Case 0:15-cv-61081-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2015 Page 1 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No.:

STEPHEN REGAL and GIANNA HILLIS,
individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals,


Plaintiffs,

vs.

BUTLER & HOSCH, P.A.

Defendant.
________________________________________/

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Stephen Regal and Gianna Hillis individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, through counsel, bring this action in their individual capacities and
on behalf of the class of persons similarly situated as defined below and for their
Complaint allege, pursuant to their own knowledge, or where there is no personal
knowledge, upon the investigation of counsel and/or upon information and belief, to
wit:

1.

NATURE OF CASE
This action seeks to recover back pay and benefits under 29 U.S.C. 2101

et seq. the WARN Act to redress the conduct by Defendant Butler & Hosch, P.A.
Butler & Hosch , that terminated more than seven hundred 700 employees without
proper legal notice as part of a mass layoff on May 14, 2015 in Miami, Florida and
Defendants other sites. Defendants mass layoff deprived hundreds of fired workers
and their families some transition time to adjust to the prospective loss of employment,
1

Case 0:15-cv-61081-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2015 Page 2 of 13

to seek and obtain alternative jobs and, if necessary, to enter skill training or retraining
that will allow these workers to successfully compete in the job market. 20 C.F.R.
639.1 a .
2.

Butler & Hosch failed to provide these terminated employees with the sixty

60 days advance written notice that is required by the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act, 29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq. WARN Act .
3.

Butler & Hosch is a law firm specializing in the legal needs of the mortgage

banking industry. Butler & Hosch practice areas include Foreclosure, Bankruptcy,
Litigation, Loss Mitigation, REO, Title, and Eviction.
4.

This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1334 and 1367, as

well as 29 U.S.C. 2102, 2104 a 5 .

5.

Venue over this matter is appropriate in this Court pursuant to 29 U.S.C.

2104 a 5 because the acts constituting the violation of the WARN Act occurred, and
the claims arose in this district. Venue is also proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391 a and
b . The acts complained of occurred in the State of Florida and, at all relevant
times, material hereto, Butler & Hosch maintained an office in this district, conducted
business in this district, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to
this action occurred in this judicial district.
PARTIES

Plaintiffs
6.

Plaintiff, Stephen Regal, is and was at all material times relevant hereto, a

resident of Broward county, Florida, sui juris, and a fulltime employee of Butler &
2

Case 0:15-cv-61081-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2015 Page 3 of 13

Hosch, at the time he was terminated on May 14, 2015.

7.

Plaintiff, Giana Hillis, is and was at all material times relevant hereto, a

resident of Broward county, Florida, sui juris, and a fulltime employee of Butler &
Hosch, at the time she was terminated on May 14, 2015.
8.

At all times relevant and material hereto, all Plaintiffs and class members

were either full time employees of Butler & Hosch, or they were temporary employees,
other than parttime employees, and are to be counted in determining that the
threshold requirements of the WARN Act are met.
9.

Plaintiffs were Butler & Hosch employees who, in addition to other

substantial employee benefits, earned regular compensation and were damaged by

Butler & Hoschs violations of the WARN Act.
10.

The individual plaintiffs identified in the above paragraphs will be known

collectively hereinafter as Plaintiffs.

Defendant
Butler & Hosch, P.A.
11.

Butler & Hosch maintains a website on which it touts itself as providing

distinguished singlepoint of contact, cradletograve service in all aspects of real estate

and mortgage servicing law and claims that it received a Best in State award for
foreclosure and bankruptcy.1
FACTS
12.

Plaintiffs and Class Members were terminated by Butler & Hosch on May 14,

1 http://www.butlerandhosch.com/index.php/aboutus/

Case 0:15-cv-61081-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2015 Page 4 of 13

2015.
13.

On May 14, 2015, Butler & Hosch terminated approximately 700 employees,

without providing them with the sixty days notice required under the WARN Act.
14.

The Plaintiffs were full time employees as used in the Act.

15.

The class members, who were temporary employees, other than parttime

employees, are counted as employees as used in the Act because the contract for
temporary employment was a part of a long term relationship between Defendant,
temporary employees and their agents.
16.

All of the Plaintiffs were affected employees as used in the Act and suffered

an employment loss as defined by the Act.

17.

In the time prescribed by the Act, Butler & Hosch permanently terminated

the affected employees.

18.

Further, more than 50 employment losses occurred during a single 30 day

period.
19.

The statutory period under the WARN Act began on February 20, 2015

which is sixty 60 calendar days before the first employment losses began on May 14,
2015.
20.

On or about May 14, 2015, Robert Hosch, CEO of Butler & Hosch sent an email

Termination Email to employees, advising them that the firm was closing, that their
positions were terminated, and that they would not be paid for the previous three weeks.
21.

The Termination Email stated, in part, the following:

It is with great sadness that I report to all of you regarding the difficult
4

Case 0:15-cv-61081-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2015 Page 5 of 13

financial status of Butler & Hosch and its affiliates BH which has
resulted in the filing of the state court Assignments for the Benefit of
Creditors ABC . I have voluntarily stepped down as CEO and Senior
Partner of BH. The control of the BH companies has been voluntarily
placed in the hands of an experienced thirdparty fiduciary, Mr. Michael
Moecker.

How does the filing of these ABCs cases impact you? Though Mr.
Moecker has complete access to our assets, he will not have sufficient
cash on hand to fund payroll at the end of this week. Without BH
employees and attorneys there is no ongoing operation. BH cannot
continue to function. To be clear, while I continue to hold out hope that
our existing lender and/or strategic partners may provide an infusion
of cash today, without it, BH will have no choice but to close its doors
immediately.

22.
In the Termination Email, Hosch further stated that Butler & Hosch grew too
fast and could not merge processes from the aqcuired entities quickly enough to meet our
economic forecasts, which resulted in short term cash crunches and our ability to attract
new capital in the interim.
23.

Upon information and belief, Butler & Hosch knew that terminations were

anticipated, but failed to provide employees, nor State and Local authority with
advance notice as required under the WARN Act.
24.

Butler & Hosch reportedly terminated dozens of employees in December,

2014.
25.

The employees terminated on May 14, 2015 were not provided with

advance notice but were terminated by an email sent to them the same day.
26.

Again the employees were provided with no notice, severance, and barely an

opportunity to gather their personal items before security badges and telephone
extensions were deactivated.

Case 0:15-cv-61081-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2015 Page 6 of 13

27.

Plaintiffs and other terminated employees incurred expenses directly

related to performing their duties or following the directions of Butler & Hosch. Butler
& Hosch has failed to reimburse Plaintiffs and other terminated employees these
reimbursable expenses.
28.

By failing to disclose their true intentions to make mass layoffs in advance,

Butler & Hosch deceived their employees from looking for other work and/or making
contingent plans while Butler & Hosch continued to operate unabated.
29.

As a result of Butler & Hoschs discontinuance of service of employees

without notice, hundreds of jobs in the South Florida Area have been lost.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
30.

Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 23 a , b 1 and 3 and the WARN Act 29 U.S.C. 2104 a 5 .

31.

Plaintiffs bring this action for themselves and on behalf of a class of all

similarly situated employees. The Class or Class Members Plaintiffs seek to certify
are defined as:
All employees of Butler & Hosch, P.A. who were terminated from employment at
Butler & Hosch without being provided sixty 60 days written notice of a mass
layoff before the date of their termination. Excluded from the Class are any part time
employees.

32.

Excluded from the Class are Butler & Hosch and the legal representatives,

heirs, successors and assigns of any excluded person and members of the federal
judiciary.
33.

Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs estimate that the class comprises at

least seven hundred 700 Class Members and the Class is so numerous that joinder of
6

Case 0:15-cv-61081-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2015 Page 7 of 13

all Class Members is impracticable. The members of the class can be identified and
located using information contained in the Defendants human resources records.
34.

There are common questions of law and/or fact common to the class that

predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class Members. The
questions of law and fact common to the class arising from Defendants actions
include, but are not limited to the following:
a. Whether the provisions of the WARN Act apply;
b. Whether Plaintiffs and Class Members are affected employees as used
in the Act;
c. Whether Butler & Hoschs employee terminations on May 14, 2015
constitute a termination and/or mass layoff under the WARN Act;
d. Whether Butler & Hosch failed to provide the notices required by the
WARN Act 29 U.S.C. 2102 b ;
e. Whether Butler & Hosch can avail itself of any of the provisions of the
WARN Act which permit lesser periods of notice;
f. The appropriate formulae to measure damages under the WARN Act 29
U.S.C. 2104 a 2 ; and
g. The appropriate definitions and formulae to measure payments to
potentially offset damages under the WARN Act 29 U.S.C. 2104 a 2 .
35.

Plaintiffs claims are typical of those of the Class Members. Plaintiffs and

the Class Members were subjected to the same kind of unlawful conduct and the claims
of Plaintiffs and the Class Members are based on the same legal theories and questions
of law and fact pursuant to the WARN Act.
7

Case 0:15-cv-61081-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2015 Page 8 of 13

36.

Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class the

Plaintiffs represent. Plaintiffs interests do not conflict with the interests of the class,
and the Plaintiffs intend on prosecuting this action vigorously.
37.

Plaintiffs have retained experienced counsel qualified in class litigation and

counsel are competent to assert the interests of the class.

38.

The unlawful acts of Butler & Hosch, as alleged herein, constitute a course

of conduct common to Plaintiffs and each Class Member. Prosecution of separate

actions by individual Class Members would create a risk of inconsistent of varying
adjudications which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants
and/or substantially impair or impede the ability of the individual Class Members to
protect their interests.
39.

Upon information and belief, Defendants, and each of them, have acted or

refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class.

40.

Questions of law and/or common to the Class Members, including the

issues identified above, predominate over questions affecting only individual Class
Members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for fair and efficient
adjudication of the controversy. Class action treatment will allow a large number of
similarly situated individuals to simultaneously pursue their common claims in a
single forum in an efficient manner, without unnecessary duplication of effort and
expense that would be required if numerous individual actions were pursued.
However, the affected employees must optin to this litigation so that his or her right to
damages can be determined and quantum of damages can be calculated by the court.

8

Case 0:15-cv-61081-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2015 Page 9 of 13

COUNT I
Violations of the United States Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act
41.

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated,

repeat and reallege the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as if fully restated
herein.
42.

At all times material herein, Plaintiffs, and similarly situated persons, have

been entitled to the rights, protections and benefits provided under the WARN Act, 29
U.S.C. 2101 et seq.
43.

The WARN Act regulates the amount of notice an employer must provide to

employees who will be terminated due to mass layoffs, as well as the back pay and other
associated benefits an affected employee is due based on a violation of the required
notice period.
44.

Butler & Hosch was, and is, subject to the notice and back pay requirements

of the WARN Act because Defendants, individually and collectively are a business
enterprise that employs 100 or more employees, excluding parttime employees, as
defined in the Act. 29 U.S.C. 2101 1 A .
45.

Defendants willfully violated the WARN Act by failing to provide the required

notice.
46.

Section 2103 of the WARN Act exempts certain employers from the notice

requirements of the Act. 29 U.S.C. 2103 1 2 . None of the WARN Act exemptions
apply to Defendants failure to provide required notice to Plaintiffs and Class Members.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs and Class Members must receive the notice and back pay
9

Case 0:15-cv-61081-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2015 Page 10 of 13

required by the WARN Act 29 U.S.C. 2101 1 A .

47.

Plaintiffs and Class Members have been damaged by Defendants conduct

constituting violations of the WARN Act and are entitled to damages for their back
pay and associated benefits for each day of the violation. Defendant has not acted
in good faith nor with reasonable grounds to believe their acts and omissions were
not a violation of the WARN Act.
48.

Defendant did not announce their operational restructuring until after it

began mass layoffs of its employees.

49.

Defendant, it subsidiaries and agents made false representations and

statements even before sending out its letters of terminations or the WARN Notice
finally filed with the State of Florida on or about November 9, 2010.
50.

Notice was required to be received, not merely given, sixty 60 calendar

days before separation, and although most employees received their notice by
electronic mail communication, they were only given a matter of hours or less to
gather their personal belongings, which is a further violation of the Act.
51.

Defendant knew of should have known that their own conduct was the

cause of the actual change in business circumstance, as evidenced by their public

statements, and were thus foreseeable.
52.

Defendant cannot allege in good faith that the terminations were

unforeseeable due to business circumstances as the circumstances were a not

unexpected conditions outside the employers control and therefore, b not sudden or
dramatic but in part because of their very own actions which they knew of long before
the terminations
10

Case 0:15-cv-61081-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2015 Page 11 of 13

53.

Defendant had plenty of advance opportunity to provide notice to Plaintiffs

and Members of the Class of the potential for mass layoffs and/or terminations, and
instead willfully chose to remain silent in violation of the WARN Act.
54.

Defendant is an employer as used in WARN.

55.

Plaintiffs are affected employees as defined under the WARN Act. 29 U.S.C.

2101 a 5 .
56.

None of the affected employees were provided advance written notice or in

the alternative appropriate pay and benefits due under the WARN Act.
57.

Some of the affected employees were constructively discharged by

Defendants.
58.

Defendant was aware of its liability under the WARN Act notice and payment

requirements and wrongfully and knowingly failed to provide notice as required for
their own economic gain.
59.

Business circumstances do not absolve the Defendant of liability under the

Act.
60.

Each Plaintiff is entitled to the amount of back pay and benefits for the period

of the violation of the Act by Defendant.

61.

Plaintiffs have been required to retain counsel in this matter to protect

Plaintiffs rights and have incurred attorneys fees and costs in this matter.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant and an Order

providing for:
A.

Certification of the Class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rule of Civil

11

Case 0:15-cv-61081-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2015 Page 12 of 13

Procedure; certifying Plaintiffs as representatives of the Class and designating their

counsel of record as counsel for the Class;
B.

Finding that the Defendant Butler & Hosch has violated the WARN Act and

therefore holding Defendant liable to Plaintiffs and the Class in an amount to be

determined;
C.

Compensatory damages in an amount equal to at least the amounts

provided by the WARN Act 29 U.S.C. 2104 a ;

D.

A judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and the other similarly situated former

employees equal to the sum of: their unpaid wages, salary, commissions, bonuses,
accrued holiday pay, accrued vacation pay, all accrued paid time off, pension and 401 k
contributions and other COBRA benefits, for 60 days, that would have been covered and
paid under the thenapplicable employee benefit plans had that coverage continued for
that period, all determined in accordance with the WARN Act, 29 U.S.C.A.
2104 a 1 A , all unreimbursed expenses advanced by Plaintiffs and Class Members,
including any civil penalties;
E.

Reasonable attorney fees and costs;

F.

Prejudgment interest as may be determined by statute and rule;

G.

Leave to amend this complaint to add state law claims should it prove

necessary; and
H.

Such other and further relief as the Court may deem necessary or appropriate

//

Remainder of page intentionally left blank

12

//

Case 0:15-cv-61081-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2015 Page 13 of 13

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, hereby
demand a trial by jury of all issues so triable.
Dated: May 21, 2015

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Seth M. Lehrman

Gary M. Farmer Fla. Bar No. 914444

Email: gary@pathtojustice.com
Steven R. Jaffe Fla. Bar No. 390770
Email: steve@pathtojustice.com
Mark S. Fistos Fla. Bar No. 909191
Email: mark@pathtojustice.com
Seth M. Lehrman Fla. Bar No. 132896
Email: seth@pathtojustice.com
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING,
EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Telephone: 954 5242820
Facsimile: 954 5242822

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

13