MENU
component-ddb-728x90-v1-01-desktop

Ruby Tequila's lawsuit defendant responds to complaint

One defendant answers complaint in Ruby Tequila's lawsuit (ABC 7 Amarillo)

R Tequila Acquisition, LLC responded to the lawsuit filed against them by former Ruby Tequila employees on Friday.

The original complaint was filed on September 7.

Notable answers to the long list of complaints brought against the company includes its denial that it employed any of the plaintiffs at the time of the alleged violation.

With regard to Paragraph 75 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Defendant denies it employed any of the Plaintiffs at the time of the alleged violation

It goes on to deny it is a proper defendant in this class action.

With regard to Paragraph 125 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Defendant admits Plaintiffs purport to bring this action as a class action. Defendant, however, denies it is a proper Defendant in this purported class action.

According to court documents, R Tequila Acquisition states it did not employ plaintiffs at the time of the restaurant closures and/or is not a "covered employer" under the WARN Act violations. The defendant claims there is no standing for them to be sued for WARN Act violations.

The company also denies all defendants were joint employers and/or acted as a single business enterprise for the purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The other defendants in the case are Fired Up Holding Company, Inc., Richard Kevin Foote, Chalak Mitras Group, LLC, Gurdev Singh Gill, M.D., and Rajeev Singh Gill.

R Tequila further denies breach of contract claims, that they agreed to pay the state law plaintiffs a fixed salary during each pay period they were employed, forming an enforceable contract for so long as they were employed. The company denies they failed to pay salaries for the last three to four weeks of the plaintiffs' employment.

Plaintiffs, to the extent employed by Defendant on April 30, 2017, have been paid all sums legally owed by Defendant under the FLSA.

The company admits Fired Up Holdings and Richard Foote assumed responsibility for the "day-to-day operations of the restaurants." In the court documents, the company also states that it lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations that employees were not provided with any notice, written or otherwise, of the mass layoff.

Defendant Richard Foote filed his answer to the complaint on September 21.


Trending