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
13 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-01366-NGG-SJB 1:ong>21ong>-cv-014ong>21ong>-NGG ong>Caseong> MDL ong>21ong>-ong>1564ong>, No. 3011 ong>Docong>ument ong>Docong>ument 6, 2407/12/20ong>21ong>, 11 25-32 Filed Filed 06/25/ong>21ong> Filed 05/27/ong>21ong> 3135847, 06/24/ong>21ong> Page Page86 10 9 ong>ofong> ong>ofong> 28 ong>ofong> 27 9 PageID 104 ong>ofong> 27 #: #: 2347 1349 Corporation (“Oriska”), an insurance company located in Oneida County in the Northern District ong>ofong> New York, is the plaintiff in seventeen ong>ofong> the eighteen Removed Actions. Oriska originally brought those and other related actions in Bronx, Kings, Nassau, Rensselaer, Richmond, Schenectady, Suffolk, and Westchester Counties against, inter alia, various healthcare and rehabilitation employer defendants (the “Healthcare Employers”). (See Oriska Corp. v. West Lawrence Care Ctr., ong>21ong>-cv-2039, Coordination Order (Dkt. 8-6) at 2-3; App’x A.) These Removed Actions are shareholder derivative suits seeking reimbursement ong>ofong> unpaid insurance premiums allegedly owed to Oriska’s former subsidiary, Oriska Insurance Corporation. Id. at 2. In the state court proceedings, the Employer Defendants disputed Oriska’s claims and argued that “most, if not all, ong>ofong> the plaintiff’s causes ong>ofong> action have already been adjudicated when similar claims were litigated by Oriska Insurance Company in the Supreme ong>Courtong> ong>ofong> Oneida County by Justice Patrick F. MacRae.” Id. at 3. Oriska moved to consolidate the cases in either Nassau or Kings County. Id. The Healthcare Employers agreed that consolidation was necessary but argued that they should be moved to Oneida County, where Oriska was located and where Oriska Insurance Company’s prior claims had been adjudicated. Id. The New York State Litigation Coordination panel agreed with the Healthcare Employers and, on April 30, 2020, the panel entered an order coordinating the actions and transferring them to Oneida County for pre-trial purposes pursuant to the Uniform Rules for New York State Trial ong>Courtong>s § 202.69. Id. at 4. The Coordination Order advised the parties that, after pre-trial discovery and decisions on any summary judgment motions, the plaintiff could choose to have a trial for each action in the county where it was originally filed. Id. 9

ong>Caseong> ong>Caseong> 1:ong>21ong>-cv-01366-NGG-SJB 1:ong>21ong>-cv-014ong>21ong>-NGG ong>Caseong> ong>Caseong> MDL ong>21ong>-ong>1564ong>, No. 3011 ong>Docong>ument ong>Docong>ument 6, 2407/12/20ong>21ong>, 11 25-32 Filed Filed 06/25/ong>21ong> Filed 05/27/ong>21ong> 3135847, 06/24/ong>21ong> Page Page87 11 10 ong>ofong> ong>ofong> 28 ong>ofong> 10 27 PageID 104 ong>ofong> 27 #: #: 2348 1350 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

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