Source: http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/tag/arklynn-rahming/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 01:40:14+00:00

Document:
Tag Archive | "Arklynn Rahming"
This is just coming in and I’ll follow up with any developing news.
Former employees of Plantation attorney David J. Stern agreed to a preliminary $502,000 settlement after he fired them without giving the required 60-day notice as business at his foreclosure law firm began to dry up.
U.S. District Judge Robert N. Scola Jr. found the settlement “sufficiently fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests” of the former workers, according to a preliminary order. There will be a June 8 final hearing.
Workers in the class-action settlement now have until May 3 to opt out of the settlement, while papers in support of it should be filed by May 29.
Certified: Employee WARN Act Class Action Moves Forward Against David J. Stern, DJSP Enterprises, Inc.
A federal magistrate in Miami has recommended that former employees of DJSP Enterprises, the legal processing arm of Plantation attorney David J.Stern’s once-powerful foreclosure law firm, be given class action status to sue Stern and his affiliates for violating federal labor laws.
The suit, filed on behalf of four employees but which could affect at least 700, claims workers were fired last fall without the 60 days notice required under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification, or WARN, Act. The action seeks back pay and benefits.
Plaintiffs argue that WARN Act liability is imputed to Stern and DJSPA under the single employer test. Stern and DJSPA contend that Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently allege all the elements of the single employer test.
Two or more affiliated businesses which constitute a “single employer” may be held jointly and severally liable for violations of the WARN Act. Pearson v. Component Tech. Corp., 247 F.3d 471, 478 (3d Cir. 2001). The Department of Labor (“DOL”) regulations issued under the WARN Act provide that two or more affiliated businesses may be considered a single business enterprise for WARN Act purposes. 20 C.F.R. § 639.3(a)(2). The regulations provide a five-factor balancing test to assess whether affiliated businesses constitute a “single employer,” which would subject them to joint liability under the WARN Act. See Pearson, 247 F.3d at 478.
The five DOL factors are as follows: (1) common ownership, (2) common directors and/or officers, (3) unity of personnel policies emanating from a common source, (4) dependency of operations, and (5) de facto exercise of control. Id. at 487– 490; 20 C.F.R. § 639.3(a)(2).
Plaintiffs adequately allege the five elements of the single employer test.
the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as if fully restated herein.
DJS Processing, Professional Title, and Default Servicing, which constitute a single employer.
the allegations in paragraphs one through eighty-five (1-85) as if fully restated herein.
assets of these entities for his own purposes.
1) Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated former employees who worked for the Defendants in Plantation, Florida and who were terminated as a consequence of mass layoffs by the Defendants beginning on September 23, 2010 and who were not provided sixty (60) days advance written notice of the mass layoffs by Defendants as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2101 et seq.
2) Plaintiffs and all similarly situated employees seek to recover back pay for each day of WARN Act violation and benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 2104.
3) This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1334 and 1367, as well as 29 U.S.C. §§ 2102, 2104(a)(5).
4) Venue over this matter is appropriate in this Court pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 2104(a)(5) because the acts constituting the violation of the WARN Act occurred, and the claims arose in this district. Venue is also proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391(a) and (b). The acts complained of occurred in the State of Florida and, at all relevant times, material hereto, the Defendants conducted business with and through the other named Defendants who also conducted business with and through the other Defendants and their subsidiaries and the named individual Defendant, David J. Stern, resides in this judicial district, and all of or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this action occurred in this judicial district.

References: v. 
 § 639
 § 639
 § 2101
 § 2104
 §1391