Source: https://europeforvisitors.com/lawsuit_levinson_v_primedia.htm
Timestamp: 2019-05-25 19:41:11
Document Index: 122777794

Matched Legal Cases: ['§6', '§206', '§190', '§ 501', '§ 1331', '§ 216', '§ 206', '§ 206', '§ 206', '§ 216', '§ 206', '§ 216', '§ 191', '§ 191', '§ 191', '§ 191', '§ 191']

Levinson et al. v. Primedia et al. - Guide Lawsuit Against Primedia Inc.
The amended complaint below was filed against Primedia Inc., About.com, Scott Kurnit, and various "John Does" on November 1, 2002. Since the class action was initially filed in March, 2002, the number of named plaintiffs in Levinson et al. v. Primedia et al. has increased from 34 to 77.
The complaint is presented in full, without commentary.
NELSON, SUSI NUSS, SIMI K. VALLEY, DAVID CLASS ACTION
OROZCO, JUDITH A. KAUTZ, STEVEN GRAHAM COMPLAINT and
DEBORAH LEVINSON, THERESE JANSEN, JANA (DAB)
DEBORAH LEVINSON, THERESE JANSEN, JANA
Docket #: 02 Civ. 2222
M. JONES, BOISE MATTHEWS, EPONINE SALLEE,
MARSHALL BOWDEN, JIM ZWICK, MICHELLE
PETERSON, HAROLD HAGQUIST, PATRICIA
MICHAELS, JULIE ALTEBRANDO, STEPHEN
GRANADE, RICHARD W. GRAY JR., LITA
EPSTEIN, DURANT IMBODEN, CHERYL
IMBODEN, PAIVI HELENA SUOMI, ANGELA
THOR, TRACY LEE MORRIS, JEANNINE LAHEY,
SUZANNE J. BARRETT, LINDA NELSON, PAU LINDA NELSON, PAUL NELSON, SUSI NUSS,
SIMI K. VALLEY, DAVID OROZCO,
JUDITH A. KAUTZ, STEVEN GRAHAM VENTER,
MURRAY WAYNE LUNDBERG, JOHN
GORDON ROSS, JANET W. BURNS, JULIA
ARMSTRONG MURPHY, LORI HOLUTA,
MICHAEL GRIFFIS, JOHN IRONS, KELLY RIVERA
MICHAEL MILLS, MARK E. HESSEY, MARGARET
LORRAINE SMITH, KRISTYN SCHMALL, GLEN
SCHMALL, CHARLES E. HAYNES, RACHEL
SANFORDLYN SHRECKENGAST, JOHN MICHAEL
DREHOBL, SHANE WILLIAM DELL, PETER D.
LATHAN, WENDY HOGAN, PHILIP G.DELOACH,
ANTHONY PARENTE, ANNE E. CERVA, ROBERT
OLSON, GAYLE OLSON, ANN ZEISE, JOHN
ANDERSON, WALTER BLAIR LOGIE, KIMBERLY
PAULEY, KATHY STOLLEY, MARLENE
DZIEGELESKI, GLEN SCHMALL, KRISTYN SCHMALL,
ROBERT RAK, MARK A. FILETTI, BARBARA SEHR,
KRISTA MARIE BECK, DIANE DOBBS, DAVID J.
SWEET, DALE E. LEHMAN, BONNIE BRUNO,
ANDREW GEORGE VADAS, SCOTT RETTBERG, DEBRA
MACAULAY, REBECCA R. CLAYTON, ROBERT H.
BROWN, JUDY WILDS, MICHELLE TROUTMAN,
MELANY S. NOLTENIUS, LYNN M. JOHNSON, EDWARD
BOTT, TERI OLCOTT, Individually
PRIMEDIA INC., ABOUT.COM, INC.,
GENERAL INTERNET INC., SCOTT KURNIT,
and “John Does”, name fictitious, actual
name and number of such persons unknown,
Plaintiffs, by their attorneys LEON GREENBERG P.C. and MICHAEL SHEN, P.C., complain of the defendants and allege, upon information
hand belief, as follows:
1. Plaintiffs, former and present employees of defendant corporations, bring this action for refusal to pay minimum wages and overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, §§6,7, 29 U.S.C. §206, 207, and New York Labor Law §§190 et. seq. and 650 et. seq.; breach of contract, tortious interference with contractual relations, conversion, negligence, copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501 et. seq., replevin and unjust enrichment.
2. This Court has jurisdiction over the claims presented pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367 and the Fair Labor Standards Act Section 16 ("the FLSA" or "the Act"), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
3. Plaintiffs invoke the supplemental jurisdiction of this court to consider claims arising under state law.
4. Venue lies in the Southern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391.
STATEMENT AS TO PARTIES
5. Plaintiffs DEBORAH LEVINSON, THERESE JANSEN, JANA M. JONES, BOISE MATTHEWS, EPONINE SALLEE, MARSHALL BOWDEN, JIM ZWICK, MICHELLE PETERSON, HAROLD HAGQUIST, PATRICIA MICHAELS, JULIE ALTEBRANDO, STEPHEN GRANADE, RICHARD W. GRAY JR., LITA EPSTEIN, DURANT IMBODEN, CHERYL IMBODEN, PAIVI HELENA SUOMI, ANGELA THOR, TRACY LEE MORRIS, JEANNINE LAHEY, SUZANNE J. BARRETT, LINDA NELSON, PAUL NELSON, SUSI NUSS, SIMI K. VALLEY, DAVID OROZCO, JUDITH A. KAUTZ, STEVEN GRAHAM VENTER, MURRAY WAYNE LUNDBERG, JOHN GORDON ROSS, JANET W. BURNS, JULIA ARMSTRONG MURPHY, LORI HOLUTA, MICHAEL GRIFFIS, JOHN IRONS, KELLY RIVERA MICHAEL MILLS, MARK E. HESSEY, MARGARET LORRAINE SMITH, KRISTYN SCHMALL, GLEN SCHMALL, CHARLES E. HAYNES, RACHEL SANFORDLYN SHRECKENGAST, JOHN MICHAEL DREHOBL, SHANE WILLIAM DELL, PETER D. LATHAN, WENDY HOGAN, PHILIP G.DELOACH, ANTHONY PARENTE, ANNE E. CERVA, ROBERT OLSON, GAYLE OLSON, ANN ZEISE, JOHN ANDERSON, WALTER BLAIR LOGIE, KIMBERLY PAULEY, KATHY STOLLEY, MARLENE DZIEGELESKI, GLEN SCHMALL, KRISTYN SCHMALL, ROBERT RAK, MARK A. FILETTI, BARBARA SEHR, KRISTA MARIE BECK, DIANE DOBBS, DAVID J. SWEET, DALE E. LEHMAN, BONNIE BRUNO, ANDREW GEORGE VADAS, SCOTT RETTBERG, DEBRA MACAULAY, REBECCA R. CLAYTON, ROBERT H. BROWN, JUDY WILDS, MICHELLE TROUTMAN, MELANY S. NOLTENIUS, LYNN M. JOHNSON, EDWARD BOTT and TERI OLCOTT (the “individual plaintiffs” referring to all of the foregoing) are residents of the State of New York and other States or countries other than the United States.
6. Defendant Primedia, Inc. (“Primedia”, one of the “corporate defendants”) is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware having its principal place of business located in the City, State, and County of New York.
7. Defendant About.com Inc. (“About.com” one of the “corporate defendants”) is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware having its principal place of business located in the City, State, and County of New York.
8. Defendant General Internet Inc. (one of the “corporate defendants”) was a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York and having its principal place of business located in the City, State, and County of New York, such corporation not being currently in existence but having merged with or into the defendant About.com. Whenever an allegation appears hereafter against About.com it is also deemed to be an allegation against General Internet Inc.
9. Defendant Scott Kurnit (“Kurnit”, one of the “individual defendants”) is or was a stockholder of the corporate defendants, or some of them, and the current or a prior Chief Executive Officer of the defendant About.Com and was responsible for making numerous decisions and/or implementing policies by or on behalf of the corporate defendants that affected the plaintiffs as detailed herein.
10. Defendants “John Does”, names fictitious, actual names and number of such persons being unknown (part of the “individual defendants”), are persons similarly situated to defendant Kurnit in that they personally acted to make decisions and/or implement policies on behalf of the corporate defendants that affected the plaintiffs as detailed herein.
11. Since on or after October of 2000 the defendant Primedia has owned all or substantially all of the common stock of defendant About.Com and that since such time the defendant Primedia Inc. has exercised complete control over About.com and/or About.com has become a wholly owned subsidiary of Primedia Inc. that is subject to control by Primedia Inc.
12. The corporate defendants are or have been conducting business as a joint venture and/or have certain business contracts or agreements between themselves.
13. The corporate defendants have transferred assets and/or assigned claims or accounts receivable or payable between themselves.
14. The defendant About.com, for the purposes of the claims presented herein, was a mere "alter ego" or instrument of, or partner or joint venturer with, defendant Primedia, and as a result the defendant Primedia is jointly and severally liable with the defendant About.com for the plaintiffs’ claims. This joint and several liability of About.com and Primedia is predicated on the following, and other, facts, that upon information and belief will be more fully established when discovery is conducted in this case:
i) Primedia completely controlled the business operations of About.com and conducted the business of About.com in such a fashion so as to exclusively benefit Primedia, and not to allow About.com to function as a successful and economically independent profit making business. This included having About.com use its resources to sell magazine subscriptions for magazines owned by Primedia (or other wholly owned subsidiaries of Primedia), the sale of such subscriptions involving substantial expenses and/or loss of revenue to About.com without About.com receiving any revenue for such subscription sales, as the revenue from such subscription sales was received by Primedia and/or one of its other wholly owned subsidiaries;
ii) Primedia utilizing various facilities and staff employed by Primedia to conduct the business of About.com. and also used the staff of About.com to promote the business interests of Primedia and/or other wholly owned subsidiaries of Primedia;
iii) Primedia made key and crucial business decisions respecting the treatment of the plaintiffs by About.com, including, but not limited to, directing About.com to breach its contracts with the plaintiffs and violate certain of the plaintiffs’ copyright and common law property protections, as alleged, infra, by not paying the plaintiffs the monies the plaintiffs were owed pursuant to such contracts and/or by utilizing without permission, and profiting from, the use of plaintiffs’ copyrighted materials or other materials;
iv) Primedia engaged in fictitious, improper and/or fraudulent accounting treatment in respect to its dealings with About.com and About.com’s relations with the plaintiffs, such treatment having the net effect of increasing Primedia’s profits (or decreasing its losses) by charging expenses to About.com that would have otherwise been expenses of Primedia; and/or failing to have Primedia properly pay About.com for the full market value for services and/or advertising that About.com provided to Primedia; and/or by overcharging About.com for services or goods provided by Primedia; and/or by diverting revenue that properly belonged to or should have been credited for About.com’s benefit to Primedia and/or other wholly owned subsidiaries of Primedia, among other things.
15. Defendants, either directly or through their wholly owned subsidiary, operate and maintain an online for-profit Internet service called “About.Com” and which previously was known as “The Mining Company” (the “About.Com Service”).
16. The About.Com Service, which is available, without charge, to any person with access to the Internet, consists of a multitude of Internet web sites (the “About.Com Sites”) that contain information on a wide variety of personal, business, and leisure topics. Such web sites are both informative and participatory in nature, i.e., they contain information that can be viewed by an Internet user and they also allow for an Internet user to participate in various activities, such as submitting questions to the “guide” for the site or engaging in monitored and hosted online discussions with other participants (“chat room” activities).
17. The About.Com Service is intended to be a profit making commercial activity, and revenue is generated from the About.Com Sites by the sale of advertising that appears on such sites. The About.Com Sites also generate revenue from the sale of goods and/or services, such sales resulting in the payment of certain commissions to one or more of the defendants. Upon information and belief, defendants have also attempted to generate revenue from the About.Com Sites by engaging in syndication of the materials that appear on such sites, i.e., by licensing the use of such sites and/or their content to third parties, but it is unknown whether defendants have been successful in such attempts at syndication or in generating any revenue from such activities. The revenue generated from the About.Com Sites was received by or paid to one or more of the corporate defendants.
18. The plaintiffs have all worked as “Guides” for defendants, meaning that the plaintiffs were parties to contracts entered into between themselves and the defendants or some of the defendants, such contracts stipulating that the plaintiffs, in exchange for providing services as Guides on various About.Com Sites, would receive certain payments, specifically a percentage of the revenue generated by such About.Com Sites, and in some instances a right to participate in an additional “bonus” pool of revenue that was divided among the Guides.
19. The services provided by the plaintiffs as Guides for their various About.Com Sites were absolutely essential to the function, and very existence, of such About.Com Sites. Plaintiffs’ services included, but were not limited to:
i) The creation of such About.Com Sites;
ii)The technical/Internet programing work necessary to set such sites up on the Internet and keep them running;
iii) Maintaining and revising such About.Com Sites to keep the content of such sites both up to date and new so as to assure a continuing, and increasing, flow of both returning Internet users and new Internet users to such sites, such a volume of Internet “traffic” to such sites being crucial to defendants, as the advertising revenue generated by such sites was based upon the number of Internet users who viewed the sites;
iv) Creating content for such sites, in the form of newsletters or other articles, words, pictures, or audio/visual content;
v) Responding to email sent by visitors to their About.Com Sites;
vi) Hosting and arranging moderated discussions (chat rooms) in which visitors to their About.Com Sites could participate.
20. The defendants, About.Com and Primedia are for profit businesses which have gross revenue in excess of $500,000 per annum and are engaged in the production of goods for interstate commerce and/or use and handle goods which have moved in interstate commerce as such terms are defined in the FLSA and are employers subject to the jurisdiction of the FLSA.
21. The labor and services performed by the plaintiffs and the persons similarly situated to the plaintiffs were directly essential to the shipment and use of various goods which moved in interstate commerce and/or such labor and services involved the use of goods which have moved in interstate commerce and all such persons therefor were engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce as those terms are used in the FLSA while employed by the defendants.
22. The plaintiffs, while classified by the defendants as “independent contractors” or other “non-employees” of the defendants, were, in fact, employees of the defendants within the meaning of the FLSA, and as a result, all of the plaintiffs who worked for defendants in the United States (hereinafter U. S. plaintiffs) were entitled to the payment of minimum wages and/or overtime compensation as provided for under 29 U.S.C. §§ 206 and 207.
23. Such employment status was evidenced and established by numerous factors, common to and consistent with employment status in the publishing and communications industry, such factors including, but not being limited to the following:
i) The plaintiffs, during their work as guides, were required to follow detailed rules promulgated by the defendants, such rules being subject to frequent change and revision by the defendants without notice, and the defendants did, in fact, frequently revise and change such rules without notice, with any failure to follow such rules being a basis for termination of a plaintiff’s contract with the defendants;
ii) The defendants imposed a plethora of requirements on the form and appearance of the material the plaintiffs created and/or placed on the About.Com Sites, including such details as the stylistic placement of punctuation and grammar;
iii) The defendants, through their agents who were typically designated as the “editors” of the plaintiffs, frequently dictated what materials or specific subjects or articles would be written by the plaintiffs who had to write such articles or be terminated from their contracts, such an arrangement being contrary to the typical and traditional arrangements that freelance reporters have with the publications that they contract with;
iv) The defendants provided the tools for the plaintiffs
to perform their work for the defendants, and the defendants insisted that such tools be used be used to create and post on the About.Com Sites the particular Internet content that the plaintiffs created;
v) The defendants required that the plaintiffs perform many hours of work, involving the computer coding of various Internet “links” and other Internet programing used for, among other things, to create a reference directory on the About.Com System, such work having nothing to do with the content that the plaintiffs were creating for their About.Com Sites, such work being of great economic value to the defendants, who would have otherwise had to pay employees a substantial amount of money to perform such work, such work being of no economic value to the plaintiffs as it did not increase the revenue that the plaintiffs shared in nor were plaintiffs compensated in any other fashion for performing such work;
vi) The defendants required that the plaintiffs make regular detailed reports of their activities to their “editors” and/or otherwise have their work changed and/or reviewed by their editors;
vii) The defendants maintained production quotas for the plaintiffs and required that the plaintiffs engage in a certain minimal level of certain activities;
viii) The defendants, as part of their contracts with the plaintiffs, maintained that certain materials created by the plaintiffs were “works for hire” to which the defendants retained all property rights and that other materials created by the plaintiffs, which the defendants acknowledged belonged to the plaintiffs and were the plaintiffs’ creative property, were subject to a perpetual license whereby the defendants could use such property on their About.Com System in perpetuity without paying any compensation to the plaintiffs;
ix) The plaintiffs were not in the business of providing online Internet content or services and, as a matter of both actual circumstances and practical economic reality, could not and did not offer their services, and content, to other Internet businesses, and further, that the contracts between defendants and the plaintiffs forbid the plaintiffs from using or licensing their content to other Internet information providers;
x) The plaintiffs, despite their classification as “independent contractors” were really employees of the defendants in that the defendants, and not the plaintiffs, exercised substantial control over how the plaintiffs would perform their work for the defendants, and during such periods of time when the defendants may not have exercised such control the defendants still reserved the right to exercise such control over the plaintiffs;
xi) The plaintiffs, despite their classification as “independent contractors” were actually employees of the defendants as a matter of economic reality, in that the plaintiffs provided essential ongoing labor as part of the unified or integrated production process the is and was defendants’ About.Com service, such About.Com service would not have functioned without the plaintiffs’ ongoing labor and the plaintiffs thus, as a matter of law, were employees of the defendants.
24. The individual plaintiffs who performed work for defendants in the United States (the “United States plaintiffs”) did not receive compensation which complied with the minimum wage and, even though some of them often worked over forty hours per week, did not receive overtime compensation required by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206 and 207 for the work, labor and services they provided to the defendants.
25. The individual defendants acted as “employers” of the plaintiffs within the meaning of the FLSA and thus are jointly and severally liable, along with the corporate defendants, for the plaintiffs’ claims under the FLSA.
26. The corporate defendants failed to pay numerous other persons, who performed work for the defendants in the United States and who are similarly situated to the individual United States plaintiffs, the compensation required by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206 and 207 for the work, labor and services they provided to the defendants, and the United States plaintiffs propose to take appropriate proceedings to have such persons notified of the pendency of this action and join this action as plaintiffs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) by filing written consents to joinder with the Court.
27. The defendants’ violations of the FLSA were willful.
28. That as a result of the foregoing, the named United States plaintiffs seek judgment against the corporate defendants on their own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated who file written consents to joinder in this action for all unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages owed by the defendants to the United States plaintiffs and such other persons similarly situated pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 206, 207, together with an award of an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, and costs, interest, and attorney’s fees, as provided for under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
AS AND FOR A SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
ON BEHALF OF THE NAMED PLAINTIFFS
AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED FOR
VIOLATIONS OF NEW YORK LABOR LAW ARTICLES 6 AND 19
29. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all allegations previously set forth.
30. Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the FRCP, this claim for relief is brought on behalf of the named plaintiffs and on behalf of each and all other similarly situated persons who were denied minimum wages and overtime pay or the full and proper payment of their wages in violation of New York Labor Law Articles 6 and 19, §§ 191, 198, 650 et.seq.
31. The above described class is so numerous that joinder of all members, whether otherwise required or permitted, is impracticable in that their numbers in all likelihood substantially exceed one hundred, and their identities are presently unknown.
32. The plaintiffs have been denied minimum wages and overtime pay and/or the full and proper payment of the their wages in violation of New York Labor Law Articles 6 and 19, §§ 191, 198, 650 et.seq. and the claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the above described class, in that the interests of the named plaintiffs are co‑extensive with the interests of the other members of the class, and there is a lack of adverse interests between the named plaintiffs and the other members of the class.
33. There are questions of law and fact common to the class which predominate over any questions affecting only individual members: Were plaintiffs paid their full and proper wages and were the plaintiffs paid minimum wages and overtime wages that complied with the requirements of New York State Law?
34. The named plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of said class.
35. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the class claims under New York Labor Law Articles 6 and 19, §§ 191, 198, 650 et.seq.
36. The plaintiffs, and defendants, by their express contract of employment, agreed that the terms and conditions of the plaintiffs’ employment by the defendants would be governed by New York State Law.
37. The defendants violated New York Labor Law Articles 6 and 19, §§ 191, 198, 650 et.seq., and the Wage Orders issued thereunder, by failing to pay the plaintiffs the minimum wages and overtime wages required under New York State Law and/or by failing to pay the plaintiffs their full wages promptly as required by New York State Law.
38. The defendants’ violations of New York Labor Law Articles 6 and 19, §§ 191, 198, 650 et.seq., were willful.
39. That as a result of the foregoing, the named plaintiffs seek judgment against the corporate defendants on their own behalf and on behalf of all those similarly situated for all unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages and/or other wages owed by the corporate defendants to the plaintiffs together with an award of costs, interest, and attorney’s fees, as provided for under the New York State Labor Law.
AS AND FOR A THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
BREACH OF CONTRACT AGAINST ABOUT.COM AND PRIMEDIA
40. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all allegations previously set forth.
41. Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the FRCP, this claim for relief is brought on behalf of all of the named plaintiffs and on behalf of each and all other similarly situated persons on whom About.com has failed to make full and proper payments pursuant to the contracts between the plaintiffs and those similarly situated to the plaintiffs and About.com
42. The above described class is so numerous that joinder of all members, whether otherwise required or permitted, is impracticable in that their numbers in all likelihood substantially exceed one hundred, and their identities are presently unknown.
43. The named plaintiffs have not had full and proper payments made to them by About.com pursuant to their contracts with About.com, and the claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the above described class, in that the interests of the named plaintiffs are co‑extensive with the interests of the other members of the class, and there is a lack of adverse interests between the named plaintiffs and the other members of the putative class of plaintiffs.
44. The named plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of said class.
45. There are questions of law and fact common to the class which predominate over any questions affecting only individual members: Were the plaintiffs properly paid their full amounts of compensation due them pursuant to their contracts with About.com? Was About.com’s method for determining the plaintiffs’ compensation under their contracts proper? If About.com’s method for determining the plaintiffs’ compensation was not proper, then what was the proper method for determining such compensation?
46. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the class claims for breach of contract.
47. About.com entered into contracts with the plaintiffs, discussed supra, whereby the plaintiffs, in return for providing their services and materials as Guides for About.com’s About.Com System, were to be paid certain monies, equal to specified shares of certain revenues that were received by About.com.
48. About.com breached its contracts with the plaintiffs by failing to pay the plaintiffs the amounts promised to the plaintiffs pursuant to the foregoing contracts, such breaches of contract including, but not being limited to:
i) Failing to pay plaintiffs the actual, and agreed upon, percentage of revenue specified in the contracts of the parties, and instead paying the plaintiffs a percentage of a much lower “revenue number” that was fictitious and fabricated by defendants and was not the true “revenue number” that the plaintiffs’ percentage of revenue should have been calculated against;
ii) Deducting numerous improper “expenses” from the “revenue number” that plaintiffs were to receive a percentage of prior to calculating such percentage, the effect of such conduct being to deny plaintiffs the full share of their promised revenue and to enrich About.com in a like amount;
iii) Failing to count as part of the “revenue number” that plaintiffs were to receive a percentage of revenue that should have been paid by defendant Primedia (or subsidiaries or affiliates of defendant Primedia) to defendant About.Com, such revenue being intentionally uncollected by About.Com and the plaintiffs thus being denied their percentage of such revenue;
iv) Failing to pay plaintiffs various bonuses as promised and/or failing to properly pay plaintiffs sums of money from a “bonus pool” fund that About.com promised would be paid and/or by paying such bonuses in the form of worthless stock options and not cash;
v) Basing the plaintiffs’ contract compensation upon a “page view” rate whereby the plaintiffs were to be paid a certain set amount of money for each “page view” (a “page view” occurs when an Internet user has accessed a particular About.Com website page), About.com intentionally failing to keep an accurate count of such “page views” and intentionally understating the amount of such “page views” for the purpose of denying the plaintiffs their full and accurate “page view” based compensation.
49. The exact amounts owed to the plaintiffs for About.com’s breach of contract is unknown, and plaintiffs also seek an accounting to determine the proper award of actual, incidental, and consequential damages that they have suffered as a result of About.com’s breach of contract, and plaintiffs request a judgment for the full amount of such damages plus interest, costs, and disbursements against defendants About.com and Primedia, along with appropriate equitable relief including, but not limited to, an injunction prohibiting the defendants from making any further use of the materials created by the plaintiffs pursuant to their contracts with the defendants.
AS AND FOR A FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
50. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all allegations previously set forth.
51. Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the FRCP, this claim for relief is brought on behalf of all of the named plaintiffs and on behalf of each and all other similarly situated persons whose contract with About.com has been tortiously interfered with by the individual defendants, as described more fully, infra.
52. The above described class is so numerous that joinder of all members, whether otherwise required or permitted, is impracticable in that their numbers in all likelihood substantially exceed one hundred, and their identities are presently unknown.
53. The named plaintiffs have not had full and proper payments made to them by About.com pursuant to their contracts with About.com, such a breach of contract by About.com being induced and caused by the individual defendants, and the claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the above described class, in that the interests of the named plaintiffs are co‑extensive with the interests of the other members of the class, and there is a lack of adverse interests between the named plaintiffs and the other members of the putative class of plaintiffs.
54. The named plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of said class.
55. There are questions of law and fact common to the class which predominate over any questions affecting only individual members: Was About.com’s failure to pay the plaintiffs the full and proper amount due to the plaintiffs the result of the tortious conduct of, and/or induced by, the individual defendants? And if such a breach of contract arose as a result of the individual defendants’ actions are the individual defendants liable to the plaintiffs for tortiously interfering with the plaintiffs’ contracts with About.com?
56. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the class claims for tortious interference by the individual defendants with About.com’s contracts with the plaintiffs.
57. About.com entered into contracts with the plaintiffs, discussed supra, whereby the plaintiffs, in return for providing their services and materials as Guides for the About.Com System, were to be paid certain monies, equal to specified shares of certain revenues that were received by About.com, and, as discussed supra, About.com breached such contracts with the plaintiffs by failing to pay the plaintiffs the full amount of money the plaintiffs should have received from About.com pursuant to such contracts.
58. The individual defendants tortiously interfered with the plaintiffs’ contracts with About.com in the following, among other, respects:
i) By using their control over About.com, and its parent corporation, Primedia, to intentionally direct About.com to not pay the plaintiffs the full amount of money that was owed to plaintiffs from About.com pursuant to their contracts with About.com;
ii) By using their control over About.com, and its parent corporation, Primedia, to intentionally direct About.com to institute a system whereby About.com would not properly record the “page views” upon which the plaintiffs were to receive compensation and to have About.com purposely undercount such “page views”;
iii) By using their control over About.com, and its parent corporation, Primedia, to intentionally direct About.com to institute a system whereby About.com would charge various improper “expenses” against the revenue number that was used to calculate the commissions paid to the plaintiffs, the result of such action being that the plaintiffs’ payments from About.com were greatly reduced because such payments were calculated as a percentage of a much small revenue number;
iv) By using their control over About.com and its parent corporation, Primedia, to intentionally direct About.com to not pay promised bonuses to the plaintiffs, or to have the plaintiffs paid such bonuses in worthless stock options and not cash.
59. The individual defendants personally profited from their tortious interference with plaintiffs’ contracts with About.com, the individual defendants undertaking such tortious interference intentionally and for the explicit purpose of benefitting themselves, such conduct not being undertaken merely at the request of, or solely for the benefit of, the defendant Primedia.
60. The individual defendants were personally enriched from the aforesaid illegal and/or improper underpayment of plaintiffs' wages and/or the other violations of the plaintiffs’ contracts with the defendant About.com, such personal enrichment including, but not being limited to, an initial public offering (IPO) of About.Com stock, and a sale of all About.Com stock to defendant Primedia, such transactions personally and materially benefitting the individual defendants through their receipt of valuable stock options, stock, and executive compensation contracts that were directly attributable to such transactions, such IPO and sale of About.Com, in turn, being predicated, in whole or in part, upon the illegal and improper profits and/or revenue that About.Com reported from its failure to pay proper wages and/or other contract compensation to the plaintiffs.
61. The individual defendants’ tortious interference with the plaintiffs' contracts with About.com was malicious, intentional, unprivileged, and meant to harm the pecuniary interests of the plaintiffs and enrich the individual defendants.
62. The plaintiffs proximately sustained damages as a result of such intentional and tortious interference with their aforesaid contracts, in that as a result of such conduct by the individual defendants the plaintiffs were not paid, and did not receive, the full wages or commissions or other benefits due and owing to them pursuant to the aforesaid contracts.
63. The exact amounts owed to the plaintiffs by the individual defendants as a result of the individual defendants’ tortious interference with the plaintiffs’ contracts with About.com is unknown, and plaintiffs also seek an accounting to determine the proper award of actual, incidental, and consequential damages that they have suffered as a result of such conduct by the individual defendants, together with an award of punitive damages against the individual defendants in the amount of ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS or ONE MILLION DOLLARS on behalf of each plaintiff class member, whichever is greater.
AS AND FOR A FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
AGAINST THE DEFENDANT PRIMEDIA
64. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all allegations previously set forth.
65. Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the FRCP, this claim for relief is brought on behalf of all of the named plaintiffs and on behalf of each and all other similarly situated persons whose contract with About.com has been tortiously interfered with by the defendant Primedia, as described more fully, infra.
66. The above described class is so numerous that joinder of all members, whether otherwise required or permitted, is impracticable in that their numbers in all likelihood substantially exceed one hundred, and their identities are presently unknown.
67. The named plaintiffs have not had full and proper payments made to them by About.com pursuant to their contracts with About.com, such a breach of contract by About.com being induced and caused by the defendant Primedia, and the claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the above described class, in that the interests of the named plaintiffs are co‑extensive with the interests of the other members of the class, and there is a lack of adverse interests between the named plaintiffs and the other members of the putative class of plaintiffs.
68. The named plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of said class.
69. There are questions of law and fact common to the class which predominate over any questions affecting only individual members: Was About.com’s failure to pay the plaintiffs the full and proper amount due to the plaintiffs the result of the tortious conduct of, and/or induced by, the defendant Primedia? And if such a breach of contract arose as a result of the actions of defendant Primedia is the defendant Primedia liable to the plaintiffs for tortiously interfering with the plaintiffs’ contracts with About.com?
70. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the class claims for tortious interference by Primedia with About.com’s contracts with the plaintiffs.
71. About.com entered into contracts with the plaintiffs, discussed supra, whereby the plaintiffs, in return for providing their services and materials as Guides for the About.Com System, were to be paid certain monies, equal to specified shares of certain revenues that were received by About.com, and, as discussed supra, About.com breached such contracts with the plaintiffs by failing to pay the plaintiffs the full amount of money the plaintiffs should have received from About.com pursuant to such contracts.
72. The defendant Primedia tortiously interfered with the plaintiffs’ contracts with About.com in the following, among other, respects:
i) By using its control over About.com to intentionally direct About.com to not pay the plaintiffs the full amount of money that was owed to plaintiffs from About.com pursuant to their contracts with About.com;
ii) By using its control over About.com to intentionally direct About.com to institute a system whereby About.com would not properly record the “page views” upon which the plaintiffs were to receive compensation and to have About.com purposely undercount such “page views”;
iii) By using its control over About.com to intentionally direct About.com to institute a system whereby About.com would charge various improper “expenses” against the revenue number that was used to calculate the commissions paid to the plaintiffs, the result of such action being that the plaintiffs’ payments from About.com were greatly reduced because such payments were calculated as a percentage of a much small revenue number;
iv) By using its control over About.com to intentionally direct About.com to not pay promised bonuses to the plaintiffs, or to have the plaintiffs paid such bonuses in worthless stock options and not cash.
73. The defendant Primedia directly profited from its tortious interference with plaintiffs’ contracts with About.com, Primedia also undertaking such tortious interference intentionally and for the explicit purpose of benefitting itself at the expense of the plaintiffs, such conduct not being undertaken pursuant to some proper and legitimate business reason.
74. The defendant Primedia was enriched from the aforesaid illegal and/or improper underpayment of plaintiffs' wages and/or the other violations of the plaintiffs’ contracts with the defendant About.com, such enrichment including, but not being limited to, the receipt by Primedia, and/or its affiliated subsidiaries, of revenues it would otherwise not have received and/or a decrease of expenses that Primedia, and/or its affiliated subsidiaries, would have incurred.
75. The defendant Primedia’s tortious interference with the plaintiffs' contracts with About.com was malicious, intentional, and meant to harm the pecuniary interests of the plaintiffs and enrich the defendant Primedia.
76. The plaintiffs proximately sustained damages as a result of such intentional and tortious interference with their aforesaid contracts, in that as a result of such conduct by the defendant Primedia the plaintiffs were not paid, and did not receive, the full wages or commissions or other benefits due and owing to them pursuant to the aforesaid contracts.
77. The exact amounts owed to the plaintiffs by the defendant Primedia as a result of said defendant’s tortious interference with the plaintiffs’ contracts with About.com is unknown, and plaintiffs also seek an accounting to determine the proper award of actual, incidental, and consequential damages that they have suffered as a result of such conduct by the defendant Primedia, together with an award of punitive damages against the defendant Primedia in the amount of ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS or ONE MILLION DOLLARS on behalf of each plaintiff class member, whichever is greater.
AS AND FOR A SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
PURSUANT TO FEDERAL LABOR LAW
ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF THERESE JANSEN
100. Plaintiff THERESE JANSEN repeats each and every allegation previously set forth herein.
101. Pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. 215 and 216) said plaintiff was to be protected from any retaliation, discharge or other adverse action by the defendants in response to any legal action initiated by said plaintiffs under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) against the defendants in an attempt by said plaintiff to secure and enforce her rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
102. That said plaintiff, prior to the initiation of this lawsuit, complained to the defendants that she was owed wages not paid to her in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
103. That the plaintiff, in response to the actions taken by her and alleged in paragraph 121 and her filing of the instant lawsuit, was subject to retaliation by the defendants in violation of Sections 215 and/or 216 of 29 U.S.C., such retaliation including, but not limited to, the discharge of the plaintiff from her employment and a reduction in plaintiff’s wages, and by doing so defendants caused the plaintiff a loss of her employment, pecuniary loss of her earnings, injury to the plaintiff's professional reputation and employability, and mental and emotional injury and distress.
104. That the aforesaid retaliatory conduct of the defendants was malicious, intentional, illegal and performed with the actual intent to harm the plaintiff and plaintiff was directly and proximately harmed from such conduct.
105. As a result of the foregoing, the plaintiff THERESE JANSEN seeks from the defendants the following:
i) An award of compensatory damages for her past and future lost wages and benefits, including employer paid social security contributions and fringe benefits; for her emotional anguish and mental distress; for her injury to her professional reputation and employability; all of which losses are continuing and are demanded in the total amount of compensatory damages of $200,000.00 (two hundred thousand dollars), and;
ii) An award of punitive damages in the amount of $2,000,000.00 (two million dollars), and;
iii) Reinstatement in her prior position of employment with the defendants.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment against the defendants for the following relief:
A. Relief sought for each Cause of Action;
B. Punitive damages where demanded;
C. Interest, costs, disbursements and attorneys' fees;
D. Such other and further relief, including equitable relief as demanded herein, as this court deems just and proper.
LEON GREENBERG P.C.
MICHAEL SHEN P.C.
225 Broadway - Suite 612
(212) 227-4841
By: Leon Greenberg, Esq. (LG3280)