The Rolex Forums   The Rolex Watch

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX


Go Back   Rolex Forums - Rolex Watch Forum > General Topics > Open Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 23 February 2021, 02:24 AM   #151
XtraCrispy
"TRF" Member
 
XtraCrispy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Real Name: Joe
Location: Chicago
Watch: me closely!
Posts: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannyp View Post
I think you're looking at this backwards: This wasn't filed in federal court because of alleged money laundering and immigration fraud. Rather, those were the justifications for filing a wrongful termination lawsuit that, on its merits, probably belongs in state court, in federal court under RICO, with the plaintiffs classified as whistleblowers.
You're right. I showed the complaint to my daughter, who's an attorney. This is purely a wrongful termination suit.

My daughter feels the plaintiffs have a very good case and will probably win.
__________________
Rolex Submariner TT 116613LB • Tudor 1926 41mm M91650-0005 • Tag Heuer Aquaracer WAY201B.FT6150 • Oris Artelier Date OR733-7670-4051LS • Luminox XS.3505.SC • Alpina AlpinerX AL-283LNO5NAQ6L • Steinhart GMT-OCEAN 1 BLUE RED.2 • Casio G Shock GW-5000-1JF
XtraCrispy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 February 2021, 02:51 AM   #152
HHIslander
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: May 2020
Real Name: Henry
Location: USA
Posts: 4,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by XtraCrispy View Post
You're right. I showed the complaint to my daughter, who's an attorney. This is purely a wrongful termination suit.

My daughter feels the plaintiffs have a very good case and will probably win.
It's a very good case. As a former attorney who has represented defendants in other wrongful termination cases, I'd call this a "get a number and end it now" case. It's pretty close to a slam dunk and not worth the risk of a jury trial. My guess is that it will be settled and no one will ever hear a peep about from the plaintiffs ever again.

If I was the defendant, I think I'd be more worried about what the DA might do in regards to RICO. Not my area though.
HHIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24 February 2021, 01:32 AM   #153
vh2k
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 3,016
CD Peacock Lawyers Respond in WatchPro Interview

When C. D. Peacock was accused by a former employee of covering up a conspiracy to “illegally sell Rolex watches to foreign grey market resellers in order to enrich themselves”, the Chicago-based jeweler faced a choice of settling out of court or preparing for a fight.

It chose the latter and is now working on a defense that its legal team is confident will have the complaint — or at least its most extreme allegations relating to violations of Rico statutes like racketeering — dismissed.

In an exclusive interview with WatchPro, Adam Fried vice-president of development for C. D. Peacock (CDP) and Jane McFetridge, counsel and principal at Jackson Lewis P.C., a Chicago-based law firm specializing in employment litigation, insist the complaint by former employee Suzana Krajisnik would fail and that the only sensible course of action for CDP is to defend itself.

“C. D. Peacock is a really well-respected company in Chicago and beyond. They have a pristine reputation and are considered an icon in the Chicago business community. It is one of the oldest retailers in the country. Their name is their bond. They deal with high worth individuals and they are not prepared to have their name dragged through the mud. They will fight,” Ms McFetridge says.

Another factor in CDP deciding to defend itself is the sheer size of the compensation figure demanded by Ms Krajisnik.

“The demands that the plaintiffs made in this case was so divorced from reality that it precluded CDP making any business decision that the cost of defense would exceed the value of settling. In this case that was not possible given the high level of demand and, frankly the lack of merit to the claim. It was a huge demand with clearly meritless claims. It was a corporate shake-down,” Ms McFetridge says, although she would not disclose the compensation figure demanded by Ms Krajisnik.

That calculation would only make sense if CDP had a bulletproof case against the most extreme accusations in the lawsuit filed by Ms Krajisnik with The United States District Court For The Northern District Of Illinois on February 11. Click to download the full filing.

In the suit, Ms Krajisnik alleges she was fired by CDP in December 2019 in retaliation for whistle-blowing and “refusing to engage in flagrant illegal activity that violated state and federal law; firing her and committing common law retaliatory discharge; and engaging in racketeering, in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act”.

It is a civil suit, which cannot in itself turn into a criminal case unless authorities launch their own investigation.

If the case proceeds far enough, C. D. Peacock will have to defend itself against a litany of charges from Ms Krajisnik that all center on whether the retailer was selling watches from Rolex and, potentially, Patek Philippe, to grey market flippers outside the United States and then attempting to cover it up.

“The heart of the scheme was a conspiracy by the defendants to illegally sell Rolex watches to foreign grey market resellers in order to enrich themselves. In order to further the Scheme, the Defendants conspired to violate numerous federal and state laws including but not limited to racketeering, money laundering, mail, wire, immigration, and credit card fraud, and Illinois sales tax evasion,” the filing by Ms Krajisnik states.

The plaintiff, and two other former employees fired in June 2020 and January this year, say they repeatedly notified management of the illegal and fraudulent activities while refusing to participate in the scheme.

They allege they were fired for their knowledge, their unwillingness to be complicit in the scheme and their whistle-blowing.

Many of the accusations are based on private conversations between CDP staff, and it remains to be seen whether investigators will find more concrete evidence that corroborates the allegations or whether the case will proceed to court.

A number of legal steps stand between Ms Krajisnik getting her day in court (or even a conference room), as CDP’s counsel explains:

“Anybody can file a lawsuit for any reason and they can put anything they want in it. Step one is the filing of a suit and the defendant then has the option of defending that complaint or file a motion to dismiss, and they have up to two months to do that.

“A defense can go through the complaint paragraph by paragraph and admit what it can admit, deny what it can deny, and it can say it has no knowledge in some areas. At that point we would have a complaint that is in conflict and ready to be litigated.

“The other option is a motion to dismiss, which is what we will likely file in this case. It does not have to dismiss all counts, for example the whistle-blower complaint, where maybe that is sufficiently alleged — we have not made a decision on that. What we would do is file a motion to dismiss, certainly on the Rico counts, and that would be briefed and the judge would take it under advisement and issue an opinion. We think it is likely at that point the judge would either dismiss the matter with prejudice, meaning the Rico counts would be gone. Or would dismiss it without prejudice, giving the plaintiff the chance to fix defects in its complaints.

“That would lead to another round of briefing and at some point the complaint would be pared down to more discrete issues.

“Once we know what remains left in the complaint, then we engage in discovery. We issue a request to produce, they do the same to us and we go back and forth with the documents.

“There would then be a series of depositions, witnesses from both sides are deposed and the defendant at that point might ask for a summary judgement where we would argue that the plaintiff has failed to illicit evidence sufficient to prevail in the course of action they have alleged and that the case should be dismissed as a result of that.

“That whole process can take up to two years,” Ms McFetridge suggests.

In the suit filed with the Chicago court, there are allegations, but no evidence. If CDP had been selling watches from Rolex and Patek Philippe outside its territory to grey market operators, that would show up in financial records, e-mails and other documents that might be asked for if the Rico-related complaints were not dismissed and a judge proceeded to discovery.

CDP admits it had discovered at least one instance of watches being sold inappropriately and had fired the employee responsible for it in January this year. There were two other former employees named in the Suzana Krajisnik lawsuit that Adam Fried says were let go for much more severe reasons than poor performance, which was the sole reason given for firing Ms Krajisnik.

“They were let go for rules infractions that violated company policies, in addition to having not great performance,” Ms McFetridge clarifies.

When asked by Watchpro whether any of those infractions related to the way watches were sold, which is at the heart of the Suzana Krajisnik case, Ms McFetridge replies: “For one of them, it was. We looked into it and fired him.”

C. D. Peacock is far from the first authorized dealer of Rolex or Patek Philippe to discover that its employees had been profiting from funneling watches to grey market dealers that can sell pieces like a steel Daytona or Nautilus for double their retail price. Flippers are constantly grooming sales people with promises of splitting the profit of over-retail deals.

The likes of Rolex and Patek Philippe take a tough line if these infractions do come to light, but firing the employee in question is typically sufficient for the brands unless a pattern of repeat offending is discovered or the senior management were turning a blind eye, or worse.

According to Mr Fried and Ms McFetridge, both Rolex and Patek Philippe have been aware of the dispute at C. D. Peacock, which is an authorized dealer at three stores in Oakbrook Center, Woodfield Mall and Old Orchard Mall in Chicago.

“CDP has been touch with both Rolex and Patek Philippe and we do not want to go beyond that. They are aware of the lawsuit and we have been in discussions with them. I would also point out that this is not the only lawsuit that CDP has ever faced, and Rolex has renewed their relationship with CDP for 30 years straight,” Ms McFetridge states.

In granting an interview to put their side of the story, C. D. Peacock will know it has provided a little more life to the story, but is unwilling to allow its reputation to be tarnished by what it sees as a shake-down by a disgruntled former employee.

The company expects the complaint to be dismissed and its counsel is dismissive of the tactics used by Ms Krajisnik.

“I hate to sound cavalier, but these cases are a dime a dozen. Disgruntled employees file suits routinely. One third of all litigation in federal court is employment-related claims. This complaint that they filed is unusual in terms of its length. You do not normally see something that is that long. But the fact that they threatened to file a lawsuit and then carried through and filed it is the sort of thing that accounts for around one third of all lawsuits in the United States,” she scoffs.

That does not mean there is no risk in allowing the case to move forward and the next steps will depend on how the judge sees the merits of both sides’ arguments. “It depends,” says Ms McFetridge when asked what is likely to happen next. “We could get a partial dismissal, a full dismissal, or a full dismissal without prejudice, which would allow them to re-plead with corrected pleading deficiencies. I cannot predict what the judge would do,” she concedes.

Whether the case is concluded quickly or it takes two years, C. D. Peacock is focused on keeping the business moving forward. It remains an authorized dealer for Rolex and Patek Philippe, and has the support of its customers in Chicago.

“Thankfully, we have such a loyal customer base. We have received texts and e-mails from customers saying they support us. We have built such amazing relationships and it is times like these your find out who is truly in your corner. We have been building this business since 1837, and as far as loyalty goes, that has paid off for us. Everybody is so comfortable and confident that we are going to fight this thing vigorously and come out vindicated. We cannot let this slow us down,” Mr Fried concludes.

https://www.watchpro.com/exclusive-r...ering-lawsuit/
vh2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24 February 2021, 01:32 AM   #154
Alex369
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Location: Chicago
Posts: 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by HHIslander View Post
It's a very good case. As a former attorney who has represented defendants in other wrongful termination cases, I'd call this a "get a number and end it now" case. It's pretty close to a slam dunk and not worth the risk of a jury trial. My guess is that it will be settled and no one will ever hear a peep about from the plaintiffs ever again.

If I was the defendant, I think I'd be more worried about what the DA might do in regards to RICO. Not my area though.
According to a "watchpro" article, C.D. Peacock is NOT settling. They are preparing a defense and believe the case will be dismissed.

"n an exclusive interview with WatchPro, Adam Fried vice-president of development for C. D. Peacock (CDP) and Jane McFetridge, counsel and principal at Jackson Lewis P.C., a Chicago-based law firm specializing in employment litigation, insist the complaint by former employee Suzana Krajisnik would fail and that the only sensible course of action for CDP is to defend itself."
Alex369 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24 February 2021, 04:54 AM   #155
SMD
"TRF" Member
 
SMD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Real Name: SMD
Location: LGA/EWR/ORD
Watch: AP/PP
Posts: 3,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by vh2k View Post
When C. D. Peacock was accused by a former employee of covering up a conspiracy to “illegally sell Rolex watches to foreign grey market resellers in order to enrich themselves”, the Chicago-based jeweler faced a choice of settling out of court or preparing for a fight.

It chose the latter and is now working on a defense that its legal team is confident will have the complaint — or at least its most extreme allegations relating to violations of Rico statutes like racketeering — dismissed.

In an exclusive interview with WatchPro, Adam Fried vice-president of development for C. D. Peacock (CDP) and Jane McFetridge, counsel and principal at Jackson Lewis P.C., a Chicago-based law firm specializing in employment litigation, insist the complaint by former employee Suzana Krajisnik would fail and that the only sensible course of action for CDP is to defend itself.

“C. D. Peacock is a really well-respected company in Chicago and beyond. They have a pristine reputation and are considered an icon in the Chicago business community. It is one of the oldest retailers in the country. Their name is their bond. They deal with high worth individuals and they are not prepared to have their name dragged through the mud. They will fight,” Ms McFetridge says.

Another factor in CDP deciding to defend itself is the sheer size of the compensation figure demanded by Ms Krajisnik.

“The demands that the plaintiffs made in this case was so divorced from reality that it precluded CDP making any business decision that the cost of defense would exceed the value of settling. In this case that was not possible given the high level of demand and, frankly the lack of merit to the claim. It was a huge demand with clearly meritless claims. It was a corporate shake-down,” Ms McFetridge says, although she would not disclose the compensation figure demanded by Ms Krajisnik.

That calculation would only make sense if CDP had a bulletproof case against the most extreme accusations in the lawsuit filed by Ms Krajisnik with The United States District Court For The Northern District Of Illinois on February 11. Click to download the full filing.

In the suit, Ms Krajisnik alleges she was fired by CDP in December 2019 in retaliation for whistle-blowing and “refusing to engage in flagrant illegal activity that violated state and federal law; firing her and committing common law retaliatory discharge; and engaging in racketeering, in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act”.

It is a civil suit, which cannot in itself turn into a criminal case unless authorities launch their own investigation.

If the case proceeds far enough, C. D. Peacock will have to defend itself against a litany of charges from Ms Krajisnik that all center on whether the retailer was selling watches from Rolex and, potentially, Patek Philippe, to grey market flippers outside the United States and then attempting to cover it up.

“The heart of the scheme was a conspiracy by the defendants to illegally sell Rolex watches to foreign grey market resellers in order to enrich themselves. In order to further the Scheme, the Defendants conspired to violate numerous federal and state laws including but not limited to racketeering, money laundering, mail, wire, immigration, and credit card fraud, and Illinois sales tax evasion,” the filing by Ms Krajisnik states.

The plaintiff, and two other former employees fired in June 2020 and January this year, say they repeatedly notified management of the illegal and fraudulent activities while refusing to participate in the scheme.

They allege they were fired for their knowledge, their unwillingness to be complicit in the scheme and their whistle-blowing.

Many of the accusations are based on private conversations between CDP staff, and it remains to be seen whether investigators will find more concrete evidence that corroborates the allegations or whether the case will proceed to court.

A number of legal steps stand between Ms Krajisnik getting her day in court (or even a conference room), as CDP’s counsel explains:

Anybody can file a lawsuit for any reason and they can put anything they want in it. Step one is the filing of a suit and the defendant then has the option of defending that complaint or file a motion to dismiss, and they have up to two months to do that.

“A defense can go through the complaint paragraph by paragraph and admit what it can admit, deny what it can deny, and it can say it has no knowledge in some areas. At that point we would have a complaint that is in conflict and ready to be litigated.

“The other option is a motion to dismiss, which is what we will likely file in this case. It does not have to dismiss all counts, for example the whistle-blower complaint, where maybe that is sufficiently alleged — we have not made a decision on that. What we would do is file a motion to dismiss, certainly on the Rico counts, and that would be briefed and the judge would take it under advisement and issue an opinion. We think it is likely at that point the judge would either dismiss the matter with prejudice, meaning the Rico counts would be gone. Or would dismiss it without prejudice, giving the plaintiff the chance to fix defects in its complaints.

“That would lead to another round of briefing and at some point the complaint would be pared down to more discrete issues.

“Once we know what remains left in the complaint, then we engage in discovery. We issue a request to produce, they do the same to us and we go back and forth with the documents.

“There would then be a series of depositions, witnesses from both sides are deposed and the defendant at that point might ask for a summary judgement where we would argue that the plaintiff has failed to illicit evidence sufficient to prevail in the course of action they have alleged and that the case should be dismissed as a result of that.

“That whole process can take up to two years,” Ms McFetridge suggests.

In the suit filed with the Chicago court, there are allegations, but no evidence. If CDP had been selling watches from Rolex and Patek Philippe outside its territory to grey market operators, that would show up in financial records, e-mails and other documents that might be asked for if the Rico-related complaints were not dismissed and a judge proceeded to discovery.

CDP admits it had discovered at least one instance of watches being sold inappropriately and had fired the employee responsible for it in January this year. There were two other former employees named in the Suzana Krajisnik lawsuit that Adam Fried says were let go for much more severe reasons than poor performance, which was the sole reason given for firing Ms Krajisnik.

“They were let go for rules infractions that violated company policies, in addition to having not great performance,” Ms McFetridge clarifies.

When asked by Watchpro whether any of those infractions related to the way watches were sold, which is at the heart of the Suzana Krajisnik case, Ms McFetridge replies: “For one of them, it was. We looked into it and fired him.”

C. D. Peacock is far from the first authorized dealer of Rolex or Patek Philippe to discover that its employees had been profiting from funneling watches to grey market dealers that can sell pieces like a steel Daytona or Nautilus for double their retail price. Flippers are constantly grooming sales people with promises of splitting the profit of over-retail deals.

The likes of Rolex and Patek Philippe take a tough line if these infractions do come to light, but firing the employee in question is typically sufficient for the brands unless a pattern of repeat offending is discovered or the senior management were turning a blind eye, or worse.

According to Mr Fried and Ms McFetridge, both Rolex and Patek Philippe have been aware of the dispute at C. D. Peacock, which is an authorized dealer at three stores in Oakbrook Center, Woodfield Mall and Old Orchard Mall in Chicago.

“CDP has been touch with both Rolex and Patek Philippe and we do not want to go beyond that. They are aware of the lawsuit and we have been in discussions with them. I would also point out that this is not the only lawsuit that CDP has ever faced, and Rolex has renewed their relationship with CDP for 30 years straight,” Ms McFetridge states.

In granting an interview to put their side of the story, C. D. Peacock will know it has provided a little more life to the story, but is unwilling to allow its reputation to be tarnished by what it sees as a shake-down by a disgruntled former employee.

The company expects the complaint to be dismissed and its counsel is dismissive of the tactics used by Ms Krajisnik.

“I hate to sound cavalier, but these cases are a dime a dozen. Disgruntled employees file suits routinely. One third of all litigation in federal court is employment-related claims. This complaint that they filed is unusual in terms of its length. You do not normally see something that is that long. But the fact that they threatened to file a lawsuit and then carried through and filed it is the sort of thing that accounts for around one third of all lawsuits in the United States,” she scoffs.

That does not mean there is no risk in allowing the case to move forward and the next steps will depend on how the judge sees the merits of both sides’ arguments. “It depends,” says Ms McFetridge when asked what is likely to happen next. “We could get a partial dismissal, a full dismissal, or a full dismissal without prejudice, which would allow them to re-plead with corrected pleading deficiencies. I cannot predict what the judge would do,” she concedes.

Whether the case is concluded quickly or it takes two years, C. D. Peacock is focused on keeping the business moving forward. It remains an authorized dealer for Rolex and Patek Philippe, and has the support of its customers in Chicago.

“Thankfully, we have such a loyal customer base. We have received texts and e-mails from customers saying they support us. We have built such amazing relationships and it is times like these your find out who is truly in your corner. We have been building this business since 1837, and as far as loyalty goes, that has paid off for us. Everybody is so comfortable and confident that we are going to fight this thing vigorously and come out vindicated. We cannot let this slow us down,” Mr Fried concludes.

https://www.watchpro.com/exclusive-r...ering-lawsuit/
As I have been saying, anyone can allege anything in a complaint -- so reading a complaint and saying its a slam dunk is just silly. And when they throw in RICO -- catnip for a plaintiffs lawyer due to treble damages -- it usually means they got nothing. The number of civil successful civil RICO cases for plaintiffs almost rounds down to zero. We shall see. I still maintain that this won't amount to anything and at the end CDP will still be a Rolex AD.
SMD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24 February 2021, 05:43 AM   #156
HHIslander
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: May 2020
Real Name: Henry
Location: USA
Posts: 4,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by SMD View Post
As I have been saying, anyone can allege anything in a complaint -- so reading a complaint and saying its a slam dunk is just silly. And when they throw in RICO -- catnip for a plaintiffs lawyer due to treble damages -- it usually means they got nothing. The number of civil successful civil RICO cases for plaintiffs almost rounds down to zero. We shall see. I still maintain that this won't amount to anything and at the end CDP will still be a Rolex AD.
As previously stated, this isn't a RICO case. The plaintiffs aren't suing for any money in regards to RICO.

This is a wrongful termination case. It's very close to a slam dunk wrongful termination case, provided plaintiffs can provide witnesses and documentation for the allegations presented. It appears the plaintiffs are able to do that. If not, the legal team wouldn't have taken the case on contingency and sunk so much time and effort up front. Nor would they be asking for such a large sum.

The response from the defendants is fairly aggressive, but not too surprising for a case in the public domain. If the claim had no merit, the defendants would never consider settling. This is typical posturing for a public case in the early stages.

“The demands that the plaintiffs made in this case was so divorced from reality that it precluded CDP making any business decision that the cost of defense would exceed the value of settling. In this case that was not possible given the high level of demand and, frankly the lack of merit to the claim. It was a huge demand with clearly meritless claims. It was a corporate shake-down,” Ms McFetridge says, although she would not disclose the compensation figure demanded by Ms Krajisnik.

I would bet a large sum of money that this case will be quietly settled and everyone muzzled sometime later this year or early next year. The above response is part of the negotiation process toward that end.
HHIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24 February 2021, 06:35 AM   #157
SMD
"TRF" Member
 
SMD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Real Name: SMD
Location: LGA/EWR/ORD
Watch: AP/PP
Posts: 3,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by HHIslander View Post
As previously stated, this isn't a RICO case. The plaintiffs aren't suing for any money in regards to RICO.

This is a wrongful termination case. It's very close to a slam dunk wrongful termination case, provided plaintiffs can provide witnesses and documentation for the allegations presented. It appears the plaintiffs are able to do that. If not, the legal team wouldn't have taken the case on contingency and sunk so much time and effort up front. Nor would they be asking for such a large sum.

The response from the defendants is fairly aggressive, but not too surprising for a case in the public domain. If the claim had no merit, the defendants would never consider settling. This is typical posturing for a public case in the early stages.

“The demands that the plaintiffs made in this case was so divorced from reality that it precluded CDP making any business decision that the cost of defense would exceed the value of settling. In this case that was not possible given the high level of demand and, frankly the lack of merit to the claim. It was a huge demand with clearly meritless claims. It was a corporate shake-down,” Ms McFetridge says, although she would not disclose the compensation figure demanded by Ms Krajisnik.

I would bet a large sum of money that this case will be quietly settled and everyone muzzled sometime later this year or early next year. The above response is part of the negotiation process toward that end.
Quick question -- what does count I, count II and the prayer for relief for counts I and II on pages 48 and 49 mean? If this case doesn't involve RICO and treble damages, what do those paragraphs mean?
Attached Images
File Type: png RICO.png (127.4 KB, 378 views)
SMD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24 February 2021, 07:13 AM   #158
HHIslander
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: May 2020
Real Name: Henry
Location: USA
Posts: 4,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by SMD View Post
Quick question -- what does count I, count II and the prayer for relief for counts I and II on pages 48 and 49 mean? If this case doesn't involve RICO and treble damages, what do those paragraphs mean?
I stand corrected, they actually are trying for RICO. That's likely not going to have any standing at all. She has to prove she was damaged due to the plaintiffs engaging in RICO and I don't see that. She was actually damaged due to wrongful termination. In all my years, I've never seen a RICO charge bundled with wrongful termination.

The other charges are for wrongful termination due to public policy exception and whistleblower violations. It's illegal to fire someone for refusing to break the law or for blowing the whistle on illegal behavior. The law that she is alleging was broken is RICO. This case is what I was referring to as close to a slam dunk. She will likely win or settle for wrongful termination.

The plaintiff's attorneys likely know full well that the RICO case itself is pretty slim.

When I said it wasn't a RICO case, I was assuming the case documented RICO to ascertain that RICO was the illegal behavior that she refused to participate in that resulted in her firing and RICO was the activity she was blowing the whistle on. I didn't realize she was alleging she was damaged due to RICO. I was wrong. Typically, business entities suffer damages due to RICO, not private citizens.
HHIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24 February 2021, 07:26 AM   #159
SMD
"TRF" Member
 
SMD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Real Name: SMD
Location: LGA/EWR/ORD
Watch: AP/PP
Posts: 3,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by HHIslander View Post
I stand corrected, they actually are trying for RICO. That's likely not going to have any standing at all. She has to prove she was damaged due to the plaintiffs engaging in RICO and I don't see that. She was actually damaged due to wrongful termination. In all my years, I've never seen a RICO charge bundled with wrongful termination.

The other charges are for wrongful termination due to public policy exception and whistleblower violations. It's illegal to fire someone for refusing to break the law or for blowing the whistle on illegal behavior. The law that she is alleging was broken is RICO. This case is what I was referring to as close to a slam dunk. She will likely win or settle for wrongful termination.

The plaintiff's attorneys likely know full well that the RICO case itself is pretty slim.

When I said it wasn't a RICO case, I was assuming the case documented RICO to ascertain that RICO was the illegal behavior that she refused to participate in that resulted in her firing and RICO was the activity she was blowing the whistle on. I didn't realize she was alleging she was damaged due to RICO. I was wrong. Typically, business entities suffer damages due to RICO, not private citizens.
And to prove wrongful termination or whistleblowing though, she has to show they were asking her to break the law, which means she has to prove the entire thing was illegal. Because if she cannot show it was illegal, it isn't wrongful termination or retaliatory. That is going to be her problem.
SMD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24 February 2021, 07:44 AM   #160
HHIslander
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: May 2020
Real Name: Henry
Location: USA
Posts: 4,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by SMD View Post
And to prove wrongful termination or whistleblowing though, she has to show they were asking her to break the law, which means she has to prove the entire thing was illegal. Because if she cannot show it was illegal, it isn't wrongful termination or retaliatory. That is going to be her problem.
It's a civil case, not criminal. The standard for a civil case is "preponderance of the evidence" not "beyond a reasonable doubt." She doesn't have to prove that the illegal behavior occurred, just that it is more likely than not that it did and that she was fired for not engaging in it. It will also be a jury trial, which means it will be the hurt human vs the horrible corporation.

I'd put the odds at >90% that parties will settle for wrongful termination or plaintiffs win in court. The defendants won't be able to have that dismissed. Lawyers don't put that much effort into a suit unless they are very comfortable with their position. I would imagine there are lots of emails, witnesses and other forms of evidence that have yet to be discovered.
HHIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24 February 2021, 07:52 AM   #161
SMD
"TRF" Member
 
SMD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Real Name: SMD
Location: LGA/EWR/ORD
Watch: AP/PP
Posts: 3,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by HHIslander View Post
It's a civl case, not criminal. The standard for a civil case is "preponderance of the evidence" not "beyond a reasonable doubt." She doesn't have to prove that the illegal behavior occurred, just that it is more likely than not that it did and that she was fired for not engaging in it. It will also be a jury trial, which means it will be the hurt human vs the horrible corporation.

I'd put the odds at >90% that parties will settle for wrongful termination or plaintiffs win in court. The defendants won't be able to have that dismissed. Lawyers don't put that much effort into a suit unless they are very comfortable with their position. I would imagine there are lots of emails, witnesses and other forms of evidence that have yet to be discovered.
We shall see. I have been on the other side of what I believed was a shakedown many times and the lawyers put in a lot of effort up front. But when it became clear they were going to have to actually litigate it to the end they weren’t so committed. Yes jury trial - but they have to front years of costs before they ever get close to that day.

She might get something, but if Rolex keeps them as an AD then we either have to conclude that they did not do what she said or that Rolex doesn’t care that she did what she said.
SMD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24 February 2021, 08:13 AM   #162
HHIslander
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: May 2020
Real Name: Henry
Location: USA
Posts: 4,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by SMD View Post
We shall see. I have been on the other side of what I believed was a shakedown many times and the lawyers put in a lot of effort up front. But when it became clear they were going to have to actually litigate it to the end they weren’t so committed. Yes jury trial - but they have to front years of costs before they ever get close to that day.

She might get something, but if Rolex keeps them as an AD then we either have to conclude that they did not do what she said or that Rolex doesn’t care that she did what she said.
Rolex has ADs all over the world who are getting sued for all types of issues. I kinda doubt they care unless this goes criminal or the civil case goes to trial and becomes a public poostorm. If it quietly settles, I would think the AD will be very likely to keep their AD status.

Anyways, it's gonna be fun to see what happens, won't it?
HHIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25 February 2021, 02:21 PM   #163
VirgilKane64
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by SMD View Post
This is a reminder that it is way too easy to get into law school. Lawsuit is going nowhere.
That's a stupid comment. Go take the bar exam and tell me how easy it is. Although I will grant you that the complaint was poorly written and contained many glaring typos. Not a good indication of competence.
VirgilKane64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25 February 2021, 08:52 PM   #164
SMD
"TRF" Member
 
SMD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Real Name: SMD
Location: LGA/EWR/ORD
Watch: AP/PP
Posts: 3,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by VirgilKane64 View Post
That's a stupid comment. Go take the bar exam and tell me how easy it is. Although I will grant you that the complaint was poorly written and contained many glaring typos. Not a good indication of competence.
I have taken two bar exams.
SMD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 February 2021, 02:45 PM   #165
gtahe416
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Location: U.S
Posts: 25
Thanks for sharing
gtahe416 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 February 2021, 02:51 PM   #166
Andad
2024 Pledge Member
 
Andad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Real Name: Eddie
Location: Australia
Watch: A few.
Posts: 36,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by SMD View Post
I have taken two bar exams.
Invite me along next time and I’ll have a beer.
__________________
E

Andad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 February 2021, 03:40 PM   #167
aczaja10
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Illinois
Posts: 929
The best claims are ones which plaintiff has no standing to bring, namely avoiding sales tax. State and federal government lost money when watches sold and no taxes collected or paid. But, employee want bring those unless in a whistleblower capacity, perhaps as a relator in a qui tam action. If those claims aren't in there, they should be. I'm too lazy to read the whole complaint.
aczaja10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 February 2021, 01:36 AM   #168
BroncoOne
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,173
Regardless of whether the plaintiff can prove any of what is alleged, I believe that the criminal and Rolex agreement violation stuff was thrown in to scare the defendant into a settlement before they filed so that the allegations would not be public. That leverage is now gone.
BroncoOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 February 2021, 11:05 AM   #169
drfrankenstein
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: New York
Posts: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannyp View Post
I think you're looking at this backwards: This wasn't filed in federal court because of alleged money laundering and immigration fraud. Rather, those were the justifications for filing a wrongful termination lawsuit that, on its merits, probably belongs in state court, in federal court under RICO, with the plaintiffs classified as whistleblowers.
It was filed in US District Court.

Also, although they are not suing, she has other 2 other former employees who I'm assume can corroborate her story.
drfrankenstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 February 2021, 11:27 PM   #170
SMD
"TRF" Member
 
SMD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Real Name: SMD
Location: LGA/EWR/ORD
Watch: AP/PP
Posts: 3,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoOne View Post
Regardless of whether the plaintiff can prove any of what is alleged, I believe that the criminal and Rolex agreement violation stuff was thrown in to scare the defendant into a settlement before they filed so that the allegations would not be public. That leverage is now gone.
Bingo.
SMD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 September 2021, 07:49 AM   #171
vh2k
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 3,016
Plaintiff voluntarily withdrew the complaint in April. Quietly settled?
vh2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 September 2021, 08:39 PM   #172
SMD
"TRF" Member
 
SMD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Real Name: SMD
Location: LGA/EWR/ORD
Watch: AP/PP
Posts: 3,653
Who could have seen that coming.
SMD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 September 2021, 09:40 PM   #173
1William
2024 Pledge Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: North Carolina
Watch: Rolex/Others
Posts: 44,325
Interesting. Does anyone have any more information?
1William is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 September 2021, 11:14 PM   #174
77T
2024 Pledge Member
 
77T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Real Name: PaulG
Location: Georgia
Posts: 40,568
Chicago Lawsuit Filed by Rolex AD Former Employee

Quote:
Originally Posted by vh2k View Post
Plaintiff voluntarily withdrew the complaint in April. Quietly settled?

As it should have been in the days before interrogatories we’re due. The AD under oath would be stuck if it had gone further into depositions…

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1William View Post
Interesting. Does anyone have any more information?

I’d guess a non-disclosure clause in the settlement will block that…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
__________________


Does anyone really know what time it is?
77T is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
cd peacock , illinois , lawsuit , patek phillippe , rolex


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Takuya Watches

Bobs Watches

Asset Appeal

My Watch LLC

OCWatches

DavidSW Watches

Coronet


*Banners Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.





Copyright ©2004-2024, The Rolex Forums. All Rights Reserved.

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Rolex is a registered trademark of ROLEX USA. The Rolex Forums is not affiliated with ROLEX USA in any way.