IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN … · 2018-06-07 · 1 IN THE UNITED STATES...

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

LARRY DEAN, SR. and WHITNEY EDWARDS, On Behalf of Themselves and Other Similarly Situated Employees, and JOHN NSIDIBE, ANTHONY DUNN, ROBERTO GUTIERREZ AND DEMETRIE COLLINS,

Plaintiffs, v. ECLIPSE ADVANTAGE, INC. and MID-WEST TEMP GROUP, INC.,

Defendants.

Case No. Judge

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Larry Dean, Sr. and Whitney Edwards, on behalf of themselves and all other

persons similarly situated, known and unknown, and John Nsidibe, Anthony Dunn, Roberto

Gutierrez and Demetrie Collins (collectively “Plaintiffs”), for their Complaint against

Defendants Eclipse Advantage, Inc. (“Eclipse”) and Mid-West Temp Group, Inc. (“Mid-West”)

(collectively “Defendants”), state as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiffs worked in a warehouse in Ellwood, Illinois that houses and distributes

goods for Walmart. Defendant Eclipse provides logistical services and staffing to the Walmart

warehouse. Defendant Mid-West is a staffing agency that provides additional temporary laborers

to the Walmart warehouse through Defendant Eclipse and to other third party companies.

When Plaintiffs and other employees of Defendants were hired, they were promised a

minimum hourly wage rate, with a potential to earn more based on a productivity bonus. When

Plaintiffs received their pay, they found their pay stubs did not contain information about their

hours worked and wages earned required by Illinois law and that they required to determine if

Case: 1:11-cv-08285 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/19/11 of 37 PageID #:1

2

they had been paid the rate promised. Instead, their pay stubs either contained incorrect or no

information on weekly hours worked. For example, when Plaintiff Whitney Edward received her

paycheck on July 22, 2011, her pay stub, attached as Exhibit A, indicated that she was

compensated for 12 hours at the promised minimum hourly rate of $9.25 per hour. However,

Plaintiff Edwards had, in fact, worked substantially more hours than those indicated on her check

stub and, as a result, was compensated less than the promised minimum $9.25 per hour and was

compensated less than the federal minimum wages for many hours and was not compensated

overtime wages for overtime hours she worked as required by federal law. When Plaintiff

Edwards sought copies of the records showing the number of hours Defendants billed and paid

for her work, as required by Illinois law and which would allow her to prove the underpayment

of her wages, Defendants refused to comply with her request in violation of Illinois law.

In addition, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and other laborers a minimum of four

hours “show up pay” on days when they were contracted to work but not utilized for a minimum

of four hours and failed to pay Plaintiffs and other laborers vacation pay that they had earned and

accrued pursuant to Illinois law and Defendants had promised them to induce them to work for

Defendants instead of working for other staffing agencies. Finally, Defendants failed to provide

Plaintiffs and other laborers with important information on Employment Notices and Wage

Payment Notices about their job assignment and pay which the Illinois legislature found

necessary to protect such at-risk workers from “abuse of their labor rights, including unpaid

wages, failure to pay for all hours worked, minimum wage and overtime violations, and unlawful

deduction from pay for meals, transportation, equipment and other items.” 820 ILCS 175/2.

Plaintiffs are seeking back pay for themselves and for other laborers employed by Eclipse

and Mid-West and are seeking an injunction against Defendants from future violations of federal


3

and state wage laws. In addition, Plaintiffs seek an injunction against Defendants to end their

practice of not providing accurate information in writing to temporary laborers about the terms

and conditions of their employment at the beginning of assignments and when they are paid.

II. NATURE OF THE CASE

2. This lawsuit arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §201 et seq.

(“FLSA”), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820 ILCS 105/1 et seq. (“IMWL”), the Illinois

Wage Payment and Collection Act, 820 ILCS 115/1 et seq. (“IWPCA”) and the Illinois Day and

Temporary Labor Services Act, 820 ILCS 175/1 et seq. (“IDTLSA”) for Defendants’: 1) failure

to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees at least the federally and/or state-

mandated minimum wages for all time worked in violation of the FLSA, the IMWL and the

IDTLSA; 2) failure to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees all earned wages at

the rate agreed to by the parties in violation of the IWPCA and the IDTLSA; 3) failure to

compensate Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees for a minimum of four hours pay at the

agreed upon rate when a day or temporary laborer was contracted to work for a third party client

company and was utilized for less than four hours in violation of the IDTLSA; 4) failure to

provide Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees with Employment Notices as required

by the IDTLSA; and 5) failure to provide Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees with

proper Wage Payment and Notices as required by the IDTLSA; 6) failure to pay Plaintiffs and

the class they seek to represent earned vacation pay as required by IWPCA; 7) as to Mid-West

only, failure to provide bill and pay records to Plaintiff Whitney Edwards. For minimum wage

and overtime claims arising under the FLSA, Plaintiffs Dean and Edwards bring this suit as a

collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA. 29 U.S.C. §216(b) and their consents

to act as representative Plaintiffs are attached hereto as Exhibits B and C, respectively. For


4

claims arising under the IMWL, the IWPCA and the IDTLSA, Plaintiffs seek to certify these

claims as class actions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a) and (b).

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§1331, arising under 29 U.S.C. §216(b). This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’

state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.

4. Venue is proper in this judicial district as Defendants all have locations in this

judicial district and a substantial part of the facts and events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims

occurred in this judicial district.

IV. PARTIES

A. Plaintiffs

5. During the course of their employment, each Plaintiff:

a. has handled goods that have moved in interstate commerce;

b. has been an “employee” of Defendant Eclipse and/or Defendant Mid-West as that

term is defined by the FLSA, the IMWL and the IWPCA;

c. has been employed by Defendant Eclipse and/or Defendant Mid-West as a “day

or temporary laborer” (hereafter “laborer”) as that term is defined by the

IDTLSA, 820 ILCS 175/5, to provide services to third party client companies,

including Walmart; and

d. has worked as a “laborer” on behalf of Eclipse and/or Mid-West during the course

of his employment.

B. Defendants

6. At all relevant times, Defendant Mid-West:


5

a. has been a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Illinois;

b. has conducted business in Illinois and within this judicial district;

c. has been engaged in the business of employing day or temporary laborers to

provide services, for a fee, to third party clients companies pursuant to contracts

between itself and the third party client companies;

d. has been a “day and temporary labor service agency” (hereafter “Staffing

Agency”) as defined by the IDTLSA, 820 ILCS 175/5;

e. has been an “enterprise” as defined by in Section 3(r)(1) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §

203(r)(1), and is an enterprise engaged in commerce, or in the production of

goods for commerce, within the meaning of Section 3(s)(1)(A) and Defendant’s

annual gross volume of sales or business done exceeds $500,000, exclusive of

excise taxes; and

f. has had two or more employees who have handled goods which have moved in

interstate commerce;

g. has been the “employer” of named Plaintiff Whitney Edwards as that term is

defined by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 203(d), the IMWL, 820 ILCS 105/3(c) and the

IWPCA, 820 ILCS §115/1 et seq.

7. At all relevant times, Defendant Eclipse:

a. has been a Florida corporation conducting business in Illinois and within

this judicial district;

b. has been engaged in the business of employing day or temporary laborers

to provide services, for a fee, to third party clients companies pursuant to

contracts between itself and the third party client companies;


6

c. has been a “day and temporary labor service agency” (hereafter “Staffing

Agency”) as defined by the IDTLSA, 820 ILCS 175/5;

d. has been an “enterprise” as defined by in Section 3(r)(1) of the FLSA, 29

U.S.C. § 203(r)(1), and is an enterprise engaged in commerce, or in the

production of goods for commerce, within the meaning of Section

3(s)(1)(A) and Defendant’s annual gross volume of sales or business done

exceeds $500,000, exclusive of excise taxes; and

e. has had two or more employees who have handled goods which have

moved in interstate commerce;

f. has been Plaintiffs’ “employer” as that term is defined by the FLSA, 29

U.S.C. 203(d), the IMWL, 820 ILCS 105/3(c) and the IWPCA, 820 ILCS

§115/1 et seq.

V. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

8. Defendant Mid-West hired several employees including named Plaintiffs Edwards

and Nsidibe to work on a temporary basis for Defendant Eclipse. Other employees including

named Plaintiffs Dean, Dunn, Gutierrez and Collins were hired directly by Defendant Eclipse.

9. Plaintiffs and other similarly situated laborers have been employed by Defendants

in Illinois in one or more individual work weeks and have been employed to provide services at

third party client companies for a fee and pursuant to a contract between Defendants and third

party clients, including Walmart.

10. Defendant Eclipse solicited Plaintiffs Dean, Dunn, Gutierrez and Collins and

other similarly situated employees, to work by promising an hourly wage rate of at least $10 an


7

hour and indicated to some employees that there was a possibility of earning additional

compensation if certain production levels were achieved.

11. Defendant Eclipse did not pay Plaintiffs Dean, Dunn, Gutierrez and Collins and

other similarly situated employees the promised hourly wage rate of at least $10 an hour and in

some instances paid Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees only a piece rate that was less

than $10 an hour.

12. In some cases, Defendant Eclipse compensated Plaintiffs Dean, Dunn, Gutierrez

and Collins and other similarly situated employees at an hourly rate less than the applicable

Illinois and federal minimum wage rate.

13. Defendant Eclipse required Plaintiffs Dean, Dunn, Gutierrez and Collins and

similarly situated newly hired employees to attend an orientation for which they were never paid.

One such orientation took place on or about June 5, 2011.

14. Defendant Mid-West solicited Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe and other similar

situated employees to work by promising a wage rate of $9.25 an hour. Defendant Mid-West did

not pay Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees the promised rate of $9.25 an hour and in

some cases paid employees a rate less than the applicable Illinois and federal minimum wage

rate.

15. Defendant Mid-West required Plaintiff Edwards and Nsidibe and other similarly

situated new employees to attend an orientation for which they were never paid.

16. Defendant Eclipse solicited Plaintiffs Dean, Dunn, Gutierrez and Collins and

other similarly situated employees to work, in part, by promising laborers that they would earn

paid vacation but Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent earned


8

vacation pay. See Eclipse Vacation Policy in Employee Handbook at page 14 attached hereto as

Exhibit D.

17. In the three years prior to Plaintiffs’ filing this lawsuit, Defendants contracted

Plaintiffs and similarly situated laborers and sent them to a third party client to perform work but

Plaintiffs were not utilized by the third party client or were utilized for less than four (4) hours.

On such occasions, Defendants did not compensate the laborers for a minimum of four hours as

required by the IDTLSA.

18. In the three years prior to Plaintiffs filing this lawsuit, Defendants failed to

provide Plaintiffs and similarly situated laborers with an “Employment Notice” at the time of

dispatch to third party clients in the form of a statement containing the following items on a form

approved by the Illinois Department of Labor:

a. the name of the day or temporary laborer;

b. the name and nature of the work to be performed;

c. the wages offered;

d. the name and address of the destination of each day and temporary

laborer;

e. terms of transportation; and

f. whether a meal or equipment, or both, are provided, either by the day and

temporary labor service agency or the third party client, and the cost of the

meal and equipment, if any.

19. In the three years prior to Plaintiffs’ filing this lawsuit, Defendants failed to

provide Plaintiffs and similarly situated laborers with a proper Wage Payment and Notice at the

time of payment of wages in the form of an itemized statement, on the day or temporary


9

laborers’ pay stub or on a form approved by the Illinois Department of Labor, containing the

name, address, and telephone number of each third party client at which the day or temporary

laborer worked.

20. On or about November 2, 2011, Plaintiff Whitney Edwards requested that

Defendant Mid-West provide her with bill and pay records pertaining to her employment at Mid-

West and her placement at Defendant Eclipse. Defendant Mid-West failed to provide copies of

the requested bill and pay records.

VI. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

21. Plaintiffs will seek to certify the state law claims arising under the IMWL and

IDTLSA for Illinois-mandated minimum wages and overtime wages (Counts V-VI); state law

claims arising under the IWPCA for unpaid wages (Count VII) and arising under the IDTLSA

for 4 hour minimum pay (Count VIII) and for notice violations (Counts IX – X). Plaintiffs will

ask the Court to determine the rights of the parties pursuant to those statutes and to direct the

Defendants to account for all hours worked and wages paid to the class members during the

temporality of the class.

22. Counts V through X are brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a) and (b)

because:

a. the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.

While the precise number of Class Members has not been determined at

this time, Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants have each

employed over a thousand persons as day or temporary laborers in Illinois

during the IMWL, IWPCA and IDTLSA Class Periods;


10

b. There are questions of fact or law common to the class, which common

questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual

members. These common questions of law and fact include, without

limitation:

i. Whether Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and the Class the Illinois-mandated minimum wage for all time worked in individual work weeks during the IMWL Class Period;

ii. Whether Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and the Class for all time worked in individual work weeks at the rate agreed to by the Parties during the IWPCA Class Period;

iii. Whether Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiffs and the Class a minimum of four (4) hours pay at the agreed upon rate on days when a day or temporary laborer was contracted to work but was not utilized for at least four (4) hours by a third party client company as required by 820 ILCS 175/30(g);

iv. Whether Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs and the Class with proper Employment Notices as required by 820 ILCS 175/10;

v. Whether Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs and the Class with proper Wage Payment and Notices as required by 820 ILCS 175/30.

c. The class representatives and the members of the class have been equally

affected by Defendants’ failure to pay Illinois minimum wages, overtime

wages, four hour “show up pay” and vacation pay and failure to provide

proper Employment and Wage Payment notices;

d. Given the nature of the temporary staffing industry, members of the class

will be reluctant to bring forth claims for unpaid wages and notice

violations for fear of retaliation;

e. The class representatives, class members and Defendants have a

commonality of interest in the subject matter and remedies sought and the


11

class representatives are able to fairly and adequately represent the interest

of the classes. If individual actions were required to be brought by each

member of the class injured or affected, the result would be a multiplicity

of actions creating a hardship on the class members, Defendants and the

Court.

23. Therefore, a class action is an appropriate method for the fair and efficient

adjudication of this lawsuit.

COUNT I (Violation of the FLSA – Minimum Wages)

Plaintiffs Dean and Edwards on behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees and all Plaintiffs as against Defendant Eclipse

Section 216(b) Collective Action

Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege paragraphs 1 through 23 as though set forth herein.

24. This Count arises from a violation of the FLSA for Defendant Eclipse’s failure to

pay Plaintiffs and similarly situated laborers at least the federally-mandated minimum wage rate

for all hours worked in individual work weeks as described more fully in paragraphs 1 and 8 -

20, supra.

25. Defendant Eclipse suffered and permitted Plaintiffs to work in certain work weeks

in the three years prior to Plaintiffs filing this lawsuit.

26. Plaintiffs were not exempt from the minimum wage provisions of the FLSA.

27. Plaintiffs were entitled to be paid not less than the federally-mandated minimum

wage for all hours worked in individual work weeks.

28. Defendant Eclipse did not pay Plaintiffs the federally-mandated minimum wage

for all hours worked in individual work weeks.


12

29. Defendant Eclipse suffered and permitted other similarly situated, non-exempt

laborers to work who were likewise entitled to be paid not less than the federally-mandated

minimum wage for all hours worked in individual work weeks.

30. Defendant Eclipse did not pay other similarly situated laborers the federally-

mandated minimum wage for all hours worked in individual work weeks.

31. Defendant Eclipse’s failure to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated laborers

the federally-mandated minimum wage rate for all hours worked in individual work weeks was a

violation of the FLSA.

32. Plaintiffs and other similarly situated laborers are entitled to recover unpaid

minimum wages for up to three years prior to the filing of this lawsuit because Defendant’s

violation of the FLSA was willful.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for a judgment against Defendant Eclipse as follows:

A. That the Court determine that this action may be maintained as a collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA;

B. A judgment in the amount of the difference between the federally-mandated minimum wage rate and the hourly wage rate paid to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated laborers.

C. Liquidated damages in the amount equal to the unpaid minimum wages;

D. Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of this action as provided by the FLSA;

E. Such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate and just.

COUNT II (Violation of the FLSA – Minimum Wages)

Plaintiff Edwards on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees and Plaintiff Nsidibe as against Defendants Eclipse and Mid-West




13

33. This Count arises from a violation of the FLSA for Defendants Mid-West and

Eclipse’s failure to pay Plaintiff Edwards and similarly situated laborers and Plaintiff Nsidibe at

least the federally-mandated minimum wage rate for all hours worked in individual work weeks

as described more fully in paragraphs 1 and 8 - 20, supra.

34. Defendants suffered and permitted Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe to work in

certain work weeks in the three years prior to Plaintiffs filing this lawsuit.

35. Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe were not exempt from the minimum wage

provisions of the FLSA.

36. Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe were entitled to be paid not less than the federally-


37. Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe the federally-mandated


38. Defendants suffered and permitted other similarly situated, non-exempt laborers

to work who were likewise entitled to be paid not less than the federally-mandated minimum


39. Defendants did not pay other similarly situated laborers the federally-mandated


40. Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff Edwards and similarly situated laborers and

Plaintiff Nsidibe the federally-mandated minimum wage rate for all hours worked in individual

work weeks was a violation of the FLSA.

41. Plaintiff Edwards and similarly situated laborers and Plaintiff Nsidibe are entitled

to recover unpaid minimum wages for up to three years prior to the filing of this lawsuit because

Defendants’ violation of the FLSA was willful.


14

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe pray for a judgment against Defendants

Eclipse and Mid-West as follows:


B. A judgment in the amount of the difference between the federally-mandated minimum wage rate and the hourly wage rate paid to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated laborers.




COUNT III (Violation of the FLSA – Overtime Wages)

Plaintiffs Dean and Edwards on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated employees and all Plaintiffs as against Defendant Eclipse



42. This Count arises from a violation of the FLSA for Defendant Eclipse’s failure to

pay Plaintiffs and similarly situated laborers overtime wages for all time worked in excess of

forty (40) hours worked in individual work weeks as described more fully in paragraphs 1 and 8

- 20, supra.

43. Defendant Eclipse directed Plaintiffs to work and Plaintiffs did in fact work in

excess of forty (40) hours in certain individual work weeks within in the three years prior to

Plaintiffs filing this lawsuit.

44. Plaintiffs were not exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA.

45. Plaintiffs were entitled to be paid overtime wages for all time worked in excess of

forty (40) hours in individual work weeks.


15

46. Defendant Eclipse did not pay Plaintiffs overtime wages for all time worked in

excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks.

47. Defendant likewise directed other similarly situated, non-exempt laborers to work

in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks.

48. Defendant Eclipse did not pay other similarly situated laborers the federally-

mandated minimum wage for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work

weeks.


overtime wage rates for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks

was a violation of the FLSA.

50. Plaintiffs and other similarly situated laborers are entitled to recover unpaid

minimum wages for up to three years prior to the filing of this lawsuit because Defendant’s

violation of the FLSA was willful.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for a judgment against Defendant Eclipse as follows:


B. A judgment in the amount of overtime wages owed to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated laborers.




COUNT IV (Violation of the FLSA – Overtime Wages)

Plaintiff Edwards on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees and Plaintiff Nsidibe as against Defendants Eclipse and Mid-West




16

51. This Count arises from a violation of the FLSA for Defendants Eclipse and Mid-

West’s failure to pay Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe and similarly situated laborers overtime

wages for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours worked in individual work weeks as

described more fully in paragraphs 1 and 8 - 20, supra.

52. Defendant Eclipse directed Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe to work and Plaintiffs

Edwards and Nsidibe did in fact work in excess of forty (40) hours in certain individual work

weeks within in the three years prior to Plaintiffs filing this lawsuit.

53. Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe were not exempt from the overtime provisions of

the FLSA.

54. Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe were entitled to be paid overtime wages for all

time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks.

55. Defendants Mid-West and Eclipse did not pay Plaintiffs overtime wages for all


56. Defendants Mid-West and Eclipse likewise directed other similarly situated, non-

exempt laborers to work in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks.

57. Defendants Mid-West and Eclipse did not pay other similarly situated laborers the

federally-mandated minimum wage for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in

individual work weeks.

58. Defendants Mid-West and Eclipse’s failure to pay Plaintiff Edwards and similarly

situated laborers and Plaintiff Nsidibe overtime wage rates for all time worked in excess of forty

(40) hours in individual work weeks was a violation of the FLSA.


17

59. Plaintiff Edwards and similarly situated laborers and Plaintiff Nsidibe are entitled

to recover unpaid minimum wages for up to three years prior to the filing of this lawsuit because

Defendants’ violation of the FLSA was willful.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe pray for a judgment against Defendants

Mid-West and Eclipse as follows:


B. A judgment in the amount of overtime wages owed to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated laborers.




COUNT V (Violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law – Minimum Wages)

Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a Class as against Defendant Eclipse Class Action


60. This Count arises from violation of the IMWL for Defendant Eclipse’s failure to

pay Plaintiffs and the Class they represent the Illinois-mandated minimum wages for all hours

worked in individual work weeks.

61. Defendant Eclipse suffered and permitted Plaintiffs to work in certain work weeks

in the three years prior to Plaintiffs filing this lawsuit.

62. Plaintiffs were not exempt from the minimum wage provisions of the IMWL.

63. Plaintiffs were entitled to be paid not less than the Illinois-mandated minimum



18

64. Defendant Eclipse did not pay Plaintiffs the Illinois-mandated minimum wage for

all hours worked in individual work weeks.

65. Defendant Eclipse suffered and permitted other similarly situated, non-exempt

laborers to work who were likewise entitled to be paid not less than the Illinois-mandated


66. Defendant Eclipse did not pay other similarly situated laborers the Illinois-



the Illinois-mandated minimum wage rate for all hours worked in individual work weeks was a

violation of the IMWL.

68. Pursuant to 820 ILCS 105/12(a), Plaintiffs and members of the class are entitled

to recover unpaid wages for three (3) years prior to the filing of this suit.

69. The Class that Plaintiffs seek to represent in regard to the minimum wage claim

arising under the IMWL is composed of and defined as all persons who were employed by

Eclipse since November 18, 2008 up through and including the present and who have not been

paid the Illinois minimum wage rate for all hours worked in individual work weeks.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the class pray for a judgment against Defendant Eclipse as

follows:

A. That the Court determine that this action may be maintained as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a) and (b);

B. A judgment in the amount of all back wages due to Plaintiffs and the Class as provided by the IMWL;

C. Liquidated damages in an amount equal to the unpaid Illinois mandated minimum wages as provided for in the IDTLSA, 820 ILCS 175/95 or, in the alternative, statutory damages pursuant to the formula set forth in 820 ILCS 105/12(a);


19

D. That the Court declare that Defendant Eclipse has violated the IMWL;

E. That the Court enjoin Defendant Eclipse from violating the IMWL;

F. Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of this action as provided by the IMWL, 820 ILCS 105/1 et seq. and the IDTLSA, 820 ILCS 175/95;

G. Such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate and just.

COUNT VI (Violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law – Minimum Wages)

Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees as against Defendants Eclipse and Mid-West

Class Action


70. This Count arises from violation of the IMWL for Defendants’ failure to pay

Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe and the Class they represent the Illinois-mandated minimum

wages for all hours worked in individual work weeks.

71. Defendants suffered and permitted Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe to work in

certain work weeks in the three years prior to Plaintiffs filing this lawsuit.

72. Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe were not exempt from the minimum wage

provisions of the IMWL.

73. Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe were entitled to be paid not less than the Illinois-


74. Defendants Edwards and Nsidibe did not pay Plaintiffs the Illinois-mandated


75. Defendants suffered and permitted other similarly situated, non-exempt laborers

to work who were likewise entitled to be paid not less than the Illinois-mandated minimum wage



20

76. Defendants did not pay other similarly situated laborers the Illinois-mandated


77. Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe and other similarly

situated laborers the Illinois-mandated minimum wage rate for all hours worked in individual

work weeks was a violation of the IMWL.

78. Pursuant to 820 ILCS 105/12(a), Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe and members of

the class are entitled to recover unpaid wages for three (3) years prior to the filing of this suit.

79. The Class that Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe seek to represent in regard to the

minimum wage claim arising under the IMWL is composed of and defined as all persons who

were employed by Mid-West and sent to perform work at Eclipse since November 18, 2008 up

through and including the present and who have not been paid the Illinois minimum wage rate


WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe and the class pray for a judgment against

Defendants Eclipse and Mid-West as follows:


B. A judgment in the amount of all back wages due to Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe and the Class as provided by the IMWL;


D. That the Court declare that Defendants have violated the IMWL;

E. That the Court enjoin Defendants from violating the IMWL;




21

COUNT VII

(Violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law – Overtime Wages) Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a Class as against Defendant Eclipse

Class Action


80. This Count arises from violation of the IMWL for Defendant Eclipse’s failure to

pay Plaintiffs and the Class they represent overtime wages for all time worked in excess of forty

(40) hours in individual work weeks.

81. Defendant Eclipse directed Plaintiffs to work, and Plaintiffs did in fact work, in

excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks three years prior to Plaintiffs filing this

lawsuit.

82. Plaintiffs were not exempt from the overtime wage provisions of the IMWL.

83. Plaintiffs were entitled to be paid overtime wages for all time worked in excess of

forty (40) hours in individual work weeks.

84. Defendant Eclipse did not pay Plaintiffs overtime wages for all time worked in

excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks.

85. Defendant Eclipse directed other similarly situated, non-exempt laborers to work

and who did in fact work overtime wages for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in


86. Defendant Eclipse did not pay other similarly situated laborers overtime wages

for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks.


overtime wages for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks was a

violation of the IMWL.


22

88. Pursuant to 820 ILCS 105/12(a), Plaintiffs and members of the class are entitled

to recover unpaid overtime wages for three (3) years prior to the filing of this suit.

89. The Class that Plaintiffs seek to represent in regard to the overtime wage claim

arising under the IMWL is composed of and defined as all persons who were employed by

Eclipse since November 18, 2008 up through and including the present and who were not

compensated for overtime wages for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in individual

work weeks.


follows:


B. A judgment in the amount of all back wages due to Plaintiffs and the Class as provided by the IMWL;


D. That the Court declare that Defendant Eclipse has violated the IMWL;

E. That the Court enjoin Defendant Eclipse from violating the IMWL;



COUNT VIII (Violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law – Overtime Wages)

Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe on behalf of themselves and a Class as against Defendants Mid-West and Eclipse

Class Action



23

90. This Count arises from violation of the IMWL for Defendants Mid-West and

Eclipse’s failure to pay Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe and the Class they represent overtime

wages for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks.

91. Defendants directed Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe to work, and Plaintiffs

Edwards and Nsidibe did in fact work, in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks

three years prior to Plaintiffs filing this lawsuit.

92. Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe were not exempt from the overtime wage

provisions of the IMWL.

93. Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe were entitled to be paid overtime wages for all


94. Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe overtime wages for all


95. Defendants directed other similarly situated, non-exempt laborers to work and

who did in fact work overtime wages for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in


96. Defendants did not pay other similarly situated laborers overtime wages for all


97. Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe and other similarly

situated laborers overtime wages for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in individual

work weeks was a violation of the IMWL.

98. Pursuant to 820 ILCS 105/12(a), Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe and members of

the class are entitled to recover unpaid overtime wages for three (3) years prior to the filing of

this suit.


24


overtime wage claim arising under the IMWL is composed of and defined as all persons who

were employed by Mid-West and sent to perform work at Eclipse since November 18, 2008 up

through and including the present and who were not compensated for overtime wages for all time

worked in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks.


Defendants as follows:


B. A judgment in the amount of all back wages due to Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe and the Class as provided by the IMWL;


D. That the Court declare that Defendants has violated the IMWL;

E. That the Court enjoin Defendants from violating the IMWL;



COUNT IX (Violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act – Unpaid Wages) Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and as a Class as against Defendant Eclipse

Class Action


100. This Count arises from the violation of the IWPCA for Defendant Eclipse’s

failure to pay Plaintiffs and the Class they represent wages for all time worked at the rate agreed

to by the parties.


25

101. During the course of their employment with Defendant, Plaintiffs had agreements

within the meaning of the IWPCA to be compensated for all hours worked at the rates agreed to

by the parties.

102. Other similarly situated laborers had agreements within the meaning of the

IWPCA to be compensated for all hours worked at the rates agreed to by the parties.

103. Defendant Eclipse’s failure to pay Plaintiffs and the Class they represent for all

time worked at the rate agreed to by the parties violated the IWPCA.

104. Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to recover owed wages for a period of ten (10)

years prior to the filing of this lawsuit.

105. The Class that Plaintiffs seek to represent in regard to the claim for unpaid wages

arising under the IWPCA is composed of and defined as all persons who have been employed by

Defendant Eclipse since November 18, 2001 up through and including the present and who have

not been paid wages for all time worked at the rate agreed to by the parties.


follows:


B. A judgment in the amount of all back wages due Plaintiffs and the Class as provided by the IWPCA;

C. Liquidated damages in an amount equal to the unpaid wages as provided for in the IDTLSA, 820 ILCS 175/95;

D. That the Court declare that Defendant Eclipse has violated the IWPCA;

E. That the Court enjoin Defendant Eclipse from violating the IWPCA;

F. Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of this action as provided by the IWPCA, 820 ILCS 105/1 et seq. and the IDTLSA, 820 ILCS 175/95;


26


COUNT X (Violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act – Unpaid Wages)

Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe on behalf of themselves and as a Class as against Defendants Eclipse and Mid-West

Class Action


106. This Count arises from the violation of the IWPCA for Defendants’ failure to pay

Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe and the Class they represent wages for all time worked at the rate

agreed to by the parties.

107. During the course of their employment with Defendants, Plaintiffs Edwards and

Nsidibe had agreements within the meaning of the IWPCA to be compensated for all hours

worked at the rates agreed to by the parties.

108. Other similarly situated laborers had agreements within the meaning of the

IWPCA to be compensated for all hours worked at the rates agreed to by the parties.

109. Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe and the Class they

represent for all time worked at the rate agreed to by the parties violated the IWPCA.

110. Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe and the Class they represent are entitled to recover

owed wages for a period of ten (10) years prior to the filing of this lawsuit.

111. The Class that Plaintiffs seek to represent in regard to the claim for unpaid wages

arising under the IWPCA is composed of and defined as all persons who have been employed by

Mid-West to perform work for Eclipse since November 18, 2001 up through and including the

present and who have not been paid wages for all time worked at the rate agreed to by the

parties.



27

Defendants as follows:


B. A judgment in the amount of all back wages due Plaintiffs and the Class as provided by the IWPCA;

C. Liquidated damages in an amount equal to the unpaid wages as provided for in the IDTLSA, 820 ILCS 175/95;

D. That the Court declare that Defendants have violated the IWPCA;

E. That the Court enjoin Defendants from violating the IWPCA;

F. Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of this action as provided by the IWPCA, 820 ILCS 105/1 et seq. and the IDTLSA, 820 ILCS 175/95;


COUNT XI (Violation of Illinois Day and Temporary Labor Services Act-Four Hour Minimum Pay)

Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and as a Class as against Defendants Eclipse Class Action


112. This Count arises from the violation of the IDTLSA for Defendants Mid-West

and Eclipse’s failure to compensate Plaintiffs and a Class of laborers for a minimum of four (4)

hours at the agreed upon rate when a laborer was contracted to work but was not utilized for at

least four (4) hours pursuant to 820 ILCS 175/30(g).

113. Defendant Eclipse contracted and assigned Plaintiffs and other similarly situated

employees to work the Walmart warehouse for a period of less than four (4) hours in single work

days but did not pay them a minimum of four (4) hours pay.

114. Plaintiffs and other similarly situated laborers employed by were entitled to be

compensated for a minimum of four (4) hours pay on days in which they were contracted by

Eclipse to work at Walmart’s warehouse but were not utilized for at least four (4) hours.


28

115. Defendant Eclipse’s failure to compensate Plaintiffs and the Class a minimum of

four (4) hours pay for any day they were contracted to work violated the IDTLSA. 820 ILCS

175.30(g).

116. Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to recover four (4) hour minimum pay for any

days they were not compensated a minimum of four (4) hours in the three (3) years prior to the

filing of this lawsuit.

117. The Class that Plaintiffs seek to represent in regard to the claim for the unpaid

minimum four (4) hour “show up pay” arising under the IDTLSA is composed of and defined as

all persons who have been employed by Defendant Eclipse since November 18, 2008, up through

and including the present and who have not been paid a minimum of four (4) hours pay on days

in which they were contracted to work at a third party client’s worksite but were not utilized for

at least four (4) hours.


follows:


B. A judgment for Plaintiffs and the Class in the amount of the underpayment of the four (4) hour minimum payment requirement of section 30(g) of the IDTLSA;

C. Liquidated damages in an amount equal to the amount of the underpayment of the four (4) hour minimum payment requirement of section 30(g) of the IDTLSA;

D. That the Court declare that Defendant Eclipse has violated section 30(g) of the IDTLSA;

E. That the Court enjoin Defendant Eclipse from violating the IDTLSA;

F. Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of this action as provided by the IWPCA, 820 ILCS 105/1 et seq. and the IDTLSA, 820 ILCS 175/95; and



29

COUNT XII

(Violation of Illinois Day and Temporary Labor Services Act-Four Hour Minimum Pay) Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe on behalf of themselves

and as a Class as against Mid-West and Eclipse Class Action


118. This Count arises from the violation of the IDTLSA for Defendants’ failure to

compensate Plaintiffs Whitney Edwards and John Nsidibe and the Class of laborers for a

minimum of four (4) hours at the agreed upon rate when a day or temporary laborer was

contracted to work at a third party client company but was not utilized by the third party client

company for at least four (4) hours pursuant to 820 ILCS 175/30(g).

119. Defendant Mid-West contracted and assigned Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe and

other similarly situated employees to work at third party client companies, including Eclipse, for

a period of less than four (4) hours in single work days but did not pay them a minimum of four

(4) hours pay.

120. Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe and other similarly situated laborers were entitled

to be compensated for a minimum of four (4) hours pay on days in which they were contracted to

work by Mid-West at third party client companies, including Eclipse, but were not utilized for at

least four (4) hours.

121. Defendants’ failure to compensate Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe and the Class a

minimum of four (4) hours pay for any day they were contracted to work violated the IDTLSA.

820 ILCS 175.30(g).

122. Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe and the Class are entitled to recover four (4) hour

minimum pay for any days they were not compensated a minimum of four (4) hours in the three

(3) years prior to the filing of this lawsuit.


30


claim for the unpaid minimum four (4) hour “show up pay” arising under the IDTLSA is

composed of and defined as all persons who have were hired by Defendant Mid-West to perform

work at third party companies, including Eclipse, since November 18, 2008, up through and

including the present and who have not been paid a minimum of four (4) hours “show up pay” on

days in which they were contracted to work at a third party client’s worksite but were not utilized

for at least four (4) hours.


Defendant Eclipse as follows:


B. A judgment for Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe and the Class in the amount of the underpayment of the four (4) hour minimum payment requirement of section 30(g) of the IDTLSA;

C. Liquidated damages in an amount equal to the amount of the underpayment of the four (4) hour minimum payment requirement of section 30(g) of the IDTLSA;

D. That the Court declare that Defendants have violated section 30(g) of the IDTLSA;

E. That the Court enjoin Defendants from violating the IDTLSA;

F. Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of this action as provided by the IWPCA, 820 ILCS 105/1 et seq. and the IDTLSA, 820 ILCS 175/95; and

G. Such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate and just..

COUNT XIII (Violation of the Illinois Day and Temporary Labor Services Act - Employment Notices) All Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and similarly situated laborers as against Eclipse

Class Action



31

124. This Count arises from the violation of the IDTLSA for Defendant Eclipse’s

failure to provide Plaintiffs and similarly situated laborers with proper Employment Notices as

required by the IDTLSA.

125. Defendant Eclipse employed Plaintiffs and similarly situated laborers and

assigned them to work at certain third party client companies, including Walmart’s warehouse.

126. Defendant Eclipse was obligated to provide Plaintiffs and the Class with an

Employment Notice at the time of each laborer was initially dispatched to work and any time the

material terms listed on the Employment Notice changed. 820 ILCS 175/10.

127. Defendant Eclipse failed to provide Plaintiffs and the Class with Employment

Notices at the time of dispatch to third party clients or at the time any terms listed on an

Employment Notice changed as required by the IDTLSA.

128. Defendant Eclipse violated the IDTLSA by failing to provide to Plaintiffs and

Class Members Employment Notice as required by the IDTLSA.

129. The Class that Plaintiffs seek to represent in regard to the Employment Notice

claim arising under the IDTLSA is composed of and defined as all persons who have been

employed by Defendant Eclipse since November 18, 2008 up through and including the present

and who did not receive an Employment Notice at the time of dispatched and at any time the

material terms on the Employment Notice changed pursuant to 820 ILCS 175/10.


follows:


B. That the Court award Plaintiff and the Class compensatory damages and statutory damages of up to $500 for each violation of Section 10 of the IDTLSA;


32

C. That the Court declare that Defendant Eclipse has violated the Employment Notice provision of the IDTLSA. 820 ILCS 175/10;

D. That the Court enjoin Defendant Eclipse from violating the IDTLSA;

E. Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of this action as provided by the IDTLSA, 820 ILCS 175/95; and

F. Such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate and just.

COUNT XIV (Violation of the Illinois Day and Temporary Labor Services Act - Employment Notices) All Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and similarly situated laborers as against Mid-West

Class Action


130. This Count arises from the violation of the IDTLSA for Defendant Mid-West’s

failure to provide Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe and similarly situated laborers with proper

Employment Notices as required by the IDTLSA.

131. Defendant Mid-West employed Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe and similarly

situated laborers and assigned them to work at certain third party client companies, including

Walmart’s warehouse.

132. Defendant Mid-West was obligated to provide Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe and

the Class with an Employment Notice at the time of each laborer was initially dispatched to work

and any time the material terms listed on the Employment Notice changed. 820 ILCS 175/10.

133. Defendant Mid-West failed to provide Plaintiffs Edwards and Nsidibe and the

Class with Employment Notices at the time of dispatch to third party clients or at the time any

terms listed on an Employment Notice changed as required by the IDTLSA.

134. Defendant Mid-West violated the IDTLSA by failing to provide to Plaintiffs and

Class Members Employment Notice as required by the IDTLSA.


33


Employment Notice claim arising under the IDTLSA is composed of and defined as all persons

who have been employed by Defendant Mid-West since November 18, 2008 up through and

including the present and who did not receive an Employment Notice at the time of dispatched

and at any time the material terms on the Employment Notice changed pursuant to 820 ILCS

175/10.


Defendant Mid-West as follows:


B. That the Court award Plaintiff and the Class compensatory damages and statutory damages of up to $500 for each violation of Section 10 of the IDTLSA;

C. That the Court declare that Defendant Mid-West has violated the Employment Notice provision of the IDTLSA. 820 ILCS 175/10;

D. That the Court enjoin Defendant Mid-West from violating the IDTLSA;



COUNT XV (Violation of the Illinois Day and Temporary Labor Services Act–Wage Payment Notice)

All Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and similarly situated laborers as against Eclipse Class Action


136. This Count arises from the violation of the IDTLSA for Defendant Eclipse’s

failure to provide Plaintiffs and similarly situated laborers with a proper Wage Payment and

Notice as required by the IDTLSA.


34

137. Defendant Eclipse employed Plaintiffs and similarly situated laborers and

assigned them to work at certain third party client companies.

138. Defendant Eclipse was obligated to provide Plaintiffs and the Class with a Wage

Payment and Notice showing, among other things, the number of actual hours worked at each

third party client and wages paid.

139. Notices provided by Defendant Eclipse did not contain the name, address, and

telephone number of each third party client at which the laborer worked.

140. Defendant Eclipse’s failure to provide Plaintiffs and the Class with Wage

Payment and Notices violated the IDTLSA.

141. The Class that Plaintiffs seek to represent in regard to the Wage Payment and

Notice claim arising under the IDTLSA is composed of and defined as all persons who have

been employed by Defendant Eclipse since November 18, 2008, up through and including the

present and who did not receive a proper Wage Payment and Notice with the accurate

information required by 820 ILCS 175/30(a).


follows:


B. That the Court award Plaintiff and the Class compensatory damages and statutory damages of up to $500 for each violation of Section 30(a) of the IDTLSA;

C. That the Court declare that Defendant Eclipse has violated the Wage Payment and Notice provision of the IDTLSA. 820 ILCS 175/30(a);

D. That the Court enjoin Defendant Eclipse from violating the IDTLSA;



35


COUNT XVI

(Violation of the Illinois Day and Temporary Labor Services Act–Wage Payment Notice) All Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and similarly situated laborers as against Mid-West

Class Action



failure to provide Plaintiffs and similarly situated laborers with a proper Wage Payment and

Notice as required by the IDTLSA.

143. Defendant Mid-West employed Plaintiffs and similarly situated laborers and

assigned them to work at certain third party client companies.

144. Defendant Mid-West was obligated to provide Plaintiffs and the Class with a

Wage Payment and Notice showing, among other things, the number of actual hours worked at

each third party client and wages paid.

145. Notices provided by Defendant Mid-West did not contain the name, address, and

telephone number of each third party client at which the laborer worked.

146. Defendant Mid-West failure to provide Plaintiffs and the Class with Wage

Payment and Notices violated the IDTLSA.

147. The Class that Plaintiffs seek to represent in regard to the Wage Payment and

Notice claim arising under the IDTLSA is composed of and defined as all persons who have

been employed by Defendant Mid-West since November 18, 2008, up through and including the

present and who did not receive a proper Wage Payment and Notice with the accurate

information required by 820 ILCS 175/30(a).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the class pray for a judgment against Defendant Mid-West

as follows:


36


B. That the Court award Plaintiff and the Class compensatory damages and statutory damages of up to $500 for each violation of Section 30(a) of the IDTLSA;

C. That the Court declare that Defendant Mid-West has violated the Wage Payment and Notice provision of the IDTLSA. 820 ILCS 175/30(a);

D. That the Court enjoin Defendant Mid-West from violating the IDTLSA;


COUNT XVII (Violation of the the Illinois Day and Temporary Labor Services Act -Bill and Pay Records)

(Plaintiff Edwards against Defendant Mid-West) Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 147 of this Complaint, as

if fully set forth herein.


failure to provide Plaintiff Whitney Edwards a copy of billing and pay records for time that she

worked as required by Section 12(b). 820 ILCS 12(b).

149. In or about November of 2011, Plaintiff Edwards made a written request to

review the billing and payroll records of Defendant Mid-West related to her work for third party

client companies.

150. Plaintiff Edwards delivered the written request in person to the Mid-West office

where it was copied and retained by an employee of Mid-West.

151. Defendant Mid-West failed to allow Plaintiff Edwards to review the requested

records within five (5) business days as required by the IDTLSA.

152. Defendant Mid-West’s violation of Section 12(b) of the IDTLSA was a “notice

violation” as defined in Section 95 of the IDTLSA. 820 ILCS 175/95.


37

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Edwards prays for a judgment against Defendant Mid-West, as

follows:

A. That the Court award Plaintiff Edwards compensatory damages and an amount up to $500 for the violation of each subpart of each Section of the IDTLSA violated by Defendant Mid-West;

B. That Plaintiffs be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in bring this action; and

C. That the Court award such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: November 18, 2011

s/Christopher J. Williams CHRISTOPHER J. WILLIAMS (ARDC #6284262) 77 W. Washington, Suite 1400 Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 795-9115

Attorney for Plaintiffs


EXHIBIT A

Case: 1:11-cv-08285 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 11/19/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:38

EXHIBIT B


EXHIBIT C


EXHIBIT D


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN … · 2018-06-07 · 1 IN THE UNITED STATES...

Documents

Transcript of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN … · 2018-06-07 · 1 IN THE UNITED STATES...