SENTOSA CLASS ACTION
  • Home
  • Court Documents
    • Complaint
    • Answer
    • The Court's Class Action Decision
    • Notice to the Class
    • The Court's Summary Judgment Decision
    • The US Court of Appeals' Decision
    • The Court's Damages Decision
    • The Proposed Settlement Agreement
    • Motion for Attorneys' Fees
    • The Court's Preliminary Approval of Settlement
    • Notice of Proposed Settlement
    • Motion for Final Approval of Settlement
    • Fairness Hearing Transcript
    • Supplemental Submission in Support of Final Approval of Settlement

Fairness Hearing Transcript

Paguirigan v. Prompt Nursing Employment Agency, LLC, et al.
You can read the transcript of the Fairness Hearing on SCRIBD, download it as a .pdf, or read it online below.

Read the Fairness Hearing Transcript Here

Download the Fairness Hearing Transcript Here

02-22-22_paguirigan_v_prompt_nursing_employment_agency_-_final.pdf
File Size: 170 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File



Read the Text of the Fairness Hearing Transcript Here

           1                    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                               EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
          2   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X
                                                                                                            :
          3      ROSE PAGUIRIGAN,                                                      : 17-CV-01302(NG)
                                                                                                            :
          4             Plaintiff,                                                                   :
                                                                                                            :
          5                                                                                                : United States Courthouse
                  -against-                                                                          : Brooklyn, New York
          6                                                                                                :
                                                                                                            :
          7                                                                                                : February 22, 2022
                 PROMPT NURSING EMPLOYMENT                             : 2:00 p.m.
          8      AGENCY LLC, et al.,                                                       :
                                                                                                            :
          9             Defendants.                                                            :
                                                                                                           :
         10   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

         11           TRANSCRIPT OF CIVIL CAUSE FOR FAIRNESS HEARING
                            BEFORE THE HONORABLE NINA GERSHON
         12                UNITED STATES SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

         13
                                  A P P E A R A N C E S:
         14
              For the Plaintiff:       THE HOWLEY LAW FIRM P.C.
         15                            1345 6th Ave 2nd floor
                                       New York, NY 10105
         16
                                       BY:  JOHN J.P. HOWLEY, ESQ.
         17                                 LEANDRO LACHICA, ESQ.

         18
              For the Defendant:       Lipsius – BenHaim Law LLP
         19                            80-02 Kew Gardens Road
                                       Suite 1030
         20                            Kew Gardens, NY 11415

         21                            BY:  IRA LIPSIUS, ESQ.

         22
              Court Reporter:          DENISE PARISI, RPR, CRR
         23                            Official Court Reporter
                                       Telephone: (718) 613-2605
         24                            E-mail:  DeniseParisi72@gmail.com

         25   Proceedings recorded by computerized stenography.  Transcript
              produced by Computer-aided Transcription.

                                   Denise Parisi, RPR, CRR
                                     Official Court Reporter



                                         Proceedings                       2



          1
                        (All parties present via videoconference.)
          2             THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:  Civil cause for a fairness

          3   hearing in regards to Paguirigan versus Prompt Nursing, docket

          4   number 17-CV-1302.

          5             May I have the appearance for the plaintiff, please.

          6             MR. HOWLEY:  Good afternoon, Your Honor.

          7             This is John Howley for plaintiffs.

          8             THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:  Thank you.

          9             For the defendant.

         10             THE COURT:  Good afternoon.

         11             MR. LIPSIUS:  Good afternoon, Your Honor.

         12             Ira Lipsius of Lipsius–BenHaim for the defendants.

         13             THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:  Thank you.

         14             Is there anyone else on the line that I need to have

         15   their appearance for?

         16             (Pause.)

         17             THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:  No?

         18             On the phone, I have a colleague of -- I guess a

         19   paralegal or a colleague of Mr. Howley.  No one else is on the

         20   --

         21             THE COURT:  What's the name?

         22             THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:  The name?  Lachica.

         23             MR. HOWLEY:  He's actually my co-counsel, Leandro

         24   Lachica.

         25             THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:  He is on the AT&T conference


                                   Denise Parisi, RPR, CRR
                                     Official Court Reporter



                                         Proceedings                       3



          1   line, and there's no one else there other than him.

          2             THE COURT:  All right.  Thank you.

          3             Good morning, everyone.

          4             With respect to the motions that are before me

          5   today, I just wanted to note preliminarily that with respect

          6   to the terms of the settlement, as to which you are seeking

          7   approval, I reviewed them carefully before granting

          8   preliminary approval, and other than questions that I have

          9   about the various objections that have been raised, I have no

         10   questions about the terms of the settlement.

         11             I do have one brief question for Mr. Howley about

         12   the attorneys' fees motion where you say that you have a

         13   contingency agreement with Ms. Paguirigan, and I just wanted

         14   to know what that percentage recovery is in that agreement.

         15             MR. HOWLEY:  That agreement provides for one-third

         16   of pretrial, or 40 percent if we ended up going to trial, but

         17   I am not seeking any fees from her or anyone else other than

         18   the fees that I have applied for Court approval for.

         19             THE COURT:  All right.  Thank you.

         20             So let's turn, then, to the objections, and I did

         21   want to note that the objectors were given an opportunity to

         22   reply to counsels' responses to the objections.  My

         23   understanding is that only two were received -- two replies --

         24   both from the objector Maagad, and I just want to confirm with

         25   counsel that no other replies were received by them, and that


                                   Denise Parisi, RPR, CRR
                                     Official Court Reporter



                                         Proceedings                       4



          1   they also have no further communications from or to, for that

          2   matter, any of the objectors.

          3             Is that correct?

          4             MR. HOWLEY:  Your Honor, I'm not sure I saw the

          5   replies from Ms. Maagad -- I have not received any replies

          6   directly from anyone -- and I've only had one communication

          7   with Eunice Ramirez.  She is the objector who both sides agree

          8   should have been included in the class, and we have proposed

          9   including her in the settlement and increasing the settlement

         10   amount by $22,400.18 to accommodate that claim; and

         11   Ms. Ramirez sent me an email over the weekend that she found

         12   that to be acceptable.  That's the only communication.  I

         13   haven't -- I haven't been able to speak to her since I got her

         14   email.

         15             THE COURT:  All right.  Maybe it would be helpful --

         16   I don't know, maybe we didn't file it; it came by email.

         17             Mr. Lipsius, you don't have any other replies or any

         18   other communications with objectors?

         19             I can't hear you, counsel.  I can't hear you.

         20             MR. LIPSIUS:  Can you hear me now?

         21             THE COURT:  Yes.

         22             MR. LIPSIUS:  Okay.

         23             The only objections that I have seen are those that

         24   have been forwarded to me by -- by Mr. Victor -- is it Victor

         25   Joe or Joe Victor?  I'm sorry if I have it wrong.


                                   Denise Parisi, RPR, CRR
                                     Official Court Reporter



                                         Proceedings                       5



          1             THE COURT:  Victor Joe.

          2             MR. LIPSIUS:  Victor Joe.  Okay.  I apologize.

          3             The only ones are -- those are the only ones that

          4   have been forwarded to me by Victor Joe and that Mr. Howley

          5   has forwarded to me.  That's the only thing I've seen.

          6             THE COURT:  All right.

          7             Counsel, I think it might be helpful, I have right

          8   near me the objections that are quite brief from Ms. Maagad,

          9   and I will get that, I have it printed out, and I will read it

         10   to you, okay?  Just a moment.

         11             (Pause.)

         12             THE COURT:  Victor, let's make sure that these get

         13   put on the docket.

         14             Okay.  So these were by email to Victor Joe.  One

         15   was sent February 10th, and the "by" line is Lani Alvarez, but

         16   I understand from my clerk that that is actually Ms. Maagad,

         17   and she writes, "Thank you for the time.  Isn't it amazing

         18   that it's just the three of us who had signed the immediate

         19   home care contract.  We are hired by some people at Prompt

         20   Nursing.  That's where we received our salary of $29 per hour

         21   for three years."

         22             And then on February 15th, she sent something

         23   identified as a reply that says, "Sentosa is Sentosa.  Where

         24   is your mercy?"

         25             And, I don't know, Victor can probably send those to


                                   Denise Parisi, RPR, CRR
                                     Official Court Reporter



                                         Proceedings                       6



          1   you right now if you don't have it.

          2             But, in any event, Victor, make sure that they get

          3   filed.

          4             All right.

          5             THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:  Yes, ma'am.

          6             THE COURT:  So I thought I should hear first from

          7   counsel regarding the objections, and then I will have

          8   something to say.

          9             MR. HOWLEY:  Thank you, Your Honor.

         10             I would start by pointing out that with the

         11   exception of Ronaldo Ignacio, no one really objects to the

         12   fairness of the financial terms of the settlement.  In fact,

         13   everybody wants to be included.  So we have -- in terms of

         14   objections to the terms of the settlement, the only objection

         15   we have is from Mr. Ignacio who says that the settlement

         16   should include the amounts that individual nurses paid to buy

         17   out their contracts or the liquidated damages payments.

         18             We did not include --

         19             THE COURT:  Excuse me.  Let me ask you about that.

         20             Just to confirm, he uses the term "buyout," and I'm

         21   drawing some inferences as to what he means by that, but I

         22   wanted to confirm with you -- I think you are confirming it --

         23   that what you understand that to mean is that if a nurse

         24   wanted to leave before three years, they bought out the

         25   contract.


                                   Denise Parisi, RPR, CRR
                                     Official Court Reporter



                                         Proceedings                       7



          1             MR. HOWLEY:  Yes.  And they did that by paying the

          2   liquidated damages amount in the contract, and we did not

          3   include a claim --

          4             THE COURT:  But they didn't necessarily pay the

          5   whole amount when they made a settlement like with Ms. Tirol?

          6             MR. HOWLEY:  Yes, that's correct, Your Honor.  And,

          7   frankly, that's why we did not include that claim in the

          8   complaint or in the class notice.  It's because when we

          9   investigated the claims at the beginning of the case, and when

         10   we spoke to actual and potential class members during the

         11   case, we discovered that there was no uniform payment.  Most

         12   of the nurses who paid worked for two years before paying, and

         13   so their liquidated damages were $8,666.66, which there was

         14   some testimony in the case that Your Honor actually refers to

         15   in the summary judgment decision where that might not be

         16   sufficient -- that 8,600 and change payment may not be

         17   sufficient to constitute serious harm because there were many

         18   nurses who were willing to just pay that, and the actual

         19   documented damages were close to $5,000, so that was a tough

         20   claim to pursue.

         21             And then we looked at individuals who paid higher

         22   amounts, and many of them signed releases, and so that would

         23   have made it very difficult to bring a claim for reimbursement

         24   of liquidated damages or buyout payments as a class claim, and

         25   that's why we didn't include it in the complaint, in the


                                   Denise Parisi, RPR, CRR
                                     Official Court Reporter



                                         Proceedings                       8



          1   notice, or in our damages motion.

          2             THE COURT:  All right.

          3             Counsel, then, let me just put on the record that I

          4   do accept your response as sound.  In my own review of the

          5   underlying papers, the complaint, by the decisions, and so on,

          6   confirms that indeed there simply never was a so-called buyout

          7   claim in this case, and, therefore, that objection is not

          8   sound.

          9             Turning to the other objections, though, those who

         10   you argue are not members of the class.

         11             MR. HOWLEY:  Yes.  Well, two of the individuals,

         12   Petronillo Reyes, who filed his objection as ECF Number 156,

         13   and Riza Renomeron, whose objection is filed as ECF 159, were

         14   both recruited and signed contracts well before the start of

         15   the class period.  In Mr. Reyes's case, he actually provided

         16   me with a copy of his contract, which I included as an exhibit

         17   to my declaration, and he was recruited in 2005 and signed the

         18   contract in 2006, which is before the December 23, 2008, start

         19   date of the class period, and his contract does not provide

         20   for payment of the prevailing wage; it provides for a set

         21   hourly rate.  So our position is that he's not a member of the

         22   class, and, even if he were, he would not be able to recover

         23   damages for underpayment of the prevailing wage.

         24             With respect to Riza Renomeron, she has not provided

         25   us with a contract, and the defendants have told me that they


                                   Denise Parisi, RPR, CRR
                                     Official Court Reporter



                                         Proceedings                       9



          1   are unable to find it.  She has provided a document related to

          2   her immigration petition, which is dated May 30th, 2006, which

          3   is two years before the start of the class period; and what

          4   we've seen in this case is that before the defendants would

          5   start the immigration process, the nurse had to file -- had to

          6   sign a contract, and so we're confident that she must have

          7   signed her contract prior to December 23, 2008, probably two

          8   plus years before that date, and so we don't think she's in

          9   the class either.

         10             THE COURT:  Let me ask you a question about that,

         11   because I'm not sure I understand your basis for saying that

         12   the defendants required nurses -- foreign nurses to sign

         13   contracts before immigration petitions were filed.  Didn't

         14   Ms. Paguirigan, herself, file an immigration petition in 2007

         15   which would signify that she was recruited before that date

         16   and then not sign her employment contract until 2015?

         17             MR. HOWLEY:  That's a very good point, Your Honor.

         18             What happened with Ms. Paguirigan, and a lot of

         19   other nurses, is they signed the contract before their

         20   immigration petition was filed, and then they signed a later

         21   contract right before their interview because.  As you may

         22   recall, Your Honor, it takes several years.

         23             I actually spoke to Mr. Reyes and asked him if he

         24   had a second contract, and he said he thought he might, he

         25   would look for it, but he did not produce a second contract to


                                   Denise Parisi, RPR, CRR
                                     Official Court Reporter



                                         Proceedings                      10



          1   me.

          2             THE COURT:  I understand your position with regard

          3   to Mr. Reyes, but what about Ms. Paguirigan?

          4             MR. HOWLEY:  She has not produced any contract.

          5   I've asked her to send me any contract she had, and the

          6   defendants have told me that they have not been able to find

          7   one.

          8             THE COURT:  Right, but how would I be able to

          9   determine that her situation was like Mr. Reyes and not like

         10   Ms. -- pronounce it again.  I guess all these years I've been

         11   pronouncing it as Paguirigan.  Paguirigan?

         12             MR. HOWLEY:  Paguirigan is good, Your Honor.

         13             THE COURT:  Paguirigan, okay.

         14             How would I determine that?

         15             MR. HOWLEY:  The problem is we have no evidence that

         16   would put her in the class.

         17             THE COURT:  Well, you asked me to draw an inference.

         18   You are asking me to draw an inference, and I am pointing out

         19   how it might be difficult to draw that inference in light of

         20   your own individual client's situation.

         21             MR. HOWLEY:  I think it's a fair inference, Your

         22   Honor, because someone would have her contract.  The

         23   defendants would have it, or she would have it, if it

         24   existed -- if a later contract existed.

         25             THE COURT:  But if an earlier contract would have


                                   Denise Parisi, RPR, CRR
                                     Official Court Reporter



                                         Proceedings                      11



          1   existed I would deny you.

          2             MR. HOWLEY:  I understand, Your Honor.  The problem

          3   is, we have no evidence to put her in the class.

          4             THE COURT:  Let me make some remarks and ask you

          5   some questions about the situation with regard to Mr. Reyes.

          6   So the issue I would like to ask counsel to address -- and by

          7   the way, I think I will need -- and I will discuss that more

          8   later -- some supplemental responses from counsel, but let me

          9   just tell you what the questions are, and I will try to tell

         10   you where I do feel like I have resolved the issues.

         11             You've taken the position -- except for Ms. Ramirez

         12   and Mr. Ignacio -- the other objectors are not members of the

         13   class -- but the class definition, itself, is very, very

         14   broad, so I'm interested in what the basis is for your

         15   position that they're not in the class as opposed to being in

         16   the class but not, for example, entitled to relief because of

         17   the nature of the claims, and I may be asking you to look into

         18   this.

         19             Is it your position that the class definition must

         20   be read in conjunction with the claims in the case?  And, if

         21   so, do you have any authority for doing that?  For example --

         22   and this applies to Petronillo Reyes' objection.  I certainly

         23   agree with you that the class complaint does not include

         24   claims based on hourly rate errors as opposed to prevailing

         25   rate errors, and then it addresses only the type of liquidated


                                   Denise Parisi, RPR, CRR
                                     Official Court Reporter



                                         Proceedings                      12



          1   damages clause contained in Ms. Paguirigan's contract, which

          2   includes, among other things, the requirement that the

          3   employee sign a confession of judgment, and it was a very

          4   significant part of the complaint, and also of my liability

          5   decision, and I do not see that kind of -- there is a

          6   liquidated damages claim -- I mean, liquidated damages clause

          7   in the earlier hourly rate contracts, but they use quite

          8   different language, and they use language which I never

          9   addressed or found illegal in my decision.  Clearly, nurses

         10   who are working under hourly rate contracts cannot recover in

         11   this class action, and there would be no basis to object to

         12   the settlement for those who can recover, and I agree with

         13   that, but I am struggling a bit with the idea of how we treat

         14   that as -- treat them as not numbers of the class.

         15             And I would also say that I recognize that if

         16   they're not members of the class, there are certain

         17   consequences, including that they're not bound by the

         18   judgment, or the settlement, or by the leases, and so on,

         19   which would be appropriate, but it's a matter of how we talk

         20   about it, so that is something -- I don't know if you want to

         21   address that now or put that into the category of things you

         22   will address for me later.

         23             MR. HOWLEY:  I would just like to clarify, Your

         24   Honor, because I see two different issues.  One is the class

         25   definition required that the nurse was recruited by the


                                   Denise Parisi, RPR, CRR
                                     Official Court Reporter



                                         Proceedings                      13



          1   defendants in the Philippines and employed by the defendants

          2   in the United States after December 23, 2008; and I think with

          3   Mr. Reyes, he was recruited before and signed his contract

          4   before December 23, 2008.  With respect to the named plaintiff

          5   and others, while the recruitment may have started prior to

          6   that date, they signed contracts on or after that date, and so

          7   that's why I think the named plaintiff is in, and Mr. Reyes is

          8   not, but I think that's a separate question from the question

          9   you are posing, which is if a person meets the definition of a

         10   class member because they were recruited in the Philippines

         11   and employed in the United States at any time since

         12   December 23, 2008, are they not in the class because they

         13   would have no damages, or are they in the class but don't have

         14   damages, which are two different concepts.

         15             Do I understand the issue correctly, Your Honor?

         16             THE COURT:  Yes.

         17             MR. HOWLEY:  Yeah, thank you.

         18             I would prefer to address that thoughtfully in a

         19   supplemental submission.

         20             THE COURT:  All right.

         21             Go ahead, please, with the other --

         22             MR. HOWLEY:  Okay.  With Sheryl Botin Tirol -- her

         23   objection is filed at ECF number 160 -- she signed a release

         24   of all claims against Sentosa Recruiting Agency and its

         25   affiliates.  Her contract wasn't produced in discovery.  The


                                   Denise Parisi, RPR, CRR
                                     Official Court Reporter



                                         Proceedings                      14



          1   defendants have taken the position that since she released all

          2   of her claims against Sentosa Recruiting Agency and its

          3   affiliates, she doesn't have a claim and shouldn't be included

          4   in the class.

          5             THE COURT:  Well, it raises an identical position.

          6   Is the issue here that she's not in the class or that there is

          7   a defense to her claim?

          8             MR. HOWLEY:  I understand, Your Honor.

          9             THE COURT:  Okay.

         10             MR. HOWLEY:  And then with -- there are three

         11   individuals:  Lani Maagad, whose objection is filed at ECF

         12   155; May Angelique Palo, whose objection is ECF 158; and

         13   Rosalie Reyes, whose objection is 163.  They were recruited by

         14   Immediate Home Care, which is not a defendant here, and I

         15   understand that's why their contracts were not produced in

         16   discovery, and they were not recruited by any of the

         17   defendants.

         18             THE COURT:  Mr. Lipsius, did you have anything you

         19   wanted to add before I respond?  I can't hear you, sir.

         20             MR. LIPSIUS:  No, Your Honor.  Nothing to add to

         21   Mr. Howley.

         22             THE COURT:  All right.

         23             Then, counsel, with respect to these objectors who

         24   have now been named -- and there was one more, the newer

         25   objection, did you mention her?


                                   Denise Parisi, RPR, CRR
                                     Official Court Reporter



                                         Proceedings                      15



          1             MR. HOWLEY:  I have not mentioned her.  I'm happy to

          2   do so.

          3             THE COURT:  You want to do that first?  Go ahead.

          4             MR. HOWLEY:  Evita Bello Rodriguez, which is -- her

          5   objection was filed at ECF 173 -- this is a very unique

          6   situation that Mr. Lipsius and I have been trying to figure

          7   out.  The defendants cannot find her contract.  She has

          8   produced a contract.  The defendants do have payroll records

          9   which they have sent to me, and I have gone through them, and

         10   the payroll records show that for almost all of her -- she

         11   worked the full three years, but she worked part-time.  She

         12   worked most of the time between 20 and 22 hours a week.  There

         13   were -- more than half the time she did not work -- she worked

         14   less than 30 hours, and she did not work at all for 21 weeks,

         15   including the entire month of November 2014; February, March,

         16   April of 2015; and May of 2015.

         17             I will just say briefly that Mr. Lipsius has told me

         18   that his clients believe she was she was basically taken off

         19   the full-time employment track because she had medical issues

         20   in her family to deal with.  I was able to speak to her about

         21   an hour ago -- she responded to me -- and she admitted to me

         22   that there were -- that she, herself, was sick for a

         23   significant period of time, and she went back to the

         24   Philippines because her mother died, and she stayed there for

         25   several months, and when -- so she -- she was taken off the


                                   Denise Parisi, RPR, CRR
                                     Official Court Reporter



                                         Proceedings                      16



          1   full-time track, and the contract requires that she work

          2   full-time, and when she ended three years of part-time

          3   employment, she did not pay anything.  That's what I learned

          4   from her today.

          5             So, you know, between what Mr. Lipsius was able to

          6   gather from his clients and the payroll records that we both

          7   saw, basically, over the weekend, and my conversation with her

          8   today, it seems like she's a very unique case, and I'm not

          9   entirely sure what to do with her, because I have just pulled

         10   together this information over a holiday weekend.

         11             THE COURT:  Fair enough.  She filed her objection

         12   late, and I understand you might not have had enough time.

         13             All right.  Anything else that either of you want to

         14   say about this before I discuss anything further?

         15             MR. HOWLEY:  No, Your Honor.  That's all I have.

         16             THE COURT:  All right.

         17             Counsel, I don't know why, but I can't hear you.

         18             MR. LIPSIUS:  Can you hear me now?  I apologize.

         19             I don't know if Mr. Howley wants to raise it at this

         20   point, but we may be able to come to a resolution just for

         21   some sum of money, and I said maybe just to get this moving we

         22   discuss that, and I don't know if Mr. Howley wants to discuss

         23   it at this point until it's finalized.

         24             THE COURT:  Are you talking about Ms. Palo, or other

         25   objectors?


                                   Denise Parisi, RPR, CRR
                                     Official Court Reporter



                                         Proceedings                      17



          1             MR. HOWLEY:  There are two objectors where the

          2   defendants got offers to settle their claims.  One is Eunice

          3   Ramirez, which we've addressed in our papers, and Ms. Ramirez

          4   has told me she's willing to accept that.  The other is Evita

          5   Bello Rodriguez, who we were just discussing.  Mr. Lipsius has

          6   proposed settling that claim as well because it's kind of an

          7   unusual claim, and rather than hold up the settlement, I have

          8   discussed that with Ms. Rodriguez, she's interested in it, but

          9   I think if we are going to do a supplemental submission, I

         10   would rather put that all in paper than get into a description

         11   of what might happen.

         12             THE COURT:  Yes, okay.

         13             So when I read your papers, I concluded that I

         14   really couldn't resolve some of these objections without

         15   further explanations from counsel.  I have some specific

         16   questions that I will put to you now that may guide you in

         17   your providing supplemental information, but the bottom line

         18   is that the record currently before me is insufficient for a

         19   determination.

         20             So with respect to Maagad, Palo, and Reyes, these

         21   three objectors submitted employment contracts with Immediate

         22   Home Care, quote, "in collaboration with," closed quote, other

         23   agencies, and I understand your response to be twofold; that

         24   these objectors have no contract with the defendant in this

         25   case, and they were not recruited by the defendants.


                                   Denise Parisi, RPR, CRR
                                     Official Court Reporter



                                         Proceedings                      18



          1             Now, Ms. Ramirez, who you accept as a member of the

          2   class, had a contract with Woodmere, also not a defendant.  I

          3   think counsel will have to explain how you distinguish them.

          4             Second question.  Berish Rubinstein, who is a

          5   defendant here, signed the contracts as managing partner of

          6   Immediate.  And Bent Philipson, also a defendant here, signed

          7   on behalf of the collaborating entities.

          8             How does that affect your position here?

          9             And then I have no idea what your basis for saying

         10   that they weren't recruited by the defendants is, and I don't

         11   know how that can be resolved, so I think you need to look at

         12   that.

         13             I won't say anything further about Evita Joy

         14   Rodriguez since we just discussed that and you think you may

         15   have a resolution.

         16             Obviously, if I'm not satisfied with your responses,

         17   this settlement, which, otherwise, I think is excellent, may

         18   fall apart.  I can't control that.  It's really up to you.  We

         19   will then have to go back to the lawsuit and continue with the

         20   litigation.

         21             So my thought is that I should give you 30 days from

         22   today to file supplemental responses; and then after I review

         23   your supplemental papers, I will decide whether I need to

         24   continue this hearing.

         25             Let me just see.  I think I may have some additional


                                   Denise Parisi, RPR, CRR
                                     Official Court Reporter



                                         Proceedings                      19



          1   points that we didn't get to in the earlier discussion.  Let

          2   me just check.

          3             (Pause.)

          4             THE COURT:  With regard to Ms. Renomeron, I would

          5   like you to lay out more fully what your position is as to why

          6   I should draw one inference as to her despite the fact that

          7   Ms. Paguirigan seems to fall into a different category.  And

          8   how would I know when someone has signed one contract versus

          9   two?

         10             Now, with regard to the -- Ms. Botin Tirol, the

         11   woman who signed a release with the defendants, I have a

         12   number of questions.

         13             To begin with, she signed a release that you

         14   provided settling with defendants Sentosa Recruitment Agency

         15   and its affiliates, officers, and directors; and you say that

         16   the defendants in this case are all such affiliates.

         17             By the way, I should say, she indicates that she

         18   sent documents to Mr. Howley that -- or maybe Mr. Howley told

         19   me that in response, that you received documents that she

         20   didn't send to the Court, so I think it might be helpful if

         21   Mr. Howley provides those documents to me.

         22             So first question with regard to her, in the release

         23   which you provide, it says she voluntarily terminated her

         24   contract with Sentosa.  I don't have the settlement agreement.

         25   I just have a release.  I don't know what was exchanged.


                                   Denise Parisi, RPR, CRR
                                     Official Court Reporter



                                         Proceedings                      20



          1   Mr. Howley's email to her of December 1st, 2021, says just

          2   that her claim is based on a buyout -- which we have now

          3   discussed what a buyout is -- but I would like to know -- and

          4   if her claim -- excuse me -- if her objection is based solely

          5   on a buyout claim, I would agree that she isn't in the class

          6   whether she settles her claim or not -- that's the end of

          7   it -- but is her claim limited to damages from a buyout, which

          8   would now be a valid objection, or is she also making a

          9   prevailing wage claim and be in the situation of Mr. Ignacio?

         10   And, frankly, I can't tell.

         11             My second question is:  What is your basis for

         12   treating all the defendants -- the corporate defendants and

         13   the individuals -- as affiliates who are released, assuming

         14   that she does have a prevailing wage claim?

         15             Third question:  Why would the defendants all be

         16   affiliates for this purpose but not be included where other

         17   objectors who were employed by other entities owned by the

         18   individual defendants?

         19             And, again, as I said earlier, I think with respect

         20   to this objector, we have an issue with whether she's actually

         21   in the class, but -- if there's a valid defense or not.

         22             And I will ask you to get a transcript of this

         23   proceeding, which I'm sure you will, and also to post the

         24   transcript on the website in the case.

         25             Finally, however these objections are ultimately


                                   Denise Parisi, RPR, CRR
                                     Official Court Reporter



                                         Proceedings                      21



          1   resolved, I do have a couple of questions for Mr. Howley based

          2   upon his correspondence with Mr. Botin Tirol in responding to

          3   her objection.

          4             On December 1st, 2021, you wrote an email to her,

          5   quote, "Unfortunately, you are not a member of the class.  The

          6   class was defined four years ago, and there are strict time

          7   limits on asserting claims," closed quote.

          8             And in a later email on the same day, you wrote,

          9   quote, "I understand your disappointment.  The judge awarded

         10   damages based on underpayments of wages.  She did not award

         11   any damages based on buyouts.  It is strange and it is

         12   complicated, but the judge determined that some nurses were

         13   underpaid, while other nurses who worked during this same

         14   period were not under paid."

         15             So I understand your statement that I did not award

         16   any damages based on buyouts, but my question is what was your

         17   basis for saying that there were time limits that affected her

         18   membership in the class?  And what was your basis for saying

         19   that the judge determined that some nurses were underpaid

         20   while other nurses who worked during the same period were not

         21   underpaid?  What court decision, or anything that I said

         22   orally, or any other way are you relying on?

         23             MR. HOWLEY:  Your Honor, I would like to go back and

         24   look at the whole string of emails with her --

         25             THE COURT:  Okay.


                                   Denise Parisi, RPR, CRR
                                     Official Court Reporter



                                         Proceedings                      22



          1             MR. HOWLEY:  -- because I -- I don't have an answer

          2   off the top of my head.

          3             THE COURT:  All right.

          4             So, as I said, counsel, I thought since these are

          5   serious questions and may require some significant work on

          6   your part, I would like to give you 30 days to file

          7   supplemental responses.

          8             Victor, do we have a calendar date for that?

          9             THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:  Yes.  That would be the 22nd

         10   of March, which is a Tuesday.

         11             MR. HOWLEY:  Your Honor, I don't think we will need

         12   30 days.

         13             THE COURT:  That's good.  If you need less time --

         14             MR. HOWLEY:  Yeah, I think we can do it in 14.

         15             THE COURT:  All right.  So do you want to set a

         16   deadline of 14?

         17             What is that date, Victor?

         18             THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:  March 8th.

         19             THE COURT:  Very good.

         20             Okay.  I don't mean to stop you if there's something

         21   you want to add now, otherwise --

         22             MR. HOWLEY:  Not for me, Your Honor.

         23             THE COURT:  Mr. Lipsius?

         24             THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:  You're muted, sir.

         25             THE COURT:  Now he's muted.


                                   Denise Parisi, RPR, CRR
                                     Official Court Reporter



                                         Proceedings                      23



          1             MR. LIPSIUS:  Nothing for me, Your Honor.

          2             Thank you.

          3             THE COURT:  All right.

          4             Thank you, counsel.

          5             All right.  Was there anything else we can do today?

          6             MR. HOWLEY:  No, thank you, Your Honor.

          7             THE COURT:  Okay.  All right.  Thank you very much,

          8   counsel.

          9             THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:  Thank you, sir.

         10             Let me just check to see if my law clerk has any

         11   messages for me.

         12             The magic of text.  I don't see anything.

         13             Nope.  Very good.  Okay.  All right, counsel.

         14             Thank you.

         15             MR. HOWLEY:  Thank you, Your Honor.

         16             THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:  Thank you, Denise.

         17             (Matter concluded.)

         18

         19                       *    *    *    *    *

         20

         21   I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the
              record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter.
         22

         23       /s/ Denise Parisi                   February 25, 2022
              _________________________________      ________________
         24         DENISE PARISI                         DATE

         25


                                   Denise Parisi, RPR, CRR
                                     Official Court Reporter

Location

CONTACT CLASS COUNSEL

The Court has appointed Attorneys John J.P. Howley and Leandro B. Lachica to represent the Class.  Both lawyers speak English and Tagalog.  For more information about their backgrounds and experience, go to www.HowleyLawFirm.com
Mr. Howley and Mr Lachica may be contacted at:
The Howley Law Firm P.C.
1345 Avenue of the Americas, 2nd Floor
New York, New York 10105
(212) 601-2728

Follow Us

    Email Us

Submit
  • Home
  • Court Documents
    • Complaint
    • Answer
    • The Court's Class Action Decision
    • Notice to the Class
    • The Court's Summary Judgment Decision
    • The US Court of Appeals' Decision
    • The Court's Damages Decision
    • The Proposed Settlement Agreement
    • Motion for Attorneys' Fees
    • The Court's Preliminary Approval of Settlement
    • Notice of Proposed Settlement
    • Motion for Final Approval of Settlement
    • Fairness Hearing Transcript
    • Supplemental Submission in Support of Final Approval of Settlement