Farmer | FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA

Tag Archive | "farmer"

APPROVED | Class Action Settlement for former David J. Stern employees – Mowat et al v. DJSP Enterprises, Inc. et al

APPROVED | Class Action Settlement for former David J. Stern employees – Mowat et al v. DJSP Enterprises, Inc. et al


This is just coming in and I’ll follow up with any developing news.

Here’s a recap meanwhile:

Former employees of Plantation attorney David J. Stern agreed to a preliminary $502,000 settlement after he fired them without giving the required 60-day notice as business at his foreclosure law firm began to dry up.

U.S. District Judge Robert N. Scola Jr. found the settlement “sufficiently fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests” of the former workers, according to a preliminary order. There will be a June 8 final hearing.

Workers in the class-action settlement now have until May 3 to opt out of the settlement, while papers in support of it should be filed by May 29.

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Former staff at closed David J. Stern law firm to receive settlement

Former staff at closed David J. Stern law firm to receive settlement


Sun-Sentinel-

Former employees of Plantation attorney David J. Stern agreed to a preliminary $502,000 settlement after he fired them without giving the required 60-day notice as business at his foreclosure law firm began to dry up.

U.S. District Judge Robert N. Scola Jr. found the settlement “sufficiently fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests” of the former workers, according to a preliminary order. There will be a June 8 final hearing.

Workers in the class-action settlement now have until May 3 to opt out of the settlement, while papers in support of it should be filed by May 29.

[SUN-SENTINEL]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Certified: Employee WARN Act Class Action Moves Forward Against David J. Stern, DJSP Enterprises, Inc.

Certified: Employee WARN Act Class Action Moves Forward Against David J. Stern, DJSP Enterprises, Inc.


RENAE MOWAT e t al.,

V.

DJSP ENTERPRISES, INC., et al.,

[ipaper docId=66453888 access_key=key-hlmxg11b6bxnm2daebs height=600 width=600 /]

 

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Foreclosure attorney Stern’s former employees get initial OK for class action suit

Foreclosure attorney Stern’s former employees get initial OK for class action suit


Sun-Sentinel-

A federal magistrate in Miami has recommended that former employees of DJSP Enterprises, the legal processing arm of Plantation attorney David J.Stern’s once-powerful foreclosure law firm, be given class action status to sue Stern and his affiliates for violating federal labor laws.

The suit, filed on behalf of four employees but which could affect at least 700, claims workers were fired last fall without the 60 days notice required under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification, or WARN, Act. The action seeks back pay and benefits.

[SUN-SENTINEL]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

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…

[ipaper docId=54251722 access_key=key-26fos8g056elwn136gtp height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

DBR | FORECLOSURE FALLOUT Firm spin-off could fold within 2 months

DBR | FORECLOSURE FALLOUT Firm spin-off could fold within 2 months


David J. Stern to shut foreclosure practice

by Paola Iuspa-Abbott
piuspa@alm.com

This article is reprinted with permission from the Daily Business Review.

[ipaper docId=50499353 access_key=key-hprcn818s9x0ozhdr05 height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

First Amended Complaint “ALTER EGO, Pierce The Corporate Veil” MOWAT v. DJSP Enterprises

First Amended Complaint “ALTER EGO, Pierce The Corporate Veil” MOWAT v. DJSP Enterprises


Excerpts:

COUNT I

Alter Ego – Piercing the Corporate Veil of DJSP BVI

99. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated, repeat and reallege
the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as if fully restated herein.

100. As alleged above, at all relevant times herein, DJSP BVI, by its complete exercise of
dominion and control, is the alter ego of DJSP FL, DAL Group and its operating subsidiaries
DJS Processing, Professional Title, and Default Servicing, which constitute a single employer.
Indeed, as set forth above, there is a high interdependency of operations; there is commonality
between management, directors and officers; there is a consolidation of financial, strategic, legal
and human resources operations; and, at all relevant times, DJSP BVI has used and continued to
use DAL Group and its operating subsidiaries and the assets of these entities for its own
purposes.

COUNT II

Alter Ego – Stern

103. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated, repeat and reallege
the allegations in paragraphs one through eighty-five (1-85) as if fully restated herein.

104. As alleged above, at all relevant times herein Stern, by his complete exercise of dominion
and control over said entities, is the alter ego of DJSPA, DJSP BVI, DJSP FL, DAL Group and
its operating subsidiaries DJS Processing, Professional Title, and Default Servicing. The
foregoing entities combine to constitute a single employer, all under the direction and control of
Stern personally. Indeed, as set forth above, there is a high interdependency of operations; there
is commonality between management, directors and officers; there is a consolidation of financial,
strategic, legal and human resources operations; and, at all relevant times, Stern has used and
continued to use DJSPA, DJSP BVI, DJSP FL, DAL Group and its operating subsidiaries and the
assets of these entities for his own purposes.

Continue reading below…

[ipaper docId=46676835 access_key=key-h10f11myty3w40segl3 height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (2)

[VIDEO] 4 Former Employees Sue Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., DJSP

[VIDEO] 4 Former Employees Sue Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., DJSP


DJSP1-main

[ipaper docId=44344153 access_key=key-3w8h3mofbv5qol72nua height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (3)

FL CLASS ACTION: VIOLATION OF WARN ACT “FORMER EMPLOYEES” MOWAT v. DJSP Enterprises

FL CLASS ACTION: VIOLATION OF WARN ACT “FORMER EMPLOYEES” MOWAT v. DJSP Enterprises


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

RENAE MOWAT, NIKKI MACK,
ARKLYNN RAHMING, and QUENNA HUMPHREY
individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs,

vs.

DJSP ENTERPRISES, INC., a Florida Corporation, DJSP
ENTERPRISES, INC., a British Virgin Islands Company,
and LAW OFFICES OF DAVID J. STERN, P.A.,
DAVID J. STERN, individually,

Defendants.
______________________________________/

EXCERPT:

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Renae Mowat, Nikki Mack, Arklynn Rahming, and Quenna Humphrey individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, for their Complaint against Defendants, DJSP Enterprises, Inc., a Florida corporation, DJSP Enterprises, Inc., a British Virgin Islands Company, (collectively hereinafter referred to as “DJSP”), Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A., (“Stern, P.A.”) and David J. Stern (“Stern”) state as follows:

NATURE OF CASE

1) Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated former employees who worked for the Defendants in Plantation, Florida and who were terminated as a consequence of mass layoffs by the Defendants beginning on September 23, 2010 and who were not provided sixty (60) days advance written notice of the mass layoffs by Defendants as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2101 et seq.
(“WARN Act”).

2) Plaintiffs and all similarly situated employees seek to recover back pay for each day of WARN Act violation and benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 2104.

3) This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1334 and 1367, as well as 29 U.S.C. §§ 2102, 2104(a)(5).

4) Venue over this matter is appropriate in this Court pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 2104(a)(5) because the acts constituting the violation of the WARN Act occurred, and the claims arose in this district. Venue is also proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391(a) and (b). The acts complained of occurred in the State of Florida and, at all relevant times, material hereto, the Defendants conducted business with and through the other named Defendants who also conducted business with and through the other Defendants and their subsidiaries and the named individual Defendant, David J. Stern, resides in this judicial district, and all of or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this action occurred in this judicial district.

Continue below…

DJSP1-main

[ipaper docId=44344153 access_key=key-3w8h3mofbv5qol72nua height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (2)

Black Farmer Files Lawsuit To Regain Farm With $750,000,000 In Coal And Oil Deposits

Black Farmer Files Lawsuit To Regain Farm With $750,000,000 In Coal And Oil Deposits


the-coal-train-blog.jpg image by Suzanne57

Contributed by muckracker1 (Editor) beforeitsnews.com
Tue May 25 2010 17:57

Latest in 83 year old Black farmer’s fight against illegal foreclosure:
Harry Young files $100 million lawsuit against DOJ and USDA based on loan officer’s testimony at Young’s trial

by Monica Davis

Harry Young is an 83 year old farmer in western Kentucky. He has been waging a five year legal fight to regain his land after the government foreclosured and auctioned the property in 2005. Young filed a $100 million lawsuit against the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture, the Department of Justice and various federal officials May 24, 2010. He is seeking a jury trial.

Young, whose land was foreclosed and auctioned in what he contends was an illegal foreclosure, was arrested and tried on charges of allegedly making threats against the Farm Services Agency in Owensboro, Kentucky. He was the last black farmer operating in three western Kentucky counties when his land was sold at what supporters claim was an illegal auction based on fraud in 2005.

At the time, he was not allowed to present evidence of his payments. Young has denied the allegations, that he: made threats, and that he hadn’t made payments on his loan–as alleged by the Assistant US Attorney, who said, in a 2005 press release that “…for many years, Mr. Young had] lived in this house and farmed the land without making payments.”

Young’s land,which includes coal and oil deposits worth as much as $750,000,000 was sold at an auction which supporters say was based on fraudulent, perjured information by federal officials. After the auction,
Young filed suit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture and FSA in May in U.S. District Court in Louisville. In the suit, he asks for $25 million for “the embarrassment, humiliation, pain and suffering and personal indignities” caused by the USDA and FSA. He also asks for $5 million for loss of income from farm and related operations. (Local paper.)

That suit, and two others, were thrown out, based on information from the USDA, which did not include the receipt for the payments totaling over $100,000 in 1985/86. Young was tried on the threat charges in the Western District of Federal Court in Paducah, Kentucky. Supporters say the charges were retaliation for his refusal to stop legal action to regain his farm. His trial on the threat allegations resulted in a hung jury on . Rather than risk another trial, Young accepted a plea bargain deal, where he accepted a pre-trial diversion agreement, agreeing to “stay out of trouble for a year.”

Several issues arise: 1. the government did not acknowledge his loan payments; 2. his account was credited with a loan that another farmer received; and 3. he never received a jury trial in earlier proceedings.

According to a local newspaper covering the foreclosure in 2005:

…Young, who is black, says he is a victim of a racist organization. He points to a letter from Jeffery Hall, state FSA executive director, in December 2004 stating that “no voluntary payments on Mr. Young’s account (have) been received since 1980,” and Young “has remained on the property basically rent free.”

The letter contradicts financial statements that show disbursements of $121,800.26 and $9,394.59 from an escrow account to the Farmers Home Administration, the FSA’s former name, in 1985 and 1986, Young said. (Local paper)

Young also said he was charged interest for loans he never took out. “I don’t owe them nothing,” he said. “I’ve overpaid them if they mark interest off.” (Local paper)

Under oath, in contrast to what had been said earlier–that “anyone could have typed up” the receipt which Young said proved his case, the local FSA county supervisor acknowledged that the signature on the receipt for two loan payments was his. On that basis, Young filed a his latest lawsuit.

For the past 20 years, that this legal battle has been waged, Mr. Young has said that the government was lying about his failure to pay his loan, and had charged him for a loan which he never applied for–the proceeds of which reportedly went to a white farmer. Young has always maintained that he paid his loans–which has been corroborated by by court testimony of the county supervisor of the Farm Services Agency (FSA) and its parent agency, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), which had earlier claimed that Young hadn’t made a payment on his loan in twenty years. In 2005, the US Attorney out of Louisville, Kentucky, in a press release, said, “For many years, Mr. Young has lived in this house and farmed the land without making payments.”

Justice Department attorneys refused to consider the receipt from the County Supervisor as evidence in 2005. And, when Young showed the receipt to a US Marshal during the auction of his property, the US Marshal reportedly said: “I can’t read.”

Now It's News

Posted in foreclosure fraudComments (0)


GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Chip Parker, www.jaxlawcenter.com
Kenneth Eric Trent, www.ForeclosureDestroyer.com
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com

Archives