2011 April 30 | FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA

Archive | April 30th, 2011

David J. Stern, DJSP Enterprises et al Can Be Sued as “Single Employer” Under WARN Act, Says Judge

David J. Stern, DJSP Enterprises et al Can Be Sued as “Single Employer” Under WARN Act, Says Judge

RENAE MOWAT e t al.,

v.
DJSP ENTERPRISES, INC., et al.,

Excerpt:

B. Stern and DJSPA as “Employers” under Single Employer Test

Plaintiffs argue that WARN Act liability is imputed to Stern and DJSPA under the single employer test. Stern and DJSPA contend that Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently allege all the elements of the single employer test.

Two or more affiliated businesses which constitute a “single employer” may be held jointly and severally liable for violations of the WARN Act. Pearson v. Component Tech. Corp., 247 F.3d 471, 478 (3d Cir. 2001). The Department of Labor (“DOL”) regulations issued under the WARN Act provide that two or more affiliated businesses may be considered a single business enterprise for WARN Act purposes. 20 C.F.R. § 639.3(a)(2). The regulations provide a five-factor balancing test to assess whether affiliated businesses constitute a “single employer,” which would subject them to joint liability under the WARN Act. See Pearson, 247 F.3d at 478.

The five DOL factors are as follows: (1) common ownership, (2) common directors and/or officers, (3) unity of personnel policies emanating from a common source, (4) dependency of operations, and (5) de facto exercise of control. Id. at 487– 490; 20 C.F.R. § 639.3(a)(2).

Plaintiffs adequately allege the five elements of the single employer test.

Continue below…

Scribd

© 2010-12 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
www.StopForeclosureFraud.com


DONATE

Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Judges See Little Improvement in Foreclosure Procedures, But Where’s The Note?

Judges See Little Improvement in Foreclosure Procedures, But Where’s The Note?

Wall Street Journal-

F. Dana Winslow, a N.Y. State Supreme Court Justice in Long Island’s Nassau County, said there has been only “a marginal improvement in what is being submitted to the court.”

For example, financial institutions are “showing a better chain of title” about who owns the debt, he said. “But I’m not seeing any additional clarity on who has control over the actual mortgage note signed by the borrower and lender and where the note is.”

© 2010-12 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
www.StopForeclosureFraud.com


DONATE

Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

AZ Rep. Seel Drops Amendment Requiring Pre-Foreclosure Chain of Title, 2 Days After Servicer Grants Principal Reduction

AZ Rep. Seel Drops Amendment Requiring Pre-Foreclosure Chain of Title, 2 Days After Servicer Grants Principal Reduction

Another Exclusive from Mandelman

Remember Arizona’s Senate Bill 1259 that would have required servicers to produce a declaration that they had the proper chain of title prior to foreclosing on someone’s home?  You know… the one that passed the Arizona Senate 28-2 that I wrote about back on February 23rd of this year?

Remember maybe a month ago when I tried to follow up to see how the bill was proceeding in the Arizona House of Representatives… only to find out that on the way to the House… it disappeared… the text replaced by some bill about firefighting with the same number?  And no one was saying a word about it?  If you missed it, I wrote about it here.

Okay, well… it appears that the story is not over yet.



© 2010-12 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
www.StopForeclosureFraud.com


DONATE

Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD1 Comment


Advert
Kenneth Eric Trent, www.ForeclosureDestroyer.com
Chip Parker, www.jaxlawcenter.com
Jamie Ranney, www.Nantucketlaw.pro
Susan Chana Lask, www.appellate-brief.com

Archives