A class action against Larsen & Toubro Limited, the giant Indian multinational, and its U.S. subsidiary, L & T Infotech, for employment discrimination brought by Ms. Shanbag on behalf of a class of all women employees of L&T. In the complaint filed in federal court in New Jersey, Ms. Shanbag asserts that defendants discriminated against her and other employees on grounds of her sex and/or pregnancy. Ms. Shanbhag was employed with L&T Infotech's US arm as a contractor since October 2010, and the company praised her performance and hired her as an employee in January 2011. She was fired 38 days later, the day after she informed L&T of her pregnancy and sought maternity benefits. The Complaint asserts that defendants engaged in discrimination against female employees with respect to job assignment, compensation and other terms or conditions of employment, and/or by creating a hostile and abusive climate, and/or unlawfully or terminating female employees on false pretenses. The complaint seeks damages of "not less than $20 million", injunctive relief to protect women employees from discrimination and harassment, backpay, and reinstatement of those women desirous of returning to work with L&T.
A class action seeking to hold a mortgage servicer (Saxon Mortgage) accountable for failure to fulfill obligations under the federally sponsored HAMP (Home Affordable Modification Program) to homeowners in financial distress. Despite receiving $65.8 million of taxpayer funds – and a commitment of an additional $634 million - from the United States government to assist such homeowners avoid foreclosure, Saxon nonchalantly failed to even bother setting up a proper system with adequately trained staff to meet its obligations. Instead, Saxon routinely and systematically misled, and continues to mislead, hapless homeowners into making monthly “trial” payments far beyond the trial period contemplated under HAMP, and into repeatedly sending and resending copies of documents buttressing their loan modification applications, by fostering the mistaken belief that Saxon was considering, and would consider, such applications in good faith. After receiving all these payments and giving a prolonged runaround to distressed homeowners, Saxon belatedly rejected their modification applications, pocketed portions of these payments towards late fees, penalties, and other delinquency charges, pocketed the taxpayer money, and proceeded with foreclosure anyway. Thereby, the lawsuit asserts, Saxon has substantially frustrated federal policy underlying HAMP, breached its contractual obligations to Plaintiffs and other homeowners, and violated New York’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act. On these and related grounds, Plaintiffs assert claims under the common law for breach of contract and promissory estoppel, and under New York General Business Law, Section 349, and seek injunctive relief as well as compensatory and punitive damages together with attorneys’ fees and costs of this litigation.
A racketeering action arising out of a foreclosure rescue scam. The plaintiff, a hardworking homeowner with two jobs, asserts that Defendants, mortgage financiers Franklin Credit Management Corporation, Tribeca Lending Corp. and others, fraudulently induced her to sign certain blank papers with false representations concerning a proposed “bridge loan” transaction to stave off a then-pending foreclosure on her home, and to enable her complete medical school without financial worries. However, unknown to her, Defendants transposed her signatures on blank pages onto several mortgage-related documents. The entire transaction was a sham, conducted in gross violation of the common law as well as applicable state and federal laws. Plaintiff asserts claims under federal racketeering laws, Truth in Lending Act, The Equal Credit Opportunity Act, deceptive trade practices law of New York, and the common law, and seeks compensatory and punitive damages, and equitable and injunctive relief, in addition to attorneys fees and expenses. The federal court imposed sanctions upon defendants for violating their discovery obligations Crawford v. Franklin Credit Management Corporation. Thereafter, however, that court dismissed her claims because her earlier attorney had not listed these claims in a bankruptcy proceeding which had been dismissed. Crawford v. Franklin Credit Management Corporation. That decision is pending appeal. Meanwhile, the New York State Supreme Court had stayed foreclosure and sale of plaintiff's home, observing "It is without question that the charges stated in the federal lawsuit are serious and are typical of the horror stories that have surfaced since the mortgage crisis exploded in this country." Tribeca Lending Corp. v. Linda Crawford. The lenders appealed, and that decision was reversed on appeal. The Court of Appeals granted an emergency stay of further proceedings to the homeowner, but subsequently vacated that stay because a final judgment had not been entered. The homeowners' request to vacate the judgment was denied. Tribeca Lending Corp. v. Linda Crawford. It was expected that after entry of final judgment in the State Supreme Court, the homeowner will appeal to the Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, Ms. Crawford had to file for bankrupty, and these claims are presently being pursued in the Bankruptcy Court.
An action on behalf of several foreign-born pharmacists challenging the constitutionality of New York State Education Law, Section 6805(1)(6), which governs the licensing of pharmacists in New York. The pharmacists-plaintiffs assert that this statutory provision (a) interferes with their constitutional right to pursue a chosen calling/profession; (b) imposes an impermissible burden on their constitutional right to interstate migration/travel; (c) discriminates against aliens in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and (b) interferes with the national immigration policy which is the exclusive province of the United States government and enunciated in immigration laws enacted by the U.S. Congress, thereby violating the Supremacy Clause. The federal court upheld the challenge and has issued an injunction against New York State from enforcing Education Law, Section 6805(1)(6). Adusumelli v. Steiner. The State of New York has filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which appeal is pending.
A class action against Northern Leasing Systems, Inc., of New York City, asserting a fraudulent scheme to entrap small businesspersons fraudulently into equipment leases with undisclosed charges and onerous terms. Plaintiffs, small businesses from all over the country, assert that Northern Leasing deceptively sells these leases to small businessmen through what appears to be a standard form one page lease, complete with signatures, and a personal guaranty. Thereafter, it routinely charges and collects much more than what is specified in the first page, and foists several other liabilities on the unsuspecting small businesses. When small businesses raise questions, Northern Leasing finally reveals the existence of 3 additional pages which make the lease irrevocable, onerous, and virtually indefinite. Routinely, these pages and their contents are never disclosed to the small businesses at the inception, and are not incorporated into the lease. Nevertheless, Northern Leasing saddles small businesses with all these terms and enforces them strictly. Moreover, Northern Leasing imposes charges which were never disclosed in the lease. The trial court upheld the claim for fraud and punitive damages, ruling that the "allegations address more than a private wrong contending that defendants engaged in a course of conduct throughout the United States with such wanton dishonesty as to imply a criminal indifference to civil obligations." Pludeman v. Northern Leasing. On appeal, the the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York has upheld the claims for fraud against Northern Leasing and its senior management, as well as the claim for breach of contract against Northern Leasing. In addition, the Court also held that "defendants' fraudulent motive and tortious conduct aimed at the public generally suffice to plead a claim for punitive damages under both the breach of contract and common-law fraud causes of action." Pludeman v. Northern Leasing. The individual Defendants, i.e., senior management of Northern Leasing, appealed to the Court of Appeals (New York's highest court) seeking dismissal of the fraud claims against them. The United States Chamber of Commerce filed an Amicus brief in their support. However, the Court affirmed the decision of the Appellate Division, and in a landmark ruling relaxing the pleading standards for fraud in New York, upheld the fraud claims against Northern Leasing's top management Pludeman v. Northern Leasing. The Court then certified the class Pludeman v. Northern Leasing. The Appellate Division modified the class certification order, at Chittur's request, to expand the class, and rejected Northern Leasing's appeal. Pludeman v. Northern Leasing. Thereafter, the trial court granted summary judgment to Plaintiffs and the Class with respect to compensatory damages. Pludeman v. Northern Leasing. That decision was reversed on appeal. Pludeman v. Northern Leasing. Meanwhile, the trial court severed the claims and entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and the Class declaring that the three pages following the first page of the lease were unenforceable, and granted a permanent injunction against Northern Leasing. Pludeman v. Northern Leasing. That decision has been temporarily stayed. A related action challenges Northern Leasing's practice of unlawfully accessing and/or making adverse entries in credit reports of small businesspersons in order to coerce payments of unwarranted sums to Northern Leasing, even where small businesspersons did not have any account with Northern Leasing. Further, Plaintiffs assert that Northern Leasing's repeated, misleading, and deceptive dunning telephone calls violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act and New York law. The Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss the case, and upheld the claims. Aldrich v. Northern Leasing Systems, Inc.
A racketeering action against Northern Leasing Systems, Inc., alleging a racketeering scheme to intimidate out-of-state individuals into paying unwarranted sums of money by commencing fraudulent lawsuits in New York City Civil Court. Claiming to be financiers under alleged equipment finance leases, Northern Leasing brought actions seeking to recover relatively small sums, typically under $3,000. However, Northern Leasing was aware well before bringing such actions that the out-of-state individuals' signatures on such leases had been forged. Nevertheless, Northern Leasing commenced these small claims proceedings and even obtained fraudulent default judgments in order to harass, intimidate, and thereby extort money from out-of-state individuals through threats of expensive long distance litigation, of damage to credit rating, and/or entry of default judgments. The Court has denied Defendants' motion to dismiss, and upheld all the claims. Serin v. Northern Leasing Systems, Inc. The case was settled on the eve of trial on confidential terms. The Court subsequently awarded attorneys' fees and expenses to Plaintiffs, which award is under appeal.
Defending the ISKCON, Inc., temple in Freeport, Long Island, and prosecuting counterclaims on its behalf, in an action by the ISKCON Governing Body Commission Society of West Bengal, India, to takeover that temple. After a week-long evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the Society’s motion for a preliminary injunction for immediate takeover, which was largely upheld on appeal, Kelley v. Garuda. The ISKCON, Inc., temple in Freeport has asserted 7 counterclaims against the West Bengal Society for Passing Off, Fraudulent Interference With Goodwill; Conversion; Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Obligations; Aiding and Abetting Conversion; Concerted Action; and Civil Conspiracy. The counterclaims center on allegations that the West Bengal Society converted millions of dollars by misrepresenting itself as the ecclesiastical authority of the Krishna Consciousness movement, contrary to the founder's instructions and will. These millions rightfully belong to ISKCON, Inc., of Freeport, Long Island, which is the sole beneficiary under the trust founded by ISKCON founder, His Holiness Srila Prabhupada, which trust was called the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. In May 2010, the Referee supervising discovery censured the Plaintiff GBC for dilatory tactics, Kelley v. Doaman. The case is expected to go to trial later this year.