Pippins v. KPMG, No. 11-377 - E-Discovery Law Alert

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Case 1:11-cv-00377-CM-JLC Document 106 Filed 10/07/11 Page 2 of 19 ("Def.'s Mem.") (Dkt. No. 91), at 3; Answer to Collective Action Complaint dated April 4, 2011 (Dkt. No. 28), (' 1). KPMG provides audit, tax, and advisory services to clients throughout the United States, and its audit practice includes providing financial statement audits, integrated audits of financial statements, and internal control over financial reporting. (Def.' S Mem. at 3). Plaintiffs Kyle Pippins ("Pippins"), Jamie Schindler ("Schindler"), and Edward Lambert ("Lambert") (collectively, "Plaintiffs") are former KPMG Audit Associates and Audit Associate Seconds (together, "Audit Associates"), who worked in the KPMG audit practice group. (First Am. CompI. ~ 2). The First Amended Complaint describes the Audit Associates a$ performing an "entry-level job that requires no advanced level training and primarily involves performance of routine duties," which are closely supervised by more senior KPMG employees. (Id. ~(' 2-3). Plaintiffs allege that KPMG willfully miscIassified Audit Associates as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., causing them to be deprived of overtime wages for time they worked in excess of 40 hours per week. (ld. (' 59). Plaintiffs further allege that KPMG failed to keep accurate records of the time Audit Associates worked. (Id.). Plaintiffs assert that this conduct constitutes a "pattern or practice of violating wage and hour laws," including the FLSA and New York State Labor Law. (Id. ~~ 5 6). On January 19, 2011, Pippins and Schindler filed this action pursuant to the collective action provision of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons who worked as Audit Associates for KPMG, whom KPMG classified as exempt, and who elect to opt-in to the action. (Collective Action Complaint dated January 19, 2
Case 1:11-cv-00377-CM-JLC Document 106 Filed 10/07/11 Page 3 of 19 2011 (Dkt. No. 1).- 6). Three additional plaintiffs-including Lambert-later filed opt-in notices in the action. (Dkt. Nos. 10, 11, 50). On March 9, 201 1, prior to joining this action, Lambert filed a separate putative class action, Lambert v. KPMG LLP, No. 11 Civ. 1622 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of current and former Audit Associates working for KPMG in New York, asserting claims under New York Labor Law Article 19, §§ 650 ~, and the supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations (collectively, the "NYLL"). On April 25, 2011, Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint, which added Lambert as a named plaintiff and incorporated the NYLL claims raised in Lambert's separate action. (First Am. CampI. .-.- 44-53). As a result, Judge McMahon dismissed Lambert's separate action without prejudice by a Stipulation and Order dated May 10,2011. (Dkt. No. 56). Pursuant to the First Amended Complaint, the FLSA collective includes opt-in plaintiffs who worked as Audit Associates in any of KPMG's U.S. offices between January 19,2008 and January 19,2011 (First Am. Compi. t' 42), and the putative New York class includes all Audit Associates who worked for KPMG in New York from March 8, 2005 until the date of final judgment. (Id. ~ 44). In a Decision and Order dated March 21, 2011, Judge McMahon denied KPMG's Motions to Transfer and Stay the Action. (Okt. No. 23). Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification and Court-Authorized Notice Pursuant to Section 216(b) ofthe FLSA ("Motion to Certify") (Okt. No. 33) is sub By Order dated May 23, 2011, Judge McMahon referred the issue presented by KPMG's pending motion to me. (Okt. No. 65). By endorsement dated 3
Page 1: Case 1:11-cv-00377-CM-JLC Document
Page 5 and 6: Case 1:11-cv-00377-CM-JLC Document
Page 19: Case 1:11-cv-00377-CM-JLC Document

Pippins v. KPMG, No. 11-377 - E-Discovery Law Alert

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?