UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
|
|
- Judith Simmons
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY ) CRAIG WILLIAMS, JOHN WILLIAMS ) AND FRED BERRY on behalf of ) themselves and all others similarly situated, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Case No. ) v. ) ) KING BEE DELIVERY, LLC AND ) BEE LINE COURIER SERVICE, INC., ) ) Defendants. ) ) COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT I. INTRODUCTION 1. This is a class and collective action brought by Craig Williams, John Williams, and Fred Berry on behalf of current and former delivery drivers of Defendants King Bee Delivery, LLC and Bee Line Courier Service, Inc. 2. Defendants unlawfully misclassify their delivery drivers as independent contractors instead of as employees. In doing so, Defendants have violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ( FLSA ), 29 U.S.C. 207 and K.R.S by failing to pay overtime. Additionally, Defendants have violated K.R.S by making deductions from their drivers pay for administrative fees and equipment Defendants require the delivery drivers to use. 3. Accordingly, the above-named Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons ( the Class members ) who have worked as
2 delivery drivers for King Bee and Bee Line in Kentucky, and neighboring states, for statutory and common law violations that stem from this misclassification. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332, in that this case arises under a federal law of the United States. 5. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs Kentucky state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C because these claims are so related to Plaintiffs claims under the FLSA that they form part of the same controversy. 6. Venue in the Eastern District of Kentucky is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) because a substantial part of the unlawful conduct described herein occurred within Lexington, Kentucky. II. THE PARTIES 7. Plaintiff Craig Williams is an adult resident of Lexington, Kentucky. From approximately 2009 to December 2, 2014, Plaintiff Williams worked for Defendants in the State of Kentucky as a delivery driver out of their facility in Lexington, Kentucky. 8. Plaintiff John Williams is an adult resident of Lexington, Kentucky. Since approximately April 2013, Plaintiff Williams has worked for Defendants in the State of Kentucky as a delivery driver out of their facility in Lexington, Kentucky. 9. Fred Berry is an adult resident of Lexington, Kentucky. From approximately June 2014 to June 2015, Plaintiff Berry worked as a delivery driver out of the Defendants facility in Lexington, Kentucky. 10. The above-named plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of a class of similarlysituated individuals, namely, all other persons who have worked for Defendants as delivery 2
3 drivers in Kentucky, and who have either been classified as independent contractors or have not been paid or otherwise properly accorded treatment as employees. 11. Defendant King Bee Delivery, LLC ( King Bee ) is a Kentucky corporation, with its headquarters located in Louisville, Kentucky. Process may be served on its registered agent, FBT, LLC located at 400 West Market Street, 32 nd Floor, Louisville, KY King Bee makes deliveries out several warehouses, including a warehouse in Lexington, Kentucky. 12. Bee Line Courier Service, Inc. ( Bee Line ) is a Kentucky corporation which has its principal place of business located at 5613 Fern Valley Road, Louisville, Kentucky Process may be served on its registered agent, FBT, LLC located at 400 West Market Street, 32 nd Floor, Louisville, KY On information and belief, Bee Line owns or controls King Bee s operation in Kentucky and the neighboring states. III. STATEMENT OF FACTS 13. Defendants are in the business of providing delivery services for a wide range of businesses. Among these, Defendants deliver pharmaceuticals to stores and hospitals in Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana. In order to carry out this central function, Defendants purports to contract with individuals such as the named Plaintiffs, to load and drive delivery trucks and to deliver retail merchandise to customers businesses. 14. Plaintiffs and the Class members have performed delivery services for Defendants. In order to receive such work, Defendants required Plaintiffs to sign an agreement which stated that Plaintiffs were independent contractors. 15. Although Defendants have classified Plaintiffs and the Class members as independent contractors, the behavioral and financial control manifested over the drivers by 3
4 Defendants demonstrates that they are Defendants employees. Such control includes, but is not limited to the following matters: a. Plaintiffs and the Class members, were and have been required to report to a facility maintained by the Defendants in Lexington, Kentucky by 4:30 a.m., five days a week, to unload and sort the shipment of pharmaceuticals and other merchandise sent to the Lexington hub by Defendants. b. Plaintiffs and the Class members are and have been provided with delivery manifests that were developed by Defendants and which instructed Plaintiffs and the Class members as to whom deliveries must be made to, the locations of those deliveries, and when those deliveries had to be made by including time windows for deliveries. c. Defendants require and have required Plaintiffs and the Class members to make deliveries by a time specified by the Defendants. d. Plaintiffs and the Class members are and have been required to wear uniforms when making deliveries for Defendants. e. Defendants monitor the loading of the Plaintiffs and the Class members vehicles each morning. f. Plaintiffs and the Class members are and have been required to carry GPS scanners to log their deliveries throughout the day. Defendants keep and have kept track of Plaintiffs and the Class members progress throughout the day and contact and have contacted Plaintiffs and the class members during the day if they were falling behind schedule. 4
5 16. Pursuant to Defendants treatment of Plaintiffs and the Class members as independent contractors, Defendants have deducted and continue to deduct certain expenses directly from the compensation it pays, including deductions for administrative costs, uniforms, GPS scanners, and customer loss and damage claims, and compel Plaintiffs and the Class members to incur certain expenses which would normally be borne by an employer, such as for fuel costs, vehicle insurance costs, worker s compensation costs, vehicle maintenance costs, costs for equipment, such as dollies. 17. Whenever Defendants determine, in their sole discretion, that a delivery has been made in a manner it deems to be unsatisfactory (e.g., damaged goods, damage to customer property), Defendants retain the right to deduct the costs of such damage from the pay checks of its drivers. 18. Defendants retain the exclusive right to change delivery charges and prices at any time. 19. Defendants retain the right to terminate the Plaintiffs and the Class members without cause at any time. 20. Plaintiffs and the Class members are and have been required to arrive for work at 4:30 a.m. to sort through and unload shipments of pharmaceuticals or other products and load it into the delivery vans for the day s deliveries. 21. Plaintiffs and the Class members work and/or have worked consistently from approximately 4:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., five days a week, making deliveries and making returns to the Defendants warehouse. 22. In addition to making deliveries, starting approximately in August 2013, Plaintiff Craig Williams had the added responsibility of keeping track of the daily progress of the other 5
6 delivery drivers, compiling a damaged goods report, responding to calls from the Defendants headquarters in Louisville, respond to customer complaints, and otherwise help other delivery drivers complete their deliveries. 23. Given these added responsibilities, Plaintiff Craig Williams generally worked from 4:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. five days a week. 24. Plaintiffs and Class members are and have been paid a fixed amount per delivery route assigned regardless of how many hours they work. As a result of Defendants practices, Plaintiffs have not and do not currently receive overtime pay when they work more than 40 hours per week. IV. FACTS RELATED TO FIRING OF PLAINTIFF CRAIG WILLIAMS 25. In mid-november 2014, Plaintiff Craig Williams spoke to Rusty Quill, an operations manager for the Defendants in Lexington, Kentucky and complained about Defendants practice of classifying him and the other drivers as independent contractors as well as the deductions made from their pay made by Defendants and Defendants failure to pay overtime compensation. 26. Williams showed Quill a pamphlet from Kentucky Jobs for Justice outlining the rights of workers in Kentucky. Quill took the pamphlet and mailed it to Defendants headquarters in Louisville, Kentucky. 27. Approximately two weeks later, on December 2, 2014, Williams spoke with Quill and another operations manager for Defendants, Jay Baumert, by telephone. Williams complained to Baumert about being misclassified as an independent contractor. Williams told Baumert that Defendants would have to follow the wage laws and treat him like an employee, or that Williams would contact a government agency to complain about the Defendants practices. 6
7 28. Approximately 10 minutes later, Williams received a phone call from Norman Louis Seger, the owner of King Bee and Bee Line. Seger told Williams that he was terminated for his complaints. CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS 29. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 28 supra. 30. The named Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of a class of individuals similarly situated. The class of individuals similarly situated encompasses all individuals who, like the Plaintiffs, have performed or currently perform delivery services for the Defendants as delivery drivers within the State of Kentucky. The Class meets all the prerequisites of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. At least 40 drivers have performed delivery services for the Defendants in Kentucky during the applicable statutory period. The Plaintiffs and the Class members claims related to their misclassification are not only typical of the claims of putative class members, they are identical. Common issues, such as whether the Defendants policy of classifying drivers as independent contractors rather than employees, predominate over any individualized issues. Plaintiffs and their counsel, who have been class counsel in many similar cases, will adequately represent the putative class, and a class action is the superior method of trying these claims. 31. The Defendants have acted on grounds relating to all of their delivery drivers. Thus, common questions of law or fact predominate over any individual issues and therefore a class action is superior to individual adjudications. Furthermore, class adjudication is superior because separate actions would create a risk of inconsistent adjudication regarding the legality of the Defendants treatment of all of its delivery drivers. 7
8 32. The named Plaintiffs also meet the requirements for a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 216(b), and will request the court to grant conditional certification and to order notices to potential opt-in individuals who have performed deliveries for the Defendants and who were classified as independent contractors. 33. Potential opt-in members of the collective action are similarly situated to the Plaintiffs. They all hold or have held the same job position and have or have had substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions. They are or have been subject to the same common practices, policies, and plans of the Defendants, including the Defendants misclassification of their drivers as independent contractors and failure to pay any overtime compensation. COUNT I Kentucky Wage Payment Law(Unlawful Deductions) 34. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 33 supra. 35. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiffs and the Class members were employees of Defendants within the meaning of KRS (1)(e). 36. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants were Plaintiffs and the Class members employers within the meaning of KRS (1)(d). 37. The actions of Defendants as set forth above violate the Kentucky Wage Payment Law, K.R.S , by making unlawful deductions from Plaintiffs and the Class members pay. 38. Defendants have characterized Plaintiffs and the class members as independent contractors although the nature and the character of their job duties and Defendants control over the conditions of their employment qualify them as joint employees of Defendants as these terms are defined by KRS and 803 KAR 1:005. 8
9 39. Plaintiffs seek reimbursement for all deductions taken by Defendants from their pay. COUNT II Fair Labor Standards Act 40. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 39 supra. 41. The actions of Defendants as set forth above are in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ( FLSA ), 29 U.S.C. 207, for their failure to pay Plaintiffs and the Class members at the overtime rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. 42. Defendant King Bee is an employer for the purposes of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 203(s), because it has annual gross sales or business of at least $500,000 and has employees engaged in interstate commerce. 43. Defendant Bee Line is an employer for the purposes of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 203(s), because it has annual gross sales or business of at least $500,000 and has employees engaged in interstate commerce. 44. Plaintiffs assert that Defendants suffer or permit Plaintiffs and the Class members to work for them as delivery drivers and that under the economic realities test, those drivers are and have been misclassified by the Defendants as independent contractors. 45. Plaintiffs and the Class members regularly work or worked well more than 40 hours per workweek. 46. The Defendants do not pay and have not paid the Plaintiffs and the Class members the overtime rate for all hours worked over 40 per workweek. 47. Defendants, therefore, engaged and continue to engage in willful violations of the FLSA, since Defendants conduct demonstrates that either they know and have known that their 9
10 conduct violated the FLSA or showed reckless disregard for whether its actions complied with the FLSA. COUNT III Kentucky Wage Payment Law (Overtime Violation) 48. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 47 supra. 49. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiffs and the Class members were employees of Defendants within the meaning of KRS (1)(e). 50. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants were Plaintiffs and the Class members employers within the meaning of KRS (1)(d). 51. KRS requires all employers to compensate their employees, with certain exceptions, at a rate of not less than one and one-half (1 ½) the hourly rate which they are regularly paid for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours in a work week. 52. Plaintiffs and the Class members are not contained in any of the groups of employees excluded from the provisions of KRS Defendants jointly failed and continue to fail to pay Plaintiffs and the Class members or all hours Plaintiffs and the Class members worked in excess of forty (40) hours in one work week. at a rate of not less than one and one-half (1 ½) the hourly wage at which they were regularly 54. Defendants jointly violated KRS by not properly compensating Plaintiffs and the Class members for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours in one work. 55. As a result of Defendants joint violations of KRS , Plaintiffs are entitled to recover unpaid overtime wages dating five (5) years back, KRS (2), plus an additional 10
11 equal amount in liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys fees, and costs of this action, pursuant to KRS COUNT IV FLSA Retaliation Claim (On behalf of Craig Williams) 56. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 55 supra. 57. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff Craig Williams was an employee of Defendants within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 203(e)(1). 58. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants jointly employed Plaintiff Craig Williams within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 203(g). 59. Defendants jointly and unlawfully discriminated against Plaintiff Craig Williams pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 215(a)(3) when they terminated his employment on or around December 2, 2014 after he complained to them about their misclassification of him as an independent contractor and their violation of the FLSA and advised them that he would file a complaint with a government agency in response to Defendants practices. employment. 60. Defendants jointly, knowingly, and willfully violated the FLSA by terminating his COUNT V Discrimination for Engaging in Activity Protected by KRS 337 (On Behalf of Craig Williams) 61. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff Craig Williams was an employee of Defendants within the meaning of KRS (1)(e). 11
12 63. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants jointly employed Plaintiff Craig William s within the meaning of KRS (1)(d). 64. Defendants jointly and unlawfully discriminated against Plaintiff Craig Williams pursuant to KRS (9) when they terminated him after he complained to Defendants about their misclassification of him as an independent contractor and consequential non-payment of overtime. 65. Defendants jointly, knowingly and willfully violated KRS 337 by terminating Plaintiff s employment. 66. Defendants termination of Plaintiff Craig Williams employment resulted in both pecuniary and legal injury to Plaintiff. COUNT VI Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy (Plaintiff Craig Williams) 67. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff Craig Williams was an employee of Defendants within the meaning of KRS (1)(e). 69. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants jointly employed Plaintiff Craig William s within the meaning of KRS (1)(d). 70. During November of 2014, Plaintiff Craig Williams complained to Defendants about various employment practices of Defendants, including the unlawful classification of him as an independent contractor, deductions taken by Defendants from him and the other Class members paychecks, and their failure to properly compensate him and the other Class members for work performed in excess of forty (40) hours a week. 12
13 71. Defendants practice of deducting employment related costs, including administrative costs, uniforms, GPS scanners, and customer loss and damage claims, from the wages of Plaintiffs and the Class members, violated KRS Defendant s failure to compensate Plaintiffs and the Class Members at a rate of not less than one and a half ( 1 ½) times their regular rate violated both KRS and 29 U.S.C Defendants termination of Plaintiff Craig Williams was contrary to the fundamental and well-defined public policy as evidenced by the FLSA and KRS As a result of Defendants actions, Plaintiff Craig Williams is entitled to relief pursuant to KRS in the form of additional damages, notwithstanding any separate or individual penalty otherwise imposed. JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs request a trial by jury on all of their claims. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray that this Court enter the following relief: 1. Permission for Plaintiffs to notify fellow workers of their right to opt-in to this action to pursue a claim under the FLSA, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(b); 2. Permission to pursue their Kentucky claims as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; 3. Restitution for all deductions taken from the Plaintiffs and the Class pay; 4. Award back pay equal to the amount of all unpaid overtime for five (5) years preceding the filing of this complaint to the present, plus an additional equal amount in 13
14 liquidated damages, according to the applicable statute of limitations (KRS (2)) for violations of KRS ; 5. Award liquidated damages equal to the amount of unlawful deductions and unpaid back wages, pursuant to federal and state law; 6, Award consequential and punitive damages for the Defendants unlawful termination of Craig Williams in violation of 29 U.S.C. 215(a)(3) and KRS (9); 7. Award attorney s fees and costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(b) and KRS ; 8. For an order pursuant to KRS assessing a civil penalty of up to $1,000 but not less than $100 for each of Defendants unlawful deductions from Plaintiffs and the Class members wages; 9. For an order pursuant to KRS assessing a civil penalty of up to $1,000 but not less than $100 for each of Defendants failure to pay Plaintiffs and the Class members their overtime wages at the rate of one and one half (1 ½) their regular rate of pay; and 10. Any other relief to which the Plaintiffs and the Class members may be entitled. DATED: October 14, 2015 Respectfully Submitted, CRAIG WILLIAMS, JOHN WILLIAMS, and FRED BERRY, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, By their attorneys, /s/ Trent R. Taylor Trent Taylor (Kentucky Bar No ) Barkan, Meizlish, LLP 250 E. Broad St.,10th floor Columbus Ohio
15 Harold L. Lichten (pro hac vice forthcoming) Benjamin J. Weber (pro hac vice forthcoming) 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA (617)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION KARLA OSOLIN CASE NO. 1:09-cv-2935 2989 Rockefeller Road Willoughby Hills, OH 44092 JUDGE GWIN on behalf of herself and all others
More informationCase 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 04/25/17 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1. Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT
Case 1:17-cv-02488 Document 1 Filed 04/25/17 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------------------X
More informationCase: 3:14-cv Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/31/14 1 of 18. PageID #: 1
Case: 3:14-cv-02849 Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/31/14 1 of 18. PageID #: 1 JUDITH KAMPFER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT
More informationCase 1:16-cv MJW Document 1 Filed 02/09/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case 1:16-cv-00304-MJW Document 1 Filed 02/09/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. ASHLEY DROLLINGER, individually and on behalf of similarly
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CASE 0:15-cv-00071 Document 1 Filed 01/13/15 Page 1 of 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Kurt Seipel, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and the proposed Minnesota
More informationSECOND AMENDED COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN PAUL FRITZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Post Office Box 51 McFarland, Wisconsin 53558 Plaintiffs,
More informationCase 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 08/30/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1. No.: Defendants.
Case 1:17-cv-05118 Document 1 Filed 08/30/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Jason McFadden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION
Case 1:18-cv-00058-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 03/26/18 Page 1 of 21 WILLIAM A. D ALTON D ALTON LAW FIRM, P.C. 222 North 32nd Street, Suite 903 P.O. Drawer 702 Billings, MT 59103-0702 Tel (406) 245-6643 Fax
More informationCase: 2:16-cv ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/22/16 Page: 1 of 22 PAGEID #: 1
Case: 2:16-cv-00581-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/22/16 Page: 1 of 22 PAGEID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION HAMDI HASSAN, on behalf of himself
More informationCase: 1:16-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/01/16 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1
Case: 1:16-cv-10259 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/01/16 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION THERON BRADLEY, and TOMMY ) JENKINS
More informationCase 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 08/31/17 Page 1 of 14
Case 1:17-cv-06654 Document 1 Filed 08/31/17 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Ernest Moore, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, -v- 33 Union
More informationCOMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ) ) ) ) ) ) JURY DEMANDED~ ~ ) ("") CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
.1 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, SS. Superior Court Dept. ANNA COOREY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Civ. A. No. v. JURY DEMANDED~ ~ GOOGLE, INC., and BEAVEX,
More informationCase: 3:11-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 08/23/11 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
Case: 3:11-cv-00592 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/23/11 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ROBERTA FOSBINDER-BITTORF individually and on behalf of all others
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Hon.
2:16-cv-13717-AJT-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 10/19/16 Pg 1 of 15 Pg ID 1 STEPHANIE PERKINS, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, v. Plaintiffs, BENORE LOGISTIC SYSTEMS, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT
More informationCase 1:14-cv JHR-KMW Document 1 Filed 05/01/14 Page 1 of 32 PageID: 1
Case 1:14-cv-02787-JHR-KMW Document 1 Filed 05/01/14 Page 1 of 32 PageID: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY ---------------------------------------------------------------X BARBARA
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP Brian S. Schaffer 475 Park Avenue South, 12 th Floor New York, New York 10016 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
More informationP H I L L I P S DAYES
Case :-cv-0000-nvw Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 P H I L L I P S DAYES NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM A Professional Corporation 0 North Central Avenue, Suite 00 Phoenix, Arizona 0 Telephone: -00-JOB-LAWS
More informationCase 2:14-cv JFW-AGR Document 1 Filed 06/10/14 Page 1 of 18 Page ID #:1
Case :-cv-0-jfw-agr Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 Nicholas Ranallo, Attorney at Law SBN 0 Dogwood Way Boulder Creek, CA 00 Phone: ( 0-0 Fax: ( 0 nick@ranallolawoffice.com PIANKO LAW GROUP, PLLC
More informationPlaintiff, COLLECTIVE ACTION v. PURSUANT TO 29 U.S.C. 216(b)
Case: 4:18-cv-01562-JAR Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/17/18 Page: 1 of 14 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION MAR BELLA SANDOVAL, Civil Action No. 18-cv-1562 Individually
More informationCase 5:18-cv EJD Document 31 Filed 05/03/18 Page 1 of 14
Case :-cv-00-ejd Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Edward J. Wynne (SBN ) ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com WYNNE LAW FIRM 0 E. Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Ste. G Larkspur, CA Telephone: () -00 Facsimile: () -00 Gregg I.
More informationJURISDICTION AND VENUE. 2. This Court has original federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331
D. Maimon Kirschenbaum Denise A. Schulman Charles E. Joseph JOSEPH, HERZFELD, HESTER & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 757 Third Avenue 25 th Floor New York, NY 10017 (212) 688-5640 (212) 688-2548 (fax) Attorneys for
More informationCase: 1:16-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/23/16 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Case: 1:16-cv-10844 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/23/16 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ARLENE KAMINSKI, individually and on behalf of all others
More informationPlaintiff, Defendant.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK NOEL CINTRON, -against- Plaintiff, TRUMP ORGANIZATION LLC a/k/a TRUMP CORPORATION and TRUMP TOWER COMMERCIAL LLC, Index No. SUMMONS The basis for
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE DIVISION. v. CASE NO. 15-CV-1588
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE DIVISION mil ANGELA BRANDT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CASE NO. 15-CV-1588 WATER
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION VICTORIA HOLSEY, Plaintiff, v. AGAPE HOSPICE CARE, INC., Defendant. Civil Action No. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT
More informationCase 3:17-cv Document 1 Filed 10/30/17 Page 1 of 21
Case 3:17-cv-01813 Document 1 Filed 10/30/17 Page 1 of 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT DAVID SMELSER, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, CIVIL
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION. Case No. COMPLAINT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION TORRI M. HOUSTON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, Case No. v. SAINT LUKE S HEALTH
More informationthey are so related in this action within such original jurisdiction that they form part (212) (212) (fax)
Case 1:17-cv-05260 Document 1 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 15 D. Maimon Kirschenbaum Lucas C. Buzzard JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 (212) 688-5640 (212) 688-2548 (fax)
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. -v- Civil No. 3:12-cv-4176
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION FELICIA D. GRAY; individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, -v- Civil No. 3:12-cv-4176
More informationCase 1:19-cv AJN Document 2 Filed 02/25/19 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Case 1:19-cv-01707-AJN Document 2 Filed 02/25/19 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK RICHARD MARTIN, LORI LESSER, LEIDIANA LLERENA, DAVID GUTFELD, and all others
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION TORRI M. HOUSTON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, Case No. 4:17-cv-00266-BCW v.
More information("FLSA"). This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the New York state law claims, as they. (212) (212) (fax)
Case 1:17-cv-04455 Document 1 Filed 06/13/17 Page 1 of 11 D. Maimon Kirschenbaum JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 (212) 688-5640 (212) 688-2548 (fax) Attorneysfor Named
More information(212) (212) (fax) Attorneysfor Named Plaintiff proposed FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and proposed Class
Case 1:17-cv-06413 Document 1 Filed 08/23/17 Page 1 of 17 D. Maimon Kirschenbaum Josef Nussbaum JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 (212) 688-5640 (212) 688-2548 (fax) Attorneysfor
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
Case 1:18-cv-02127-MLB Document 1 Filed 05/14/18 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ROSA LOPEZ, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
More informationCase 2:16-cv LDW-SIL Document 1 Filed 11/28/16 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 19. No. 16-cv-6584
Case 2:16-cv-06584-LDW-SIL Document 1 Filed 11/28/16 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK NICOLE COLLYMORE and FAISAL MALIK, on behalf of themselves and all
More information4:18-cv RBH Date Filed 05/24/18 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION
4:18-cv-01422-RBH Date Filed 05/24/18 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION MICHAEL PECORA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
More informationCase: 1:17-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 10/27/17 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:1 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Case: 1:17-cv-07753 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/27/17 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:1 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SUSIE BIGGER, on behalf of herself, individually, and on
More informationCase 4:10-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/18/10 Page 1 of 9
Case 4:10-cv-00503 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/18/10 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ELSON AYOUB Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION NO. VS. THE
More informationCase 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 1 of 10
Case 1:18-cv-03145 Document 1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 1 of 10 CILENTI & COOPER, 'PLLC Justin Cilenti (GC2321) Peter H. Cooper (PHC4714) 708 Third A venue - 6 1 h ifloor New York, NY 10017 T. (212) 209-3933
More informationCase 1:19-cv Document 1 Filed 01/15/19 Page 1 of 23 ECF CASE NATURE OF THE ACTION
Case 1:19-cv-00429 Document 1 Filed 01/15/19 Page 1 of 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MUSTAFA FTEJA, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v.
More informationCase 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 12/07/17 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Defendants.
Case 1:17-cv-09635 Document 1 Filed 12/07/17 Page 1 of 12 Justin Cilenti (GC 2321) Peter H. Cooper (PHC 4714) CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third A venue - 6 1 h Floor New York, NY 10017 T. (212) 209-3933
More informationCase 1:16-cv Document 1 Filed 01/28/16 Page 1 of 29 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Case 1:16-cv-00660 Document 1 Filed 01/28/16 Page 1 of 29 FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP Joseph A. Fitapelli Brian S. Schaffer Armando A. Ortiz 475 Park Avenue South, 12 th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone:
More informationsimilarly situated, seeks the recovery of unpaid wages and related damages for unpaid minimum wage and overtime hours worked, while employed by Bab.
Case 1:17-cv-00800 Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 1 of 14 Darren P.B. Rumack THE KLEIN LAW GROUP 39 Broadway Suite 1530 New York, NY 10006 Phone: 212-344-9022 Fax: 212-344-0301 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
More informationCase 1:17-cv AJN Document 17 Filed 03/24/17 Page 1 of 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Case 1:17-cv-00957-AJN Document 17 Filed 03/24/17 Page 1 of 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DEBRA JULIAN & STEPHANIE MCKINNEY, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN GREEN BAY DIVISION
MARYROSE WOLFE, and CASSIE KLEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN GREEN BAY DIVISION Plaintiffs, v. SL MANAGEMENT
More informationCase 2:16-cv Document 1 Filed 02/10/16 Page 1 of 13 U.S. DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON NO.
Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 JAMIE BAZZELL and CARISSA ALIOTO, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, vs. U.S. DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
More informationCase: 1:17-cv MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/14/17 Page: 1 of 24 PAGEID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
Case 117-cv-00102-MRB Doc # 1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 1 of 24 PAGEID # 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION LIAN HUI QI, individually and on behalf of all Case No. other
More informationCase: 3:15-cv jdp Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/15 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
Case: 3:15-cv-00081-jdp Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/15 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN LONG, D., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
More informationCase 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 02/01/18 Page 1 of 15
Case 1:18-cv-00914 Document 1 Filed 02/01/18 Page 1 of 15 Justin Cilenti (GC 2321) Peter H. Cooper (PRC 4714) CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third A venue - 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 T. (212) 209-3933 F.
More informationCase 2:16-cv Document 1 Filed 12/05/16 Page 1 of 23 Page ID #:1
Case :-cv-0000 Document Filed /0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 SHEILA K. SEXTON, SBN 0 COSTA KERESTENZIS, SBN LORRIE E. BRADLEY, SBN 0 BEESON, TAYER & BODINE, APC Ninth Street, nd Floor Oakland, CA 0-0 Telephone:
More informationCase 1:15-cv Document 1 Filed 08/06/15 Page 1 of 19
Case 1:15-cv-06177 Document 1 Filed 08/06/15 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------- )( ABU ASHRAF, on behalf
More informationWENDY A. ARRINGTON, a/k/a WENDY A. HOLMES, for herself and those similarly situated Case No:
Case 2:10-cv-10975-DML-MJH Document 1 Filed 03/10/2010 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN WENDY A. ARRINGTON, a/k/a WENDY A. HOLMES, for herself and those similarly
More informationCase 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 02/01/17 Page 1 of 23. Plaintiff,
Case 1:17-cv-00786 Document 1 Filed 02/01/17 Page 1 of 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ZHEN MING CHEN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. Plaintiff, YUMMY
More informationCase: 1:17-cv DCN Doc #: 14 Filed: 03/02/17 1 of 19. PageID #: 69
Case: 1:17-cv-00103-DCN Doc #: 14 Filed: 03/02/17 1 of 19. PageID #: 69 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION TOBIAS MOONEYHAM and DEREK SLEVE, individually
More information(212) (212) (fax) Attorneysfor Named Plaintiffand the proposed FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
Case 1:17-cv-00287 Document 1 Filed 01/13/17 Page 1 of 14 D. Maimon Kirschenbaum JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 (212) 688-5640 (212) 688-2548 (fax) Attorneysfor Named
More informationCase 9:17-cv RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2017 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 9:17-cv-80918-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2017 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA DYLAN KAPLAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION AMENDED COMPLAINT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION LISA ADAMS, individually, and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HY-VEE, INC., Defendant.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN. Defendant. / INTRODUCTION
2:17-cv-10359-VAR-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 02/03/17 Pg 1 of 18 Pg ID 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN STEPHANE PARROTT and KEVIN WILLIAMS, Individually and on Behalf
More informationsimilarly situated, failing to adequately reimburse delivery drivers for their delivery-related Sep 7, 2018
Case 4:18-cv-04127-SOH Document 1 Filed 09/07/18 Page 1 of 22 Pagedat: 23 In the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas US DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Sep 7,
More information2:16-cv PMD Date Filed 06/23/16 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION
2:16-cv-02148-PMD Date Filed 06/23/16 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION CHRISTOPHER RICH, on behalf of himself and all others
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION Joseph Clark, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, vs. Plaintiff, Harrah s NC Casino
More informationCase 8:10-cv RWT Document 77 Filed 03/09/12 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Case 8:10-cv-01958-RWT Document 77 Filed 03/09/12 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND SAMUEL CALDERON, Civil Action No.: 8:10-cv-01958-RWT TOM FITZGERALD SECOND
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION TORRI M. HOUSTON, individually, and ) on behalf of all others similarly situated, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 4:17-cv-00266-BCW
More informationCase 3:10-cv P-BN Document 76 Filed 07/27/11 Page 1 of 11 PageID 995
Case 3:10-cv-01332-P-BN Document 76 Filed 07/27/11 Page 1 of 11 PageID 995 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION BRIAN PARKER, MICHAEL FRANK, MARK DAILEY,
More informationCase 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 09/28/18 Page 1 of 25
Case 1:18-cv-08898 Document 1 Filed 09/28/18 Page 1 of 25 MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, New York 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0000-jah -CAB Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK Norman B. Blumenthal (State Bar #0) Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #0) Aparajit Bhowmik (State Bar #0) Calle Clara
More informationCase 7:18-cv CS Document 15 Filed 05/31/18 Page 1 of 23
Case 7:18-cv-03583-CS Document 15 Filed 05/31/18 Page 1 of 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------X CHRISTOPHER AYALA, BENJAMIN
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Plaintiffs, COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT v. (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED)
CASE 0:14-cv-01414 Document 1 Filed 05/06/14 Page 1 of 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Toni Marano and Summer Schultz, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated and
More informationAttorneys for Plaintiff STEVE THOMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA STEVE THOMA
Case :-cv-000-bro-ajw Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 CHRIS BAKER, State Bar No. cbaker@bakerlp.com MIKE CURTIS, State Bar No. mcurtis@bakerlp.com BAKER & SCHWARTZ, P.C. Montgomery Street, Suite
More informationCase 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 12/08/17 Page 1 of 21
Case 1:17-cv-09679 Document 1 Filed 12/08/17 Page 1 of 21 MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Michael A. Faillace [MF-8436] 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, New York 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200
More informationCase 3:12-cv M Document 6 Filed 11/07/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID 18
Case 3:12-cv-04176-M Document 6 Filed 11/07/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION FELICIA D. GRAY, individually and on behalf of
More information7:14-cv TMC Date Filed 10/21/14 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 13
7:14-cv-04094-TMC Date Filed 10/21/14 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA SPARTANBURG DIVISION Frederick Hankins and David Seegars, ) individually
More informationCLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
District Court, Arapahoe County, Colorado Arapahoe County Justice Center 7325 S. Potomac Street Centennial, Colorado 80112 FRED D. BAUER, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, DATE
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE DAVID HELDMAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil No. ) v. ) ) KING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
More informationCase: 1:17-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 01/03/17 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:1 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ) )
Case: 1:17-cv-00018 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/03/17 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:1 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS LAURA BYRNE, on behalf of herself, individually, and on
More informationCase 1:16-cv Document 1 Filed 11/04/16 Page 1 of 23
Case 1:16-cv-08620 Document 1 Filed 11/04/16 Page 1 of 23 Michael Faillace [MF-8436] Michael Faillace & Associates, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, New York 10165 (212) 317-1200 Attorneys
More informationCase 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 07/05/18 Page 1 of 18
Case 1:18-cv-06089 Document 1 Filed 07/05/18 Page 1 of 18 MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, New York 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CASE 0:15-cv-03748 Document 1 Filed 09/28/15 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA TONA CLEVENGER, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
More informationThSTS. hereby state and allege. bring this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
Case 5:17-cv-05082-TLB Document 1 Filed 05/11/17 Page 1 of 16 PagelD 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT v, Ai WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION D U0LAS TRACE CLARK and DYLAN LUFF, Each
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. Civil Division GD COMPLAINT
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARK S. STEHLE vs. Plaintiff, Civil Division GD-14-013288 STAR TRANSPORTATION GROUP and NATIONAL INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR ASSOCIATION, Defendants.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION Case No. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION Case No. BEATRICE JEAN, and other similarly situated individuals, v. Plaintiff(s, NEW NATIONAL LLC d/b/a National Hotel, Defendant.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0-jfw-jc Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Page ID #: BOREN, OSHER & LUFTMAN LLP Paul K. Haines (SBN ) Email: phaines@bollaw.com Fletcher W. Schmidt (SBN ) Email: fschmidt@bollaw.com N. Sepulveda
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION. v. No. 1:18-cv- COMPLAINT COLLECTIVE ACTION
Case 1:18-cv-03900-SCJ Document 1 Filed 08/15/18 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION CHELSEA DYER, ASHLEY HAMILTON, ANTWAN HENDRY and BETTY FULLER,
More informationCase 2:10-cv SJF -ETB Document 7 Filed 04/14/11 Page 1 of 9
Case 2:10-cv-05061-SJF -ETB Document 7 Filed 04/14/11 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK RAYMOND NELSON MEJIA, v. Plaintiff, SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 2:10-cv-05061-SJF-ETB
More informationCase 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 07/27/18 Page 1 of 25
Case 1:18-cv-06796 Document 1 Filed 07/27/18 Page 1 of 25 MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, New York 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
More informationCase 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 02/20/17 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:17-cv-01280 Document 1 Filed 02/20/17 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ARACELI MENDEZ GUTIERREZ, individually and in behalf of all other persons similarly
More information2:14-cv DCN Date Filed 10/23/14 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 10
2:14-cv-04138-DCN Date Filed 10/23/14 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 10 Jose A. Rivera, On Behalf of Himself and other Similarly Situated Employees Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT
More informationCase 1:16-cv Document 1 Filed 11/27/16 Page 1 of 15
Case 1:16-cv-09169 Document 1 Filed 11/27/16 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Wanda Rosario-Medina, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 1:16-cv-04407-AT Document 1 Filed 11/29/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION Catherine Esteppe, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
More information4:17-cv RBH Date Filed 05/19/17 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 36
4:17-cv-01308-RBH Date Filed 05/19/17 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 36 In the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina Florence Division Chris Gagliastre, Zachary Tarry, and Olga Zayneeva,
More informationCase 5:15-cv RWS Document 1 Filed 07/14/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1
Case 5:15-cv-00112-RWS Document 1 Filed 07/14/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION ELISSA SHETZER, Individually and on Behalf of
More information6:15-cv MGL Date Filed 10/13/15 Entry Number 26 Page 1 of 13
6:15-cv-02475-MGL Date Filed 10/13/15 Entry Number 26 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION Roger DeBenedetto, individually and on ) behalf
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING NO.
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING MITCH SPENCER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiff, FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC. Defendant. NO.
More informationAttorneys for Plaintiffs and the putative class.
Case 1:17-cv-07009 Document 1 Filed 12/01/17 Page 1 of 18 PagelD 1 Darren P.B. Rumack (DR-2642) THE KLEIN LAW GROUP 39 Broadway Suite 1530 New York, NY 10006 Phone: 212-344-9022 Fax: 212-344-0301 Attorneys
More informationCase 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 08/14/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION
Case 2:15-cv-02542 Document 1 Filed 08/14/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION JOHN MORDOFF, on his own ) behalf and for all others
More informationCase 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 08/01/18 Page 1 of 21
Case 1:18-cv-06901 Document 1 Filed 08/01/18 Page 1 of 21 MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, New York 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
More information3:14-cv JFA Date Filed 10/03/14 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 9
3:14-cv-03884-JFA Date Filed 10/03/14 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION KATIE D. MCCLARAN; ASHLEY THOMAS; and JENNIFER
More informationCase 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 07/20/17 Page 1 of 25
Case 1:17-cv-05512 Document 1 Filed 07/20/17 Page 1 of 25 Michael A. Faillace Michael Faillace & Associates PC. 60 East 42 nd Street Suite 4510 New York, New York 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile:
More informationCase 1:09-cv CAP Document 1 Filed 12/21/2009 Page 1 of 14
Case 1:09-cv-03579-CAP Document 1 Filed 12/21/2009 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION FILED i11 CLERKS 0FF1CE DEC 2 12009 TIANNA WINGATE,
More informationCase 3:10-cv HEH Document 1 Filed 08/19/10 Page 1 of 7
Case 3:10-cv-00585-HEH Document 1 Filed 08/19/10 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGIlIMoI... ~--,::--;;;(g~-=~~ Richmond Division _:Ig- VERNON E. GILLUM, JR.;
More information