Source: https://de.scribd.com/document/390172344/US-District-Court-Eastern-District-NYC
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 07:10:59+00:00

Document:
contract claim against Prompt Nursing, Landa, Philipson, and Rubenstein.
Rubenstein moved to dismiss the breach of contract claim. I denied the motion to dismiss in full.
Paguirigan v. Prompt Nursing Employment Agency LLC, 286 F.Supp.3d 430 (E.D.N.Y. 2017).
In 2007, defendants submitted a visa application on plaintiff's behalf to federal authorities.
wage determination for her employment as a nurse in New York was $26.87 per hour.
of Golden Gate, signed the contract as the employer.
(NPWC) of the United States Department of Labor.
employment contracts defendants produced in this action.
letter states that Golden Gate offered plaintiff a position as a Registered Nurse for $29.00 per hour.
affixed cover letters are signed by the employee.
fees, airfare, and miscellaneous fees in connection with her hiring and travel to the United States.
plaintiff's arrival in the United States.
by defendants. On March 7, 2016, plaintiff quit her job.
provision is the same in all contracts.
a $25,000 contract termination fee if they left their employment before the end of a three-year term.
Thirteenth Amendment rights and their attorney's First Amendment right. Id. at 249-50.
is still separately pending in this district. Anilao v. Spota, 1 0-cv-32 (JFB) (AKT).
$25,000 "Liquidated Damages" provision. SentosaCare LLC v. Anilao. No. 6079/06 (N.Y. Sup.
bargaining power in negotiating the contracts. Id. at *6.
plaintiff, to continue working for defendants.
describe the theory of plaintiff's claims.
that wage, plaintiff asserts defendants breached the contract.
members to continue working, in violation of various provisions of the TVPA.
Second, the proposed class must satisfy at least one of the three requirements listed in Rule 23(b).
questions of law or fact, etc." Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011).
not depend on whether a nurse remained employed through the contract term, was fired, or quit.
thus poses no hurdle to class certification.
liability on Landa, Philipson, and Rubenstein. These questions are capable of classwide resolution.
raise questions common to the proposed class.
arguments to prove the defendant's liability. Robidoux v. Celani, 987 F.2d 931, 936 (2d. Cir. 1993).
argument is addressed in the section concerning predominance.
of minor variations in the fact patterns underlying individual claims. Id. at 937.
subject to a counterclaim for breach of contract.
"inconsistencies" defendants list in their brief are substantial.
employ. In these regards, her experience was entirely typical of the proposed class.
03. The purported inconsistencies here do not rise to that level.
monetary claims belong in Rule 23(b)(3).").
defendants' arguments and conclude that typicality is satisfied.
putative class members, and second, that plaintiffs' counsel is qualified, experienced, and capable.
thus analyze the adequacy of the proposed class representative and adequacy of counsel separately.
As to the former, there is no evidence of any conflict of interest among class members.
he was responsible for assisting Philippine national with U.S. employment and immigration issues.
representation." Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 623 (1997).
services, that [she] or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint." 18 U.S.C.
3058456, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. July 3, 2014).
of force or physical restraint and does not bring a claim under § 1589(a)(1).
education, and shared the circumstance of being employed by defendants in New York.
Tanedo v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board, 2011 WL 7095434, at *6 (C.D. Cal.
recruited in the Philippines under contracts promising a visa and employment in the United States.
reasonable person from the Plaintiffs' background would respond to those actions.
Id. This analysis is the correct framework for considering plaintiff's TVPA claims.
Defendants urge me to consider Panwar v. Access Therapies, Inc., 2015 WL 329013 (S.D.
case have entirely cohesive backgrounds.
determinations, individual damages calculations do not preclude class certification. See Roach v.
contract provision as specifying a prevailing wage as of the date the employee signed the contract.
defendants' affirmative defense of waiver are common across the proposed class.
requiring that they employ plaintiff "full time" by giving her only 35 hours of work per week.
"full time" language appears in all contracts produced in this action.
formula and would not predominate over the common issues.
of clothing and footwear sold at thousands of retail stores nationwide over a four-year period.
contract damages would not predominate over issues that are common to the class.
available methods of adjudication." In re Vivendi Universal, S.A., 242 F.R.D. 76, 91 (S.D.N.Y.
Accordingly, the prerequisites of Rule 23(b)(3) are satisfied.
Rule 23(b)(3). Plaintiff's counsel is appointed class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g).
notice in accordance with Rule 23(c)(2)(B).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1589
 v. 
 v. 
 v.