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
ong>Caseong> ong>21ong>-ong>1575ong>, ong>Docong>ument 6, 07/12/20ong>21ong>, 3136178, Page6 ong>ofong> 119 Moreover, there is no authority cited by the Lower ong>Courtong> that the Amended Complaint effectively transformed the “plaintiffs” into the “defendants” within the meaning ong>ofong> 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b)(2)(A), which provides that, “[w]hen a civil action is removed solely under section 1441(a), all defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in or consent to the removal ong>ofong> the action.” (Emphasis added.) It is respectfully argued that the Lower ong>Courtong> errored when it determined that by the Amended Complaint (which was filed electronically), the plaintiffs became defendants (because they were named as defendants in the Amended Complaint) and that their consent was required. The cases deal with funds governed by ERISA and therefore, the doctrine ong>ofong> federal preemption merits federal court jurisdiction over these matters. The preponderance ong>ofong> evidence is that the subject ong>ofong> the lawsuits is ERISA regulated matters, because it involves funds for benefits to employees ong>ofong> the employee class. Mr. Kernan believed in good faith that the allegations in the Amended Complaint asserting claims for relief relate to a fund governed by ERISA and, under the broad preemption principles, permitted removal. Removal was appropriate from Nassau County to the EDNY because the Nassau County Supreme ong>Courtong> granted the intervention complaint, which set forth the ERISA-based causes ong>ofong> action. The Nassau County lawsuit 609877/2019 was an ERISA regulated matter because it involved funds for benefits to employee class members. The ong>Secondong> ong>Circuitong> has explained that “ERISA’s preemption clause is ‘conspicuous for its breadth,’ … representing Congress’ aim to establish as an area ong>ofong> ‘exclusive federal concern’ the regulationong>ofong> employee benefit plans. … Consequently, the phrase ‘relate to’ [in the preemption clause] is to be interpreted broadly, … encompassing common law causes ong>ofong> action that ‘purport to provide a remedy for the violationong>ofong> a right expressly guaranteed 4
ong>Caseong> ong>21ong>-ong>1575ong>, ong>Docong>ument 6, 07/12/20ong>21ong>, 3136178, Page7 ong>ofong> 119 by [ERISA].’” Diduck v. Kaszycki & Sons Contrs., Inc., 974 F.2d 270, 287-88 (2d Cir. 1992). Here, the litigation involves violations ong>ofong> ERISA affecting employees’ rights for benefits. Removal on the original complaint as well as the language ong>ofong> the statute support this position. The plain language ong>ofong> the statute governing removal, 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b)(1), provides that the relevant pleading is the “initial pleading”: “The notice ong>ofong> removal ong>ofong> a civil action or proceeding shall be filed within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, ong>ofong> a copy ong>ofong> the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based….” This provision deals with actions that are removable at the time ong>ofong> commencement and applies to Nassau County lawsuit 609877/2019. A separate provision, 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b)(3), governs actions which become removable by an “amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable.” Here, the case was removable by virtue ong>ofong> the initial pleading, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b)(1). The allegations in the Amended Complaint asserted claims for relief related to a fund governed by ERISA and, under the broad preemption principles, permitted removal. The Lower ong>Courtong> ruled that “voluntariness principal bars removal by parties introduced through intervention.” (Order, at p. 22), The Lower ong>Courtong> stated that “[t]o hold otherwise would deprive plaintiffs ong>ofong> their right to decide where to bring their lawsuit.” Id. However, the doctrine ong>ofong> removal inherently deprives plaintiffs ong>ofong> their right to decide where to bring their lawsuit. The cases deal with funds governed by ERISA and therefore the doctrine ong>ofong> federal preemption merited federal court jurisdiction over these matters. 5