Regal and Hillis v. Butler & Hosch

1

UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTSOUTHERNDISTRICTOFFLORIDA

CaseNo.:

STEPHENREGALandGIANNAHILLIS,individuallyandonbehalfofallothersimilarlysituatedindividuals, Plaintiffs,vs.BUTLER&HOSCH,P.A.

Defendant.________________________________________/

CLASSACTIONCOMPLAINT

Plaintiffs StephenRegalandGiannaHillisindividuallyandonbehalfofallotherssimilarlysituated,throughcounsel,bringthis action in their individual capacities andon behalf of the class of persons similarly situated as defined below and for theirComplaint allege, pursuant to their own knowledge, or where there is no personalknowledge, upon the investigation of counsel and/or upon informationandbelief,towit:

NATUREOFCASE

1. Thisactionseeks torecoverbackpayandbenefitsunder29U.S.C.2101et seq. the WARNAct to redress the conduct by Defendant Butler&Hosch, P.A.Butler&Hosch,thatterminatedmorethansevenhundred700employeeswithoutproper legal notice as part of a mass layoff onMay14,2015 inMiami, FloridaandDefendantsothersites. Defendantsmass layoffdeprivedhundredsof fired workersandtheirfamiliessometransitiontimetoadjusttotheprospectivelossofemployment,

Case 0:15-cv-61081-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2015 Page 1 of 13

2

toseekandobtainalternativejobsand,ifnecessary,toenterskilltrainingorretrainingthatwill allow these workerstosuccessfullycompeteinthejobmarket.20C.F.R.639.1a.

2. Butler&Hoschfailedtoprovidetheseterminatedemployeeswiththesixty60daysadvance written notice that is required by the Worker Adjustment andRetrainingNotificationAct,29U.S.C.2101etseq.WARNAct.

3. Butler&Hoschisalawfirmspecializinginthelegalneedsofthemortgagebanking industry. Butler & Hosch practice areas include Foreclosure, Bankruptcy,Litigation,LossMitigation,REO,Title,andEviction.

4. ThisCourthasjurisdictionpursuantto28U.S.C.1331,1334and1367,aswellas29U.S.C.2102,2104a5.

5. Venue over thismatter is appropriate in this Court pursuant to 29 U.S.C.2104a5becausetheactsconstitutingtheviolationoftheWARNActoccurred,andthe claims arose in this district. Venue is also proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391a andb. The acts complained of occurred in the State of Florida and, at all relevanttimes, material hereto, Butler&Hoschmaintainedanofficeinthisdistrict, conductedbusinessinthisdistrict,andasubstantialpartoftheeventsor omissionsgivingrisetothisactionoccurredinthisjudicialdistrict.

PARTIES

Plaintiffs6. Plaintiff, StephenRegal, is andwas at allmaterial times relevanthereto, a

resident of Broward county, Florida, sui juris, and a fulltime employee of Butler&


3

Hosch,atthetimehewasterminatedonMay14,2015.

7. Plaintiff, GianaHillis, is and was at all material times relevant hereto, aresident of Broward county, Florida, sui juris, and a fulltime employee of Butler&Hosch,atthetimeshewasterminatedonMay14,2015.

8. At all times relevant andmaterial hereto, all Plaintiffs and classmemberswereeitherfull timeemployeesofButler&Hosch,ortheyweretemporaryemployees,other than parttime employees, and are to be counted in determining that thethresholdrequirementsoftheWARNActaremet.

9. Plaintiffs were Butler & Hosch employees who, in addition to othersubstantial employeebenefits, earned regular compensation and were damaged byButler&Hoschs violations of theWARNAct.

10. The individualplaintiffs identified in theaboveparagraphswill beknowncollectivelyhereinafterasPlaintiffs.

DefendantButler&Hosch,P.A.

11. Butler&Hoschmaintains a website on which it touts itself as providingdistinguishedsinglepointofcontact,cradletograveserviceinallaspectsofrealestateandmortgage servicing law and claims that it received a Best in State award forforeclosureandbankruptcy.1

FACTS

12. PlaintiffsandClassMemberswereterminatedbyButler&HoschonMay14,

1http://www.butlerandhosch.com/index.php/aboutus/


4

2015.

13. OnMay14,2015,Butler&Hoschterminatedapproximately700employees,withoutprovidingthemwiththesixtydaysnoticerequiredundertheWARNAct.

14. ThePlaintiffswerefulltimeemployeesasusedintheAct.

15. Theclassmembers,whoweretemporaryemployees,otherthanparttimeemployees, are counted as employees as used in the Act because the contract fortemporary employment was a part of a long term relationship betweenDefendant,temporaryemployeesandtheiragents.

16. AllofthePlaintiffswereaffectedemployeesasusedintheActandsufferedanemploymentlossasdefinedbytheAct.

17. In the timeprescribedby theAct,Butler&Hoschpermanently terminatedtheaffectedemployees.

18. Further,morethan50employmentlossesoccurredduringasingle30dayperiod.

19. The statutory period under the WARN Act began on February20, 2015which is sixty 60 calendardaysbeforethefirstemploymentlossesbeganonMay14,2015.

20. OnoraboutMay14,2015,RobertHosch,CEOofButler&HoschsentanemailTerminationEmailtoemployees,advisingthemthatthefirmwasclosing,thattheirpositionswereterminated,andthattheywouldnotbepaidforthepreviousthreeweeks.

21. TheTerminationEmailstated,inpart,thefollowing:

ItiswithgreatsadnessthatIreporttoallofyouregardingthedifficult


5

financial status ofButler&Hosch and its affiliates BHwhichhasresultedinthefilingofthestatecourtAssignmentsfortheBenefitofCreditorsABC.IhavevoluntarilysteppeddownasCEOandSeniorPartnerofBH.Thecontrolof theBHcompanieshasbeenvoluntarilyplacedinthehandsofanexperiencedthirdpartyfiduciary,Mr.MichaelMoecker.How does the filing of these ABCs cases impact you? Though Mr.Moeckerhascompleteaccesstoourassets,hewillnothavesufficientcash on hand to fund payroll at the end of this week. Without BHemployees and attorneys there is no ongoing operation. BH cannotcontinuetofunction.Tobeclear,whileIcontinuetoholdouthopethatourexistinglenderand/orstrategicpartnersmayprovideaninfusionofcashtoday,withoutit,BHwillhavenochoicebuttocloseitsdoorsimmediately.

22. IntheTerminationEmail,HoschfurtherstatedthatButler&Hoschgrewtoofastandcouldnotmergeprocessesfromtheaqcuiredentitiesquicklyenoughtomeetoureconomicforecasts,whichresultedinshorttermcashcrunchesandourabilitytoattractnewcapitalintheinterim.

23. Uponinformationandbelief,Butler&Hoschknewthatterminationswereanticipated, but failed to provide employees, nor State and Local authority withadvancenoticeasrequiredundertheWARNAct.

24. Butler&Hosch reportedly terminateddozensof employees inDecember,2014.

25. The employees terminated onMay 14, 2015werenot providedwithadvancenoticebutwereterminatedbyanemailsenttothemthesameday.

26. Againtheemployeeswereprovidedwithnonotice,severance,andbarelyanopportunity to gather their personal items before security badges and telephoneextensionsweredeactivated.


6

27. Plaintiffs and other terminated employees incurred expenses directlyrelatedtoperformingtheirdutiesorfollowingthedirectionsofButler&Hosch.Butler& Hosch has failed to reimburse Plaintiffs and other terminated employees thesereimbursableexpenses.

28. Byfailingtodisclosetheirtrueintentionstomakemasslayoffsinadvance,Butler&Hoschdeceivedtheiremployeesfromlookingforotherworkand/ormakingcontingent planswhileButler&Hoschcontinuedtooperateunabated.

29. As a result of Butler & Hoschs discontinuance of service of employeeswithoutnotice,hundredsofjobsintheSouthFloridaAreahavebeenlost.

CLASSACTIONALLEGATIONS30. Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure23a,b1and3andtheWARNAct29U.S.C.2104a5.31. Plaintiffs bring this action for themselves and on behalf of a class of all

similarlysituatedemployees.TheClassorClassMembersPlaintiffsseektocertifyaredefinedas:

AllemployeesofButler&Hosch,P.A.whowereterminatedfromemploymentatButler&Hoschwithoutbeingprovidedsixty 60dayswrittennoticeofamasslayoffbeforethedateoftheirtermination.ExcludedfromtheClassareanyparttimeemployees.32. ExcludedfromtheClassareButler&Hoschandthelegalrepresentatives,

heirs, successors and assigns of any excluded person and members of the federaljudiciary.

33. Uponinformationandbelief,Plaintiffsestimatethattheclasscomprisesatleastsevenhundred700ClassMembersandtheClassissonumerousthatjoinderof


7

all ClassMembers is impracticable. Themembers of the class can be identified andlocatedusinginformationcontainedintheDefendantshumanresourcesrecords.

34. Therearecommonquestionsof lawand/orfactcommontotheclassthatpredominate over any questions affecting only individual Class Members. Thequestions of law and fact common to the class arising from Defendants actionsinclude,butarenotlimitedtothefollowing:

a. WhethertheprovisionsoftheWARNActapply;b. WhetherPlaintiffsandClassMembersareaffectedemployeesasused

in theAct;c. Whether Butler & Hoschs employee terminations on May 14, 2015

constituteaterminationand/ormasslayoffundertheWARNAct;d. Whether Butler&Hosch failed to provide the notices required by the

WARNAct29U.S.C.2102b;e. WhetherButler&Hoschcanavail itself of anyof the provisionsof the

WARNActwhichpermitlesserperiodsofnotice;f. TheappropriateformulaetomeasuredamagesundertheWARNAct29

U.S.C.2104a2;andg. The appropriate definitions and formulae to measure payments to

potentiallyoffsetdamagesundertheWARNAct29U.S.C.2104a2.35. Plaintiffs claims are typical of those of the ClassMembers.Plaintiffs and

theClassMembersweresubjectedtothesamekindofunlawfulconductandtheclaimsofPlaintiffsandtheClassMembersarebasedonthesamelegaltheoriesandquestionsoflawandfactpursuanttotheWARNAct.


8

36. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class thePlaintiffsrepresent. Plaintiffsinterestsdonotconflictwiththeinterestsoftheclass,andthePlaintiffsintendonprosecutingthisactionvigorously.

37. Plaintiffshaveretainedexperiencedcounselqualifiedinclasslitigationandcounselarecompetenttoasserttheinterestsoftheclass.

38. The unlawfulactsofButler&Hosch,asalleged herein,constituteacourseofconduct common to Plaintiffs and each Class Member. Prosecution of separateactions by individual ClassMemberswould create a risk of inconsistent of varyingadjudicationswhichwouldestablishincompatiblestandardsofconductforDefendantsand/orsubstantially impairor impede theabilityoftheindividualClassMemberstoprotecttheirinterests.

39. Upon informationandbelief,Defendants,andeachof them,haveactedorrefusedtoactongroundsgenerallyapplicabletotheClass.

40. Questions of law and/or common to the Class Members, including theissues identified above, predominate over questions affecting only individual ClassMembers,andaclassactionissuperiortootheravailablemethodsforfairandefficientadjudicationofthecontroversy.Class action treatmentwill allow a large number ofsimilarly situated individuals to simultaneously pursue their common claims in asingle forum in an efficient manner, without unnecessary duplication of effort andexpense that would be required if numerous individual actions were pursued.However,theaffectedemployeesmustoptintothislitigationsothathisorherrighttodamagescanbedeterminedandquantumofdamagescanbecalculatedbythecourt.


9

COUNTI

ViolationsoftheUnitedStatesWorkerAdjustmentandRetrainingNotificationAct41. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated,

repeat and reallege the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as if fully restatedherein.

42. Atalltimesmaterialherein,Plaintiffs,andsimilarlysituatedpersons,havebeenentitledtotherights,protectionsandbenefitsprovidedundertheWARNAct,29U.S.C.2101etseq.

43. TheWARNActregulatestheamountofnoticeanemployermustprovidetoemployeeswhowillbeterminatedduetomasslayoffs,aswellasthebackpayandotherassociatedbenefitsanaffectedemployee isduebasedonaviolationof the requirednoticeperiod.

44. Butler&Hoschwas,andis,subjecttothenoticeandbackpayrequirementsof the WARN Act because Defendants, individually and collectively are a businessenterprisethatemploys100 or more employees, excluding parttime employees, asdefinedintheAct.29U.S.C.21011A.

45. DefendantswillfullyviolatedtheWARNActbyfailingtoprovidetherequirednotice.

46. Section2103oftheWARNActexemptscertainemployersfromthenoticerequirements of theAct.29U.S.C.210312. Noneof theWARNActexemptionsapplytoDefendantsfailuretoproviderequirednoticetoPlaintiffsandClassMembers.Accordingly, Plaintiffs and Class Members must receive the notice and back pay


10

requiredbytheWARNAct29U.S.C.21011A.47. Plaintiffs andClassMembers havebeendamaged byDefendants conduct

constitutingviolations of theWARN Act and are entitled to damages for their backpay and associatedbenefits for each day of the violation. Defendant has not actedin good faith nor with reasonablegroundstobelievetheiractsandomissionswerenotaviolationoftheWARNAct.

48. Defendant did not announce their operational restructuring until after itbeganmasslayoffsofitsemployees.

49. Defendant, it subsidiaries and agents made false representations andstatements even before sending out its letters of terminations or theWARNNoticefinallyfiledwiththeStateofFloridaonoraboutNovember9,2010.

50. Noticewas required tobe received,notmerelygiven, sixty 60 calendardays before separation, and although most employees received their notice byelectronic mail communication, they were only given a matter of hours or less togathertheirpersonalbelongings,whichisafurtherviolationoftheAct.

51. Defendant knew of should have known that their own conduct was thecause of the actual change in business circumstance, as evidenced by their publicstatements,andwerethusforeseeable.

52. Defendant cannot allege in good faith that the terminations wereunforeseeable due to business circumstances as the circumstances were a notunexpected conditions outside theemployerscontrolandtherefore,bnotsuddenordramaticbutinpartbecauseoftheirveryownactionswhichtheyknewoflongbeforetheterminations


11

53. DefendanthadplentyofadvanceopportunitytoprovidenoticetoPlaintiffsand Membersof theClassof thepotential formass layoffsand/or terminations,andinsteadwillfullychosetoremainsilentinviolationoftheWARNAct.

54. DefendantisanemployerasusedinWARN.55. PlaintiffsareaffectedemployeesasdefinedundertheWARNAct.29U.S.C.

2101a5.56. Noneoftheaffectedemployeeswereprovidedadvancewrittennoticeorin

thealternativeappropriatepayandbenefitsdueundertheWARNAct.57. Some of the affected employees were constructively discharged by

Defendants.58. DefendantwasawareofitsliabilityundertheWARNActnoticeandpayment

requirementsandwrongfullyandknowingly failed toprovidenoticeas required fortheirowneconomicgain.

59. BusinesscircumstancesdonotabsolvetheDefendantofliabilityundertheAct.

60. EachPlaintiffisentitledtotheamountofbackpayandbenefitsfortheperiodoftheviolationoftheActbyDefendant.

61. Plaintiffs have been required to retain counsel in this matter to protectPlaintiffsrightsandhaveincurredattorneysfeesandcostsinthismatter.

PRAYERFORRELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant and an Orderprovidingfor:

A. Certification of the Class pursuant toRule 23 of the Federal Rule of Civil


12

Procedure; certifying Plaintiffs as representatives of the Class and designating theircounselofrecordascounselfortheClass;

B. FindingthattheDefendantButler&HoschhasviolatedtheWARNActandtherefore holding Defendant liable to Plaintiffs and the Class in an amount to bedetermined;

C. Compensatory damages in an amount equal to at least the amountsprovided by theWARNAct29U.S.C.2104a;

D. A judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and the other similarly situated formeremployees equal to the sum of: their unpaid wages, salary, commissions, bonuses,accruedholidaypay,accruedvacationpay,allaccruedpaidtimeoff,pensionand401kcontributionsandotherCOBRAbenefits,for60days,thatwouldhavebeencoveredandpaidunderthethenapplicableemployeebenefitplanshadthatcoveragecontinuedforthat period, all determined in accordance with the WARN Act, 29 U.S.C.A. 2104a1A,allunreimbursedexpensesadvancedbyPlaintiffsandClassMembers,includinganycivilpenalties;

E. Reasonableattorneyfeesandcosts;F. Prejudgmentinterestasmaybedeterminedbystatuteandrule;G. Leave to amend this complaint to add state law claims should it prove

necessary;andH. SuchotherandfurtherreliefastheCourtmaydeemnecessaryorappropriate// Remainderofpageintentionallyleftblank //


13

DEMANDFORJURYTRIAL

Plaintiffs,onbehalfofthemselvesandallotherssimilarlysituated,herebydemandatrialbyjuryofallissuessotriable.

Dated:May21,2015 Respectfullysubmitted, /s/SethM.Lehrman

GaryM.FarmerFla.BarNo.914444Email:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected],JAFFE,WEISSING,

EDWARDS,FISTOS&LEHRMAN,P.L.425N.AndrewsAve.,Suite2FortLauderdale,Florida33301Telephone:9545242820Facsimile:9545242822 AttorneysforPlaintiffs


Documents

Regal and Hillis v. Butler & Hosch