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
| ||
|
|
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 |