Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/113452002/10000017157
Timestamp: 2019-02-23 06:46:47
Document Index: 647119589

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2101', '§ 2101', '§ 2104', '§ 503', '§ 507', '§ 157', '§ 2104', '§ 157', '§ 2104', '§ 2101', '§ 2104', '§ 2101', '§ 2101', '§ 639', '§2101', '§ 210', '§2101', '§ 2', '§ 210', '§ 2104', '§ 507', '§ 503', '§ 2104', '§ 507', '§ 503', '§ 2104']

10000017157 | Class Action | Lawsuit
Filed 07/11/12 Document
Entered 07/11/12 17:52:04 Page 1 of 8
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS In re: PEREGRINE FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., Debtor. RONALD KOTULAK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PEREGRINE FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., d/b/a PFGBEST, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Chapter 7 Case No. 12-27488
Adv. Pro No.
CLASS ACTION ADVERSARY PROCEEDING COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE WARN ACT 29 U.S.C. § 2101, et seq. Plaintiff RONALD KOTULAK (“Plaintiff”) alleges on behalf of himself and the class of those similarly situated as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. The Plaintiff filed this action originally in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Civ. Case No. 12-cv-05447on behalf of himself, and the 300 or so other similarly-situated former employees who were terminated in this mass layoff or plant closing from Defendant’s facilities on or about July 9, 2012, and in the days thereafter. These employees were not provided 60 days advance written notice of their terminations by Defendant, as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2101 et seq.
Entered 07/11/12 17:52:04 Page 2 of 8
(the “WARN Act”). Plaintiff now files this action in this Court, based on the Voluntary Petition filed on July 10, 2012 by the Debtor. 2. Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees seek to recover 60 days wages and
benefits, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 2104, from Defendant. Plaintiff’s claim, as well as the claims of all similarly situated employees, are entitled to administrative expense priority status pursuant to the United States Bankruptcy Code 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(A). 3. Plaintiff also seeks to recover unpaid wages and benefits pursuant to the state law
of Illinois, for himself and all similarly situated employees, and seek wage priority treatment for those claims under United States Bankruptcy Code § 507(a)(4)-(5). JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This Court has jurisdiction over this adversary pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157,
1331, 1334, 1367 and 29 U.S.C. § 2104(a)(5). 5. 6. This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(A), (B) and (O). Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 2104(a)(5). THE PARTIES Plaintiff 7. Plaintiff, Ronald Kotulak, was employed by Defendant and worked at
Defendant’s office located at 311 W. Monroe Street, Chicago, Illinois (the “Chicago Facility”) until his termination on or about July 9, 2012.
Entered 07/11/12 17:52:04 Page 3 of 8
Defendant 8. Defendant Peregrine Financial Group, Inc., an Iowa company, maintained and
operated its corporate headquarters at One Peregrine Way, Cedar Falls, Iowa (the “Cedar Falls Facility”) and maintained and operated an additional facilities, as that term is defined by the WARN Act, throughout the United States including the Chicago Facility (collectively the “Facilities”). 9. employees. 10. Until on or about July 9, 2012, the Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees Upon information and belief, the Defendant made the decision to terminate the
were employed by Defendant and worked at or reported to one of the Facilities. 11. On July 10, 2012, Defendant filed voluntary petitions for relief under chapter 7 of
Title 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. WARN ACT CLASS ALLEGATIONS 12. Plaintiff brings the First Claim for Relief for violation of 29 U.S.C. § 2101 et seq.
on his own behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated former employees, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 2104(a)(5) and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(a) and (b), who worked at or reported to one of Defendant’s Facilities and were terminated without cause from about July 9, 2012, and within 30 days of that date, or were terminated without cause as the reasonably foreseeable consequence of the mass layoffs and/or plant closings ordered by Defendant on or about July 9, 2012, and who are affected employees, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 2101(a)(5) (the “WARN Class”).
Entered 07/11/12 17:52:04 Page 4 of 8
The persons in the WARN Class identified above (“WARN Class Members”) are
so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Although the precise number of such persons is unknown, the facts on which the calculation of that number can be based are presently within the sole control of Defendant. 14. The identity of the members of the class and the recent residence address of each
of the WARN Class Members is contained in the books and records, including electronic records, of Defendant. 15. On information and belief, the rate of pay and benefits that were being paid by
Defendant to each WARN Class Member at the time of his/her termination is contained in the books and records, including electronic records, of the Defendant. 16. Common questions of law and fact exist as to members of the WARN Class,
including, but not limited to, the following: (a) (b) whether the members of the WARN Class were employees of the Defendant who worked at or reported to Defendant’s Facilities; whether Defendant, unlawfully terminated the employment of the members of the WARN Class without cause on their part and without giving them 60 days advance written notice in violation of the WARN Act; and whether Defendant’s unlawfully failed to pay the WARN Class members 60 days wages and benefits as required by the WARN Act.
The Plaintiff’s claim is typical of those of the WARN Class. The Plaintiff, like
other WARN Class members, worked at or reported to one of Defendant’s Facilities and was terminated without cause from about July 9, 2012, or within 30 days of that date, due to the mass layoffs and/or plant closings ordered by Defendant.
Entered 07/11/12 17:52:04 Page 5 of 8
The Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the WARN Class.
The Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and experienced in complex class actions, including the WARN Act and employment litigation. 19. Class certification of these claims is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)
because questions of law and fact common to the WARN Class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the WARN Class, and because a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation – particularly in the context of WARN Act litigation, where individual plaintiffs may lack the financial resources to vigorously prosecute a lawsuit in federal court against a corporate defendant, and damages suffered by individual WARN Class members are small compared to the expense and burden of individual prosecution of this litigation. 20. Concentrating all the potential litigation concerning the WARN Act rights of the
members of the Class in this Court will obviate the need for unduly duplicative litigation that might result in inconsistent judgments, will conserve the judicial resources and the resources of the parties, and is the most efficient means of resolving the WARN Act rights of all the members of the Class. 21. Plaintiff intends to send notice to all members of the WARN Class to the extent
required by Rule 23. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF WARN Act Cause of Action
22. paragraphs.
Entered 07/11/12 17:52:04 Page 6 of 8
At all relevant times, Defendant employed more than 100 employees who in the
aggregate worked at least 4,000 hours per week, exclusive of hours of overtime, within the United States. 24. At all relevant times, Defendant was an “employer,” as that term is defined in 29
U.S.C. § 2101 (a)(1) and 20 C.F.R. § 639(a), and continued to operate as a business until it decided to order a mass layoff or plant closing at the Facilities. 25. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and the other similarly situated former employees
were employees of Defendant as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. §2101. 26. From about July 9, 2012, the Defendant ordered a mass layoff or plant closing at
the Facilities, as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. § 210l(a)(2). 27. The mass layoff or plant closing at the Facilities resulted in “employment losses,”
as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. §2101(a)(2) for at least fifty of Defendant’s employees as well as 33% of Defendant’s workforce at the Facilities, excluding “part-time employees,” as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. § 2l01(a)(8). 28. The Plaintiff and the Class Members were terminated by Defendant without cause
on their part, as part of or as the reasonably foreseeable consequence of the mass layoff or plant closing ordered by Defendant at the Facilities. 29. The Plaintiff and the Class Members are “affected employees” of the Defendant,
within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 210l(a)(5). 30. Defendant was required by the WARN Act to give the Plaintiff and the Class
Members at least 60 days advance written notice of their terminations. 31. Defendant failed to give the Plaintiff and the Class members written notice that
complied with the requirements of the WARN Act.
Entered 07/11/12 17:52:04 Page 7 of 8
The Plaintiff is, and each of the Class Members are, “aggrieved employees” of the
Defendant as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 2104 (a)(7). 33. Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and each of the Class Members their
respective wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay and accrued vacation for 60 days following their respective terminations, and failed to make the pension and 401(k) contributions and provide employee benefits under ERISA, other than health insurance, for 60 days from and after the dates of their respective terminations. 34. Since the Plaintiff and each of the Class Members seek back-pay attributable to a
period of time after the filing of the Debtor’s bankruptcy petitions and which arose as the result of the Defendant’s violation of federal laws, Plaintiff’s and the Class Members’ claims against Defendant are entitled to priority status pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(4)(5). 35. The relief sought in this proceeding is equitable in nature. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, prays for the following relief as against Defendant: A. B. C. D. Certification of this action as a class action; and Designation of the Plaintiff as a Class Representative; and Appointment of the undersigned attorneys as Class Counsel; and A first priority administrative expense claim against the Defendant pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(A) in favor of the Plaintiff and the other similarly situated former employees equal to the sum of: their unpaid wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay, accrued vacation pay, pension and 401(k) contributions and other COBRA benefits, for 60 days, that would have been
Entered 07/11/12 17:52:04 Page 8 of 8
covered and paid under the then-applicable employee benefit plans had that coverage continued for that period, all determined in accordance with the WARN Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2104 (a)(1)(A); or, alternatively, determining that the first $11,725 of the WARN Act claims of the Plaintiff and each of the other similarly situated former employees are entitled to priority status, under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(4), and the remainder is a general unsecured claim; and E. An allowed administrative expense priority claim under 11 U.S.C. § 503 for the reasonable attorneys’ fees and the costs and disbursements that the Plaintiff incurs in prosecuting this action, as authorized by the WARN Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2104(a)(6); and F. Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
Dated: July 11, 2012 Respectfully submitted, By: _/s/ David E. Cohen_____________ David E. Cohen David E. Cohen, P.C. 55 West Monroe Street Suite 600 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Telephone: (312) 606-3451 Facsimile: (312) 606-0117 Attorney No. 6192149 Jack A. Raisner René S. Roupinian Outten & Golden LLP 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, New York 10016 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class
Documents Similar To 10000017157
Kirby v. Cyprus Amax Minerals, 10th Cir. (2000)
In Re: Cendant Corporation Securities Litigation Deborah Lewis, Jeff Mathis and Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz Llp, Alan Casnoff Miller Faucher and Cafferty Llp, Alfred Wise Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran, 404 F.3d 173, 3rd Cir. (2005)
10000003431
Smith Barney, Inc. v. Strangie, 192 F.3d 192, 1st Cir. (1999)