d), within 60 days after the request for a waiver was sent, or within 90 days after it was sent to the defendant outside any judicial district of the United States.

Background
To resolve a dispute in a civil case, a court must do two things: (1) It must "find the facts" of the dispute (in other works, decide what actually happened) and, (2) It must apply the appropriate legal principles to the facts. A judge presides over court proceedings, and must conduct the trial impartially imposed by the constitutional duty. Therefore, a judge cannot act for or on behalf of one of parities.

Wang's complaint (US District Court for Massachusetts 1:13-cv-10043-WGY) was filed on January 9, 2013, and amended on March 27, 2013. All claims were dismissed the case on April 26, 2013. When all the claims were dismissed, IBM did not file and serve any responsive pleading as required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(a)(1)(A).

Analysis
As IBM did not file a dismissal motion, the presiding judge acted as an attorney of IBM, and dismissed all of the claims against IBM. The judge acting on the behalf of the Defendant IBM is in violation of the principle of justice - the Impartiality, and breached his constitutional duties.

back to top

2. 6/26/2013 amended judgment is barred by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 59(e).
Authority
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 59(e):
Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment. Background
In court, a judge presides over court proceedings impartially pursuant to the rules of the court and the laws. The dismissal judgment was entered on April 26, 2013. The 6/26/2013 amended judgment was made on June 26, 2013, about 60 days after the dismissal judgment was entered.

Analysis
The 6/26/2013 amended judgment is barred by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 59(e), because it was made on June 26, 2013, about 60 days after the dismissal judgment was entered.

back to top

3. By cherry-picking the court rules, the presiding judge blatantly breached his constitutional duties in the dismissal judgments.
Authority
The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides,
No person ... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Massachusetts Constitution, Article XXIX provides:
It is essential to the preservation of the rights of every individual, his life, liberty, property, and character, that there be an impartial interpretation of the laws, and administration of justice.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 55(a):
Entering a Default. When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party's default.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 59(e):
Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.

Background
The dismissal judgment was entered on April 26, 2013. After the case was dismissed on 4/26/2013, in his motion filed, Wang contented that the judge acted not impartially in his dismissal ruling on behalf of Defendants (as a Defendants' attorney), because neither Defendants IBM nor Artech filed a dismissal motion.

IBM filed Dismissal Motions on June 10, 2013. On June 12, 2013, the personal staff of the presiding judge was instructed to modify the Answer Deadline from 5/11/2013 to 6/12/2013 for IBM. On June 6, 2013, Wang filed Wang filed Default Requests against IBM and Artech. On June 26, 2013, the final amended judgment was entered.

Analysis
In court, a judge presides over court proceedings pursuant to the rules of the court and the laws. A judge must act impartially in court. The presiding judge is very well familiar the court rules, but purposefully cherry-picked the not-applied rules to apply for Defendants' favor, while intentionally ignored the relevant court rules that are in Plaintiff's favor.

The intent of amending the 4/26/2013 dismissal judgment is obvious and clear. Because the 4/26/2013 order of dismissal is made "not on the merits but on the ground of res judicata", Wang may file a similar complaint again with amendments to overcome some technical defects in the dismissed complaint. By amending judgment from "not on the merits" to "on the merits", Wang's constitutional and other legal rights can be permanently deprived. As Wang contented that the judge acted not impartially in his 4/26/2013 dismissal ruling, it become "necessary" for the judge to amend the dismissal so that the dismissal would "appear" to be permissible pursuant to the court rules. This is because neither Defendants IBM nor Artech filed a dismissal motion. In other words, the presiding Judge acted on behalf of Defendants IBM and Artech, as a Defendant's attorney.

Then, IBM was invited to file their Dismissal Motions on June 10, 2013. However, said Dismissal Motions is barred by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(a) as the deadlines for IBM to serve responsive pleading as specified by F.R.C.P Rule 12(a) had already expired on 5/11/2013. To "overcome" F.R.C.P. Rule 12(a), the personal staff of the judge was instructed to modify the Answer Deadline for IBM on June 12, 2013, so that it "appears" that the deadlines for IBM to serve responsive pleading had not passed yet so that IBM's Dismissal Motions might be "allowed" pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(a).

Furthermore, the 6/26/2013 amended judgment is barred by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 59(e), because it already passed the deadline specified by the rule. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a), on May 12, 2013, IBM was defaulted as IBM failed to serve or file an answer or otherwise defend as to the complaint pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 12 (a).

Even assumed that IBM's 6/26/2013 Dismissal Motions were admissible, there were IBM dismissal motion and Wang's default motions before the judge. There are two two rules of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will apply, the Rule 59(e) for governing "Amend a Judgment" and the Rule 55(a) for governing "Entering a Default" for said motions. By cherry-picking the court rules, the judge chose to ignore the Rule 55(a) and amended his 4/26/2013 judgment eve barred by the Rule 59(e) in IBM's favor. Clearly, the judge blatantly breached his constitutional duties in his unjust dismissal judgments.

back to top

4. Massachusetts courts' dismissal failed the well-established summary judgment standard.
Authority
The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides,
No person ... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 149 Section 148:
Every person having employees in his service shall pay weekly or bi-weekly each such employee the wages earned by him ... .

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 149 Section 148B(a):
an individual performing any service, except as authorized under this chapter, shall be considered to be an employee

Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 56(c).:
Where the evidentiary matter in support of the motion does not establish the absence of a genuine issue, summary judgment must be denied even if no opposing evidentiary matter is presented.

Background
After interviewed by IBM, Wang was offered for a work of Storage-Area-Network Engineer of IBM for initial full-time one-year duration (Exhibits 27-28 of Summary Judgment Joint Appendix, Mass Middlesex Superior Court MICV2009-04616, "SJA"). Wang was assigned to work with other IBM workers (in the world, including New Jersey, New York, and in Argentina) for transferring computer center operation Novartis Corp to IBM workers (Exh 31-37, SJA). As requested, Wang reviewed thousands of pages of Novartis' documents, evaluated hundreds of computer storage systems located in Novartis East Hanover (New Jersey) data center, and submitted a written report to IBM's managers, Sandra G. Blackwell (telephone: 877-516-9706 or tl/349-0624) and Thomas Calise via the laptop computer provided by IBM. br>
Analysis
The summary judgment standard is well-established, accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings. The summary judgment standard requires "[w]here the evidentiary matter in support of the motion does not establish the absence of a genuine issue, summary judgment must be denied even if no opposing evidentiary matter is presented." Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure 56.

On the contrary, Massachusetts Appeals Court found that "there are genuine issues of material fact", including whether Wang "was an employee within the meaning of the Wage Act", "the nature of the relationship between IBM and Wang", and "whether Wang was terminated in retaliation for asserting his rights under the Wage Act" (Opinion, App. 2-3). Therefore, the summary motion simply failed to satisfy the summary judgment standard, and thus must be denied, as a matter of law.

However, Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the summary judgment dismissal, thus denied Wang's rights to a fair trial, and denied him the equal protection of the laws. The dismissal departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, and resulted in that Wang's earned wages were unfairly deprived without due process of the law.

back to top