Knox v. John Varvatos Enterprises, Inc.
| Tessa Knox |
| John Varvatos Enterprises, Inc. |
| 1:2017cv00772 |
| February 1, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Suffolk |
| Gregory H. Woods |
| Fair Labor Standards Act |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 206 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
466
ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that John Varvatos Enterprises, Inc. shall cause Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC to turn over to plaintiffs the sum of $58,725.44 (the amount previously identified by the parties as the "Professional Fee Escrow") on or before January 31, 2023. The sum shall be payable to "Dunnegan & Scileppi LLC as Attorneys" and delivered to Dunnegan & Scileppi LLC. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 1/24/2023) (ama)
|
|
Filing
459
ORDER: Oral argument on the pending motion for turnover of assets will take place on December 12, 2022 at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom 6-B, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. This is the only matter scheduled for this date and time. Please be sure to arrive sufficiently in advance so that the argument may begin on time. Counsel and any other attendees are expected to comply with any COVID-related restrictions on entry into the Courthouse as set forth in the protocols poste d on the Court's website: https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/covid-19-coronavirus. If appearing in person represents a hardship to any party, that person may file a letter seeking leave to appear remotely. Each attorney or unrepresented party is dire cted to ensure that all other attorneys or unrepresented parties on the case are aware of the oral argument date and time. In addition, any requests for an adjournment must be made in compliance with Judge Gorenstein's rules (available at:http:/ /nysd.uscourts.gov/judge/Gorenstein). SO ORDERED., ( Oral Argument set for 12/12/2022 at 02:30 PM in Courtroom 6B, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 12/01/2022) (ama)
|
|
Filing
456
ORDER: The Court wishes to make sure that Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC has an opportunity to file any response to this letter. Any response to this letter by KCC shall be filed by November 23, 2022. If KCC finds any difficulty in arranging a filin g through the ECF system, it may deliver its response to either plaintiffs or defendant, who are instructed to file KCC's response as an attachment to a letter filed on ECF. Plaintiffs and defendant shall coordinate to ensure a method of deliver ing a copy of this Order (and a copy of Docket # 455) to KCC and shall file by November 16, 2022, a sworn statement indicatingthat KCC was provided a copy of this Order. Finally, the Court assumes that defendant was given a chance to respond to plaintiffs' portion of Docket # 455. If it was not, it may file a brief reply by November 16, 2022. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 11/09/2022) (ama)
|
|
Filing
451
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 429 Motion to Compel. With regard to the motion to turnover assets (Docket # 429), the motion is granted in part and denied in part as follows. 1. With respect to the bank funds in the possession of Jo hn Varvatos Enterprises, Inc. ("Varvatos") in the form of cashier's checks from Bank of America, Varvatos shall contact Bank of America by July 22, 2022, and thereafter execute and deliver necessary documents in an attempt to obtain new cashier's checks (or another negotiable instrument). Those checks or instrument(s) shall be payable to "Dunnegan & Scileppi LLC as Attorneys" and delivered to Dunnegan & Scileppi LLC. If this process does not result in the del ivery of funds, plaintiffs are free to serve a restraining order on Bank of America. 2. With respect to the $141,166.25 held in an account with Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC ("KCC") at the time of the filing of the notice of motio n, and based on the representations of Varvatos: (a) $42,403.46 of checks dated on or before June 30, 2022, have been cashed by the payee, and are no longer subject to the control of Varvatos; (b) $41,900.91 in checks/wires have been sen t/initiated but not cashed/completed, and Varvatos shall cause KCC to turn over such amount to counsel for plaintiffs; (c) $7,856.80 in checks have been returned to Varvatos, for which Varvatos has no additional information concerning the paye e, and Varvatos shall cause KCC to turn over such amount to counsel for plaintiffs; and (d) $49,005.08 constitutes checks and wires that have not been cashed or received by the payee, but Varvatos believes that it currently has accurate contact or wire information for the payee, and thus Varvatos is authorized to send a check or wire to such payee and provide payees receiving checks with 90 days following issuance of the checks to cash their respective checks. Following the expiration o f such time, Varvatos shall cause KCC to turn over to counsel for plaintiffs any amount that remains on account of checks that have not been cashed or wires not completed. 3. With respect to the $58,725.44 (the "Escrow Amount") held in an account with KCC, plaintiffs' request for turnover of the Escrow Amount is deferred until November 1, 2022, or any earlier time at which it is reported to the Court that KCC's current activities with respect to the bankruptcy are c ompleted. KCC shall provide a new invoice to the parties at that time that includes an estimate of any future expenses and the basis therefor. The parties shall by November 8, 2022 (or such later date as they may agree) file a jointly-composed letter to the Court that provides the parties' positions as to the disposition of those funds. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 7/15/2022) (tg)
|
|
Filing
450
ORDER: A conference to discuss Docket # 447 will take place on July 15, 2022, at 3:30 p.m. At that time, the parties shall dial (888) 557-8511 and use access code: 6642374. (The public may also dial in but will be permitted only to listen.) The Court will record the proceeding for purposes of transcription in the event a transcript is ordered. However, any other recording or dissemination of the proceeding in any form is forbidden. And as set forth herein. SO ORDERED., ( Telephone Conference set for 7/15/2022 at 03:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 7/12/2022) (ama)
|
|
Filing
444
ORDER: The oral argument scheduled for May 25, 2022, at 3:30 p.m. is changed to a telephonic oral argument. At this date and time, the parties shall dial (888) 557-8511 and use access code: 6642374. (The public may also dial in but will be permitte d only to listen.) When dialing in to the conference, the parties must be in a quiet indoor location and must not use a speakerphone. A telephone line and microphone technology with optimal quality should be used. The Court will record the proceed ing for purposes of transcription in the event a transcript is ordered. However, any other recording or dissemination of the proceeding in any form is forbidden. And as set forth herein. SO ORDERED. (Telephonic) Oral Argument set for 5/25/2022 at 03:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 5/16/2022) (ama)
|
|
Filing
441
ORDER: Oral argument on the pending motion for a turnover order will take place on May 16, 2022, at 3:30 p.m. in Courtroom 6-B, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. This is the only matter scheduled for this date and t ime. Please be sure to arrive sufficiently in advance so that the argument may begin on time. Counsel and any other attendees are expected to comply with any COVID-related restrictions on entry into the Courthouse and on masking within the Courth ouse as set forth in the protocols posted on the Court's website: https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/covid-19-coronavirus. If both sides prefer to have the proceeding take place telephonically, they may file a letter on ECF so requesting. Each atto rney or unrepresented party is directed to ensure that all other attorneys or unrepresented parties on the case are aware of the oral argument date and time. In addition, any requests for an adjournment must be made in compliance with Judge Gorenst ein's rules (available at:http://nysd.uscourts.gov/judge/Gorenstein). SO ORDERED. ( Oral Argument set for 5/16/2022 at 3:30 PM in Courtroom 6B, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 4/27/2022) (vfr)
|
|
Filing
416
OPINION AND ORDER: re: 412 MOTION for Attorney Fees (Supplemental). MOTION to Alter Judgment re: 407 Judgment on Attorney Fees 403 Clerk's Judgment filed by Pamela Kassen, Jena Toback, Laurentina Chaparro, Ruby Romero, Christina Torres, Michelle Ortiz, Joy Fusaro, Tessa Knox, Margret Holcomb, Arissia Tossetti, Alyssa Hickey, Wijdan Shoubaki, Tripti Pandey, Hillary T Crandle. The plaintiffs' motion (Docket # 412) to amend the judgments and for fees is granted in part and denied in part. First, the Clerk is directed to issue an Amended Judgment as to Docket # 403 that increases the award in that judgment from $1,758,025.61 to $1,898,746.20. Second, the Court hereby awards plaintiffs $215,340 .00 in additional attorney's fees for work performed by the plaintiffs' attorneys since the entry of the initial March 24, 2020 judgment (Docket # 362). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 6/22/2021) (ama) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
407
JUDGMENT on Attorney Fees in favor of Alyssa Hickey, Arissia Tossetti, Christina Torres, Hillary T Crandle, Jena Toback, Joy Fusaro, Laurentina Chaparro, Margret Holcomb, Michelle Ortiz, Pamela Kassen, Ruby Romero, Tessa Knox, Tripti Pandey, Wijd an Shoubaki against John Varvatos Enterprises, Inc.; in favor of Tessa Knox against John Varvatos Enterprises, Inc. in the amount of $874,201.42. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opi nion and Order dated February 17, 2021, plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and the service payment is granted. Plaintiffs are awarded a total of $748,321.21 in statutory attorney's fees and costs to be paid by Varvatos, and an additional amount of $105,880.21 in attorney's fees to be paid from the damages award allocated to punitive damages, for a total of $854,201.42 in attorney's fees. Plaintiff Knox is awarded a service payment of $20,000 from the punitive damages award. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 2/17/2021) (Attachments: # 1 Right to Appeal) (km)
|
|
Filing
404
ORDER: The Court would like clarification from plaintiffs as to the reason Tessa Knox seeks the incentive payment only from the portion of the punitive damages award attributable to those class members who were not also FLSA opt-ins ("named pl aintiffs"). See Docket # 368 at 3, 28-35. The Court understands her attorneys believe they cannot seek their additional payment from the named plaintiffs recovery because such a request is barred by the named plaintiffs' retainer agreement s. No explanation is given, however, as to why any incentive payment to Knox herself should be drawn only from the award to the non-named plaintiffs. Please provide an explanation of this distinction for purposes of any incentive payment. Second, the Court would like clarity on why, putting the weighing of the equities to one side, plaintiffs are making a distinction between the compensatory damage award and the punitive damage award as a source of the additional payments at all. Is it the plain tiffs position that had only compensatory damages been awarded it would be impermissible to order an incentive payment? Relatedly, the plaintiffs cite several cases awarding incentive payments. See Docket #368 at 30. Every case involved a settlement fund. Courts have a designated role in approving settlements by virtue of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). What is the basis for a courts power to award an incentive payment from a jury award? Can plaintiffs cite any cases in which incentive payments were orde red to be made from a jury award? Finally, if the Court were to view its powers to award an incentive payment as deriving from its power to award attorney's fees from a "common fund," see, e.g., Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472, 478 (1980), would either the compensatory damages award, the punitive damages award, or both qualify as a "common fund"? If so, why? If not, why not? The plaintiffs are invited to address these matters in a letter filed at their earliest c onvenience (and no later than February 19). The Court assumes that the defendant does not plan to respond for the reasons stated in its memorandum (Docket #383 at 42-43). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 2/2/2021) (mml)
|
|
Filing
403
CLERK'S AMENDED JUDGMENT re: 402 Order in favor of Alyssa Hickey, Arissia Tossetti, Christina Torres, Hillary T Crandle, Jena Toback, Joy Fusaro, Laurentina Chaparro, Margret Holcomb, Michelle Ortiz, Pamela Kassen, Ruby Romero, Tessa Kno x, Tripti Pandey, Wijdan Shoubaki against John Varvatos Enterprises, Inc. in the amount of $1,758,052.61. Whereas this action having been tried in two phrases, with the Hon. Gabriel W. Gorenstein presiding, and the jury having rendered a ve rdict in each of those two phases of the trial, from which the Court has calculated the total damages of judgment due to (i) the plaintiff Tessa Knox, (ii) the 13 Opt-In plaintiffs and (iii) the class that the Court certified in an order entered F ebruary 22, 2018 (collectively, Plaintiffs). It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Order dated March 23, 2020, and for the reasons stated in the Courts Order dated January 27, 2021, Plaintiffs s hall recover from the defendant John Varvatos Enterprises, Inc., the total amount of one million, seven hundred fifty eight thousand, twenty five dollars and sixty one cents, ($1,758,025.61), which includes prejudgment interest, as applicable , on the states claims at 9% and on the federal claims at 0.01126%. Plaintiffs shall be entitled to post- judgment interest at the rate fixed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 1/29/2021) (Attachments: # 1 Right to Appeal) (km)
|
|
Filing
402
ORDER: In light of the plaintiffs' acceptance of the remittitur proposed in Docket # 398 as set forth in Docket # 399, the Clerk is requested to enter an Amended Judgment that amends the judgment entered in this action on March 23, 2020 (Dkt. 362) nunc pro tunc to strike the words "three million, five hundred sixteen thousand, fifty one dollars and twenty three cents ($3,516,051.23)" and replace them with the words one million, seven hundred fifty eight thousand, twenty five dollars and sixty one cents,$1,758,025.61." So Ordered. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 1/28/2021) (js) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
398
OPINION AND ORDER re: 374 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law . filed by John Varvatos Enterprises, Inc. For the foregoing reasons, John Varvatos Enterprises, Inc.'s motion (Docket # 374) is denied except that defendant is granted a new trial on the issue of compensatory and punitive damages unless the plaintiffs agree in a writing filed on the docket within 21 days to accept the remittitur described above. If plaintiffs accept the remittitur, they shall thereafter consult with defendant and submit a new proposed amended judgment consistent with the remittitur. If they do not accept, they shall so report to the Court and the Court will (1) set a deadline for the filing of revised pretrial materials and (2) set a trial date on the issue of compensatory and punitive damages to take place at a time when jury trials in the courthouse resume. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 1/12/2021) (cf)
|
|
Filing
380
ORDER: With regard to defendant's request for permission to file a motion seeking a stay of the enforcement of the judgment (Docket # 378), the Court's pre-motion conference requirement is waived. With respect to defendant's applicatio n for a stay of enforcement of the judgment pending the disposition of the planned motion for a stay, the Court notes that defendant waited until the eve of the date on which plaintiffs are entitled to enforce the judgment to make this application. G iven that this motion could have been made as soon as judgment was entered and in light of the defendant's unexplained delay, the Court will grant it only if the following conditions are met: (1) defendant files its motion for a stay by May 6, 2 020; (2) defendant produces a witness prepared to testify by telephone as to all factual matters raised in plaintiffs' letter, including but not limited to insurance information (Docket # 379) by May 11, 2020; and (3) defendant fully cooperates in addressing any other reasonable discovery requests made by plaintiffs relating to defendant's financial condition or insurance arrangement. The briefing schedule on the motion shall be in accordance with paragraph 2.B of the Court's Indi vidual Practices. The parties may extend any of the deadlines in this Order by mutual consent and without Court Order. The Court will be prepared to lift the stay at any time if it finds that defendant has not complied with this Order or if plaintiffs present evidence to the Court that justifies lifting this stay. SO ORDERED., ( Motions due by 5/6/2020.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 4/23/2020) (ama)
|
|
Filing
362
CLERK'S JUDGMENT re: 361 Order. in favor of Alyssa Hickey, Arissia Tossetti, Christina Torres, Hillary T Crandle, Jena Toback, Joy Fusaro, Laurentina Chaparro, Margret Holcomb, Michelle Ortiz, Pamela Kassen, Ruby Romero, Tessa Knox, Trip ti Pandey, Wijdan Shoubaki against John Varvatos Enterprises, Inc. in the amount of $ 3,516,051.23. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Order dated March 23, 2020, Plaintiffs shall recove r from the defendant John Varvatos Enterprises, Inc., the total amount of three million, five hundred sixteen thousand,fifty one dollars and twenty three cents ($3,516,051.23), which includes prejudgment interest, as applicable, on the states cl aims at 9% and on the federal claims at 0.01126%. Plaintiffs shall be entitled to post-judgment interest at the rate fixed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1961. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 03/24/2020) (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Right to Appeal) (dt)
|
|
Filing
361
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ENTER JUDGMENT. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter judgment as follows: Plaintiffs shall recover from the defendant John Varvatos Enterprises, Inc., the total amount of three million, five hundred sixteen thousan d, fifty one dollars and twenty three cents ($3,516,051.23), which includes prejudgment interest, as applicable, on the state claims at 9% and on the federal claims at 0.01126%. Plaintiffs shall be entitled to post judgment interest at the rate fixed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 3/23/2020) (rjm) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
359
ORDER: The Court directs the parties to submit a proposed judgment by March 23, 2020, that accords with the jury's verdict and any rulings by the Court made as to that verdict. If the parties cannot agree, they may submit separate proposed judgm ents. The Court notes that it did not understand plaintiffs' statement in Docket # 357 that the judgment should be made "subject to" an incentive fee award and a special attorney's fee award. The Court assumes the requests for such awards do not affect the contents of the judgment and that such requests would be made, if at all, after judgment was entered. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 3/19/2020) (ama)
|
|
Filing
356
ORDER: The time of the telephone conference scheduled for tomorrow is changed to 9:30 a.m. If this represents a problem for the parties, the conference time may be changed to 3:30 p.m. or later. In the absence of an application to change the time, however, the conference will proceed at 9:30 a.m. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 3/12/20) (rch)
|
|
Filing
355
ORDER. As to Issue 3, a telephone conference to discuss this issue shall take place on March 13, 2020, at 10:30 a.m. The parties shall either call in to Chambers ((212) 805-4260) with all parties on the line or arrange a dial-in conference call. Th e Court concludes there are no disputed facts requiring a trial as to Issues 1, 2 and 4. Those issue are either resolved or are to be the subject of additional briefing as stated below. As further set forth in the Order. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 03/11/2020) (Gorenstein, Gabriel)
|
|
Filing
352
ORDER: Accordingly, the Court orders as follows: The Clerk is requested to make the March 2, 2020 transcript (Docket # 348) viewable only by the Court and the attorneys on the case until further order of the Court. On or before March 27, 2020, defend ant shall file any motion to seal the transcript's redactions. The briefing schedule on the motion shall be in accordance with paragraph 2.B ofthe Court's Individual Practices. If any material in the motion itself needs to be filed under seal, defendant shall comply with paragraph 2.E of the Court's Individual Practices. SO ORDERED., ( Motions due by 3/27/2020.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 3/06/2020) (ama)
|
|
Filing
327
ORDER: As stated at the conference held on February 7, 2020, the Court will limit the parties' presentation of their case to a certain number of hours for each side. Having examined the pretrial materials, the Court believes that 11 hours for ea ch side will be more than sufficient for the parties to present their cases. This time limitation includes all matters occurring before thejury (e.g., the opening statement by the party, direct of the party's own witnesses, cross of the opposing party's witnesses). The limitation does not include closing arguments. We will discuss at the end of the case time limitations for such arguments, if any. The time limitation also does not include any discussions with the Court outside the jury 's presence. The Courtroom will be open at 8:45 a.m. Other than the first day of trial, testimony will start as soon as all jurors are present, which is expected to be between 9:00 a.m. and 9:15 a.m. The Court will take a 15-minute break at 10:5 5 a.m. and will recess for lunch at 12:45 pm. Trial will resume at 2:00 p.m. until 5:00 p.m., with a 20-minute break at about 3:20 p.m. On the first day of trial, February 24, 2020, proceedings will begin at 9:30 a.m. with housekeeping matters. It is not expected that the jury venire will be available for voir dire until 10:15 a.m. at the earliest. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 2/18/2020) (ama)
|
|
Filing
322
ORDER. As stated at the conference held on February 7, 2020, the Court expects the parties to discuss all disputed exhibits to determine whether the parties can reach agreement on admissibility, which may include an agreement on a limiting instruct ion for that exhibit. If disputes remain, the Court plans to address them at the conference on February 21, 2020. The parties shall file a letter by February 19, 2020, that lists each exhibit in dispute and provides for each such exhibit a brief explanation of the parties' positions, along with supporting citations/case law if appropriate (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 02/14/2020) (Gorenstein, Gabriel)
|
|
Filing
321
ORDER terminating 245 Motion in Limine; terminating 248 Motion in Limine; terminating 250 Motion in Limine; terminating 252 Motion in Limine; terminating 260 Motion in Limine; terminating 273 Motion in Limine: The parties' mot ions in limine (Docket ## 245, 248, 250, 252, 260, 273) were either granted or denied as stated during the conference held today. The Clerk is requested to terminate these motions. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 2/7/2020) (jwh)
|
|
Filing
84
OPINION AND ORDER re: 39 MOTION to Certify Class Conditional - EPA filed by Tessa Knox. For the foregoing reasons, Knox's motion for conditional approval of a collective action (Docket # 39) is granted as set forth above. Knox shall provide a copy of the proposed mailing to JV prior to its distribution. If there are any further disputes, the parties should discuss them and present any disagreement to the Court promptly. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 10/17/2017) (mml)
|
|
Filing
81
ORDER re: 60 MOTION to Compel Plaintiff Tessa Knox to Produce . filed by John Varvatos Enterprises, Inc. Oral argument on the pending motion to compel will take place on Thursday, October 19, 2017, at 4:00 p.m. in Courtroom 6-B, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. At this stage, oral argument will be limited to the issue of work product protection. Counsel for plaintiff is directed to provide the documents at issue for in camera review to the Court by CD or DVD delivered to the mail room at 500 Pearl Street (attention: Chambers of Judge Gorenstein) on or before Tuesday, October 17, 2017. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 10/13/2017) (GWG)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Knox v. John Varvatos Enterprises, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Tessa Knox | |
| Represented By: | Richard Weiss |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: John Varvatos Enterprises, Inc. | |
| Represented By: | Ned Henry Bassen |
| Represented By: | Jordan Elliot Pace |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
