Hickton v. Enter. Holdings, Inc. (In re Enter. Rent–A–Car Wage & Hour Emp't Practices Litig.)

21 Citing briefs

  1. Rapczynski et al v. Directv, Inc. et al

    BRIEF IN OPPOSITION re MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff Antonio Purificato, 75 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff Stephen Rydzanich, 73 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff Andrew James

    Filed January 3, 2017

    The third factor for consideration is “the alleged employer's involvement in day-to-day employee supervision, including employee discipline.” Enterprise, 683 F.3d at 469. On that score, as described above, Defendants maintained pervasive control over—and supervision of— Plaintiffs’ day-to-day work activities.

  2. Katz v. Dnc Services Corporation et al

    MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

    Filed March 30, 2017

    Finally, the Complaint also fails to make any allegations that would support finding the presence of the fourth joint employment factor, that is, whether the alleged employer has “control of employee records, such as payroll, insurance, or taxes.” Enterprise, 683 F.3d at 468. The Complaint is devoid of any allegations that DNC maintained control of Plaintiffs’ employment records.

  3. Rapczynski et al v. Directv, Inc. et al

    MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff Stephen Rydzanich

    Filed November 28, 2016

    3. Rydzanich Was Not Jointly Employed By DIRECTV The undisputed facts establish that DIRECTV does not qualify as Rydzanich’s joint employer based on the four factors identified in Enterprise, supra, 683 F.3d at 469-470. Rydzanich admits that he was hired directly and exclusively by Halsted and MasTec.

  4. Roeder et al v. Directv, Inc et al

    MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment

    Filed August 19, 2016

    In this case, nearly every one of the many relevant factors point toward DIRECTV’s status as an “employer,” a conclusion bolstered by the readily apparent fact that it exercised “significant control” over the Plaintiffs. See Enterprise, 683 F.3d at 468. The fact that DIRECTV engaged other entities to directly administer certain aspects of the hiring, firing, and payroll of its workforce does not change the economic reality.

  5. Hileman v. Penelec/First Energy Corporation

    REPLY BRIEF re MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed November 8, 2016

    … Enterprise Holdings, Inc. has a human resources department, which provides certain services to subsidiaries, …. Id., 683 F.3d 462, 466 et seq. (affirming summary judgment in favor of defendant on joint employment issue—that Enterprise Holdings, Inc. was not plaintiff’s employer.) Case 1:14-cv-01771-CCC Document 40 Filed 11/08/16 Page 24 of 27 20 Respectfully, if the facts presented in the foregoing decision—in which the plaintiff had developed significant factual record (unlike Plaintiff Hileman here)— are insufficient to establish joint employment as a matter of law, then likewise, the arguments advanced by Plaintiff Hileman (“FirstEnergy” logos on paychecks and other documents, and FirstEnergy’s HR employees providing services to PEC) must also fail as a matter of law, and this Court should grant summary judgment in favor of FirstEnergy, because it was never Plaintiff’s employer.

  6. Pope, Andrew v. Espeseth, Inc. et al

    Brief in Reply

    Filed November 7, 2016

    See Pineda-Marin v. Classic Painting Inc., No. CV-08-798-HU, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28827, at *10-11 (D. Ore. Mar. 25, 2010) (finding no joint employment relationship in FLSA case and noting that although the direct employer likely set the plaintiffs’ wages at the recommendation of the alleged joint employer, it was a decision the direct employer “adopted . . . as his own decision” and he “could have followed the recommendations [of the alleged joint employer] or not, as he chose”); see also In re: Enterprise Rent-a-Car Employment Practices Litig., 683 F.3d at 466 (holding that corporate parent’s recommended compensation guides, which included guidance on which subsidiary employees should be salaried and which should be paid by the hour, were insufficient to create an issue of fact on joint employment of wholly-owned subsidiary employees by parent where no evidence that the parent required use of compensation guides). Accordingly, Fish Window Cleaning’s suggested commission-based method of compensation—which Franchisee and multiple other franchisees chose not to follow—cannot form the basis of Fish Window Cleaning’s liability to Plaintiffs, and the Court should grant summary judgment in Fish Window Cleaning’s favor.

  7. Apple et al v. Atlantic Yard Development Company, LLC et al

    MEMORANDUM in Support re MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed April 21, 2014

    Though Forest City provided 4 Though the Third Circuit purported to unveil an “Enterprise test” with its opinion, the “Enterprise test” is very similar to the test employed by its “sister circuits,” including the Second Circuit, to which the Third Circuit looked in developing its own standard. See In re Enter. Rent- A-Car Wage & Hour Emp’t Practices Litig., 683 F.3d 462, 468-69 (3d Cir. 2012) (discussing, amongst other cases, Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Co. Inc., 355 F.3d 61, 71 (2d Cir. 2003), and recognizing that its “Enterprise test” is “not materially different than those used by [its] sister circuits” for testing FLSA joint employment).

  8. von Brugger v. Jani King of Minnesota Inc

    MEMORANDUM in Support re MOTION to Transfer/Change Venue

    Filed March 7, 2013

    In re Enter. Rent-A-Car Wage & Hour Employment Practices Litig., 735 F. Supp. 2d 277, 343 (W.D. Pa. 2010) aff'd, 683 F.3d 462 (3d Cir. 2012) (“A parent corporation may provide administrative services to subsidiaries without exercising control that rises to the degree to deem it a joint employer with the subsidiaries.”); Papa v. Katy Indus., Inc., 166 F.3d 937, 942 (7th Cir. 1999) (noting that “[f]irms too tiny to achieve the realizable economies of scale or scope in their industry will go under unless they can integrate some of their operations with those of other companies, whether by contract or by ownership”).

  9. Hugler v. Gaudin

    BRIEF in Support re Motion to Dismiss

    Filed June 5, 2017

    In re Enter. Rent-A-Car Wage & Hour Case 2:17-cv-00366-MRH Document 8 Filed 06/05/17 Page 8 of 15 5 Employment Practices Litig., 683 F.3d 462, 469 (3d Cir. 2012); accord Haybarger, 667 F.3d at 418. Courts routinely dismiss FLSA claims against corporate officers where the complaint contains only conclusory allegations that these factors are met and lacks any specific factual allegations showing that day-to-day involvement in supervision or setting policy is plausible.

  10. Razak et al v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

    MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment

    Filed May 26, 2017

    LEGAL ARGUMENT A. Summary Judgment Standard Summary judgment should be granted where “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); In Re Enterprise Rent-A-Car Wage & Hour Litigation, 683 F.3d 462, 467 (3d Cir. 2012). A disputed fact is not “material” unless its resolution could affect the outcome of the case, and a dispute is not “genuine” unless the evidence bearing on the disputed fact is such that a reasonable person could find for the non- moving party.