The Percy Program

It is a fight to level the playing field to be able to compete for jobs and careers on the basis of skills and make available apprentice training to all. In 1973 Al Percy launched a class action lawsuit to give workers like him a chance to better their lot in life. It would also ensure the availability of skilled workers to build the infrastructure of the future. Who is Al Percy? What is the lawsuit?

A short video follows below. there are also helpful and informative links on this website

Views
11 months ago

US Court of Appeals Second Circuit Case 21-1564, Doc 6, Pre-Argument Statement on Appeal 07-12-2021

  • Text
  • Oriska
  • Plaintiff
  • Kernan
  • Defendants
  • Pageid
  • Removal
  • Corporation
  • Percy
  • Representatives
  • Plaintiffs
  • Appeals
  • Circuit

ong>Caseong> 1:ong>21ong>-cv-014ong>21ong>-NGG ong>Caseong> ong>21ong>-ong>1564ong>, ong>Docong>ument 6, 1907/12/20ong>21ong>, Filed 05/27/ong>21ong> 3135847, Page Page18 10 ong>ofong> 27 ong>ofong> PageID 104 #: 2281 Around that time, Oriska purports to have amended its state court complaints in these seventeen Removed Actions to add federal causes ong>ofong> action and to include putative class representatives Annette Hall, Karen Grant Williams, Donna Hodge, Alexi Arias, and Albert E. Percy (the “Class Representatives”) as additional defendants. (See, e.g., Oriska v. North Sea Assocs., ong>21ong>-cv-454, Am. State ong>Courtong> Compl. (Dkt. 1-2) (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 20ong>21ong>).) The Class Representatives, who are represented by attorney James M. Kernan, then attempted to collectively remove the seventeen actions to this court under one docket number, Oriska v. North Sea Assocs., ong>21ong>-cv-454 (“North Sea”). On April 9, 20ong>21ong>, this court dismissed North Sea as improperly filed. (North Sea, Apr. 9, 20ong>21ong> Order.) The Class Representatives then filed notices to individually remove each ong>ofong> those seventeen state court actions to the Eastern District ong>ofong> New York. The eighteenth Removed Action was filed in New York Supreme ong>Courtong>, Nassau County (the “Nassau County Action”). The Healthcare Employers were the original plaintiffs in the Nassau County Action, and they brought various state law claims against individual defendants Bent Philipson, Avi Philipson, and Deborah Philipson. (Bay Park Ctr. for Nursing & Rehab., et al. v. Philipson, et al., 20-cv-6291 (“Bay Park Ctr.”), Compl. (Dkt. 9-3) 57- 102.) Specifically, in their initial complaint, the Healthcare Employers alleged that the Philipsons abused their fiduciary positions by engaging in a scheme to trick the Healthcare Employers into paying premiums into a scam third-party insurance policy over the course ong>ofong> several years, promising them thirdparty insurance coverage that did not exist. (Id. 27-56.) The Healthcare Employer plaintiffs sought million in damages plus declaratory relief. (Id. at 23-25.) The Healthcare Employer plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the Nassau County Action on November 6, 2019. (Bay Park Ctr., Am. Compl. (Dkt. 9-4).) The amended complaint abandons 10

ong>Caseong> 1:ong>21ong>-cv-014ong>21ong>-NGG ong>Caseong> ong>21ong>-ong>1564ong>, ong>Docong>ument 6, 1907/12/20ong>21ong>, Filed 05/27/ong>21ong> 3135847, Page Page19 11 ong>ofong> 27 ong>ofong> PageID 104 #: 2282 most, if not all, ong>ofong> the allegations from the initial complaint. It raises a single cause ong>ofong> action against the Philipsons for breach ong>ofong> contract, alleging that they failed to repay a ,000 loan and seeking only the amount ong>ofong> the loan, plus interest and fees, in damages. (Id. ong>21ong>-25.) On October 7, 2020, Oriska obtained leave to intervene as a plaintiff in the Nassau County Action. (Bay Park Ctr., Order (Dkt. 9-6).) By that time, the Nassau County Action, along with the seventeen other Removed Actions, had been transferred to Oneida County for pre-trial coordination. (Bay Park Ctr., Nassau Cnty. Dkt. (Dkt. 38-2) at ECF p. 3.) Then, on December 28, 2020, Oriska filed an amended complaint in intervention, asserting 20 causes ong>ofong> action against more than 400 defendants-in-intervention, including the Class Representatives and the Healthcare Employers. 2 (Bay Park Ctr., Am. Compl. in Intervention (“Amended Intervention Complaint”) (Dkt. 9-7) ong>21ong>1-343.) On December 29, 2020, the Class Representatives removed the Nassau County Action to this court on the basis ong>ofong> federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, asserting that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., completely preempts the claims raised in the Amended Intervention Complaint. (Bay Park Ctr., Not. ong>ofong> Removal (Dkt. 1) 6.) 2 The proposed amended complaint in intervention asserted only state law causes ong>ofong> action. The parties dispute whether Oriska Corporation ever filed an initial proposed intervention complaint prior to filing its amended one. Because it is not pertinent to the issues at hand, this court declines to address this disputed issue. 11

Tag-along Lawsuits against Putative Class Defendant Members: Decision Appealed, Response and Complaint