Motion to Amend in Vincent Settecasi, Pamela Graham, Coree Spencer, Individually And On Behalf Of Others Similarly Situated v. Gotham Hall, Llc, Gotham Hall Operating Entity, Llc, Core Ziegfeld, Llc D/B/A Ziegfeld Balroom, Simon Auerbacher, Bruce A. Kurtz| Trellis.Law

On March 29, 2018 a Answer was filed involving a dispute between Coree Spencer, Individually And On Behalf Of Others Similarly Situated, Pamela Graham, Vincent Settecasi, and Bruce A. Kurtz, Core Ziegfeld, Llc D B A Ziegfeld Balroom, Gotham Hall, Llc, Gotham Hall Operating Entity, Llc, Simon Auerbacher, for Other Matters - Contract - Other in the District Court of New York County.

Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/06/2018 01:09 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2018

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK

-------------------------------------------------------------------X

VINCENT SETTECASI, on behalf of himself and Index No. 152791/2018
others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

-against- VERIFIED ANSWER

GOTHAM HALL, LLC, GOTHAM HALL
OPERATING ENTITY, LLC, CORE ZIEGFELD, LLC
d/b/a ZIEGFELD BALLROOM, SIMON
AUERBACHER, BRUCE A. KURTZ, and any other
related entities,

Defendants.
X
-------------------------------------------------------------------X

(" Hall"
Defendants, Gotham Hall, LLC ("Gotham Hall"), Gotham Hall Operating Entity, LLC

Entity" "Gotham"
(the "Operating Entity") (Gotham Hall and the Operating Entity, collectively, "Gotham"), Core

Ziegfeld, LLC d/b/a Ziegfeld Ballroom ("Ziegfeld"), Simon Auerbacher ("Auerbacher") and

Defendants"
Bruce A. Kurtz ("Kurtz") (Auerbacher and Kurtz, collectively, the "Individual Defendants")

"Defendants"
(Gotham, Ziegfeld and the Individual Defendants, collectively, "Defendants") by and through

their attorneys, Ellenoff Grossman & Schole LLP, as and for their answer to the Verified

("Complaint" ("Plaintiff'
Complaint dated March 29, 2018 ("Complaint") filed by Plaintiff Vincent Settecasi ("Plaintiff"),

state as follows:

STATEMENT"
AS TO "PRELIMINARY

1. Paragraph 1 contains no factual allegations requiring a response. To the extent a

response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 1, and specifically deny that

Defendants unlawfully retained gratuities or overtime compensation from Plaintiff, that any other

individuals are similarly-situated to Plaintiff, or that Plaintiff has suffered any injury, but admit

that Plaintiff purports to proceed as stated therein.

f00597039.DOC.1}

1 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/06/2018 01:09 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2018

2. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint.

3. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint, except Gotham Hall and

Ziegfeld admit that each have, at times relevant to this action, included a mandatory

administrative charge in their respective event contracts.

4. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint.

5. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint.

6. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint, except Gotham Hall and

Ziegfeld admit that Plaintiff was not paid any portion of the mandatory administrative charge

included in their respective event contracts.

7. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint.

8. Paragraph 8 contains no factual allegations requiring a response. To the extent a

response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 8, and specifically deny that

Plaintiff has suffered any injury, but admits that Plaintiff purports to proceed as stated therein.

PARTIES"
AS TO "THE

9. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint, except Gotham Hall and Ziegfeld admit that

Plaintiff worked during events held at Gotham Hall and at Ziegfeld at times relevant to this

action.

10. Paragraph 10 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the

extent a response is required, Gotham Hall admits that it is a limited liability corporation

organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York and is authorized to do business

in the State of New York, with a principal place of business located at 1356 Broadway, New

York, New York 10018, and the Operating Entity, Ziegfeld and the Individual Defendants deny

(00597039.DOC.1} 2

2 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/06/2018 01:09 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2018

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in

Paragraph 10 of the Complaint.

11. Paragraph 11 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the

extent a response is required, the Operating Entity admits that it isa limited liability corporation

organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York and is authorized to do business

in the State of New York, and Gotham, Ziegfeld and the Individual Defendants deny knowledge

or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 11 of the

Complaint.

12. Paragraph 12 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the

extent a response is required, Ziegfeld admits that itis a limited liability corporation organized

and existing under the laws of the State of New York and is authorized to do business in the

State of New York, and Gotham Hall, the Operating Entity, and the Individual Defendants deny

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in

Paragraph 12 of the Complaint.

13. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint, except admit that

Auerbacher is the Managing Partner of Gotham Hall and Ziegfeld.

14. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint, except admit that Kurtz is

the Managing Director of Gotham Hall and Ziegfeld.

CCi ALLEGATIONS"
AS TO "CLASS

15. Paragraph 15 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the

extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint.

(00597039.DOC. I } 3

3 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/06/2018 01:09 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2018

16. Paragraph 16 contains no factual allegations requiring a response. To the extent a

response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 16, but admit that Plaintiff

purports to proceed as stated therein.

17. Paragraph 17 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the

extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint,

and specifically deny that this action may be maintained as a class action.

18. Paragraph 18 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the

extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint,

and specifically deny that this action may be maintained as a class action.

19. Paragraph 19 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the

extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint,

and specifically deny that this action may be maintained as a class action.

20. Paragraph 20 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the

extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint,

and specifically deny that this action may be maintained as a class action, but deny knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations regarding Plaintiff's

counsel.

21. Paragraph 21 contains no factual allegations requiring a response. To the extent a

response is required, Defendants admit that Plaintiff's counsel is experienced in wage and hour

litigation.

22. Paragraph 22 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the

extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint,

and specifically deny that this action may be maintained as a class action, but deny knowledge or

(00597039.DOC. 1} 4

4 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/06/2018 01:09 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2018

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations regarding the financial

resources of Plaintiff or any other putative class member.

23. Paragraph 23 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the

extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint,

and specifically deny that this action may be maintained as a class action.

"FACTS"
AS TO

24. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint.

25. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint, except Gotham Hall and

Ziegfeld admit that each entered into contracts with customers relating to private events to be

(" Contracts"
held at Gotham Hall and Ziegfeld ("Event Contracts"), respectively, at times relevant to this

action.

26. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint.

27. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint.

28. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint.

29. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint, except Gotham Hall and

Ziegfeld admit that each included a mandatory administrative charge in their respective Event

Contracts at times relevant to this action.

30. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint.

31. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 31 of the Complaint.

32. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 32 of the Complaint.

33. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 33 of the Complaint.

34. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 34 of the Complaint.

35. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint.

(00597039.DOC. 1} 5

5 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/06/2018 01:09 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2018

36. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 36 of the Complaint.

37. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 37 of the Complaint, except Gotham Hall and

Ziegfeld admit that Plaintiff was not given any portion of the mandatory administrative charge

paid to Gotham Hall or Ziegfeld as per the terms of the applicable Event Contract, and aver that

Plaintiff was not entitled to any portion of any such mandatory administrative charge.

38. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 38 of the Complaint, except Gotham Hall and

Ziegfeld admit that Plaintiff was not given any portion of the mandatory administrative charge

paid to Gotham Hall or Ziegfeld as per the terms of the applicable Event Contracts, and aver that

Plaintiff was not entitled to any portion of any such mandatory administrative charge.

39. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 39 of the Complaint, except Gotham Hall and

Ziegfeld admit that each retained the mandatory administrative charge paid to Gotham Hall or

Ziegfeld as per the terms of the applicable Event Contracts.

40. Paragraph 40 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the

extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 40 of the Complaint,

and refer the Court to the text of 12 NYCRR § 146-2 for the true and correct contents thereof.

41. Paragraph 41 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the

extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint.

42. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 42 of the Complaint.

43. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 43 of the Complaint.

44. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 44 of the Complaint.

45. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 45 of the Complaint.

46. Paragraph 46 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the

extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 46 of the Complaint.

(00597039.DOC. 1}

6 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/06/2018 01:09 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2018

AS TO "FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST
GRATUITIES"
DEFENDANTS: UNLAWFUL WITHHOLDING OF

47. Defendants repeat and reallege their responses to the foregoing paragraphs as

though fully set forth herein.

48. Paragraph 48 contains no factual allegations to which a response is required. To

the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 48 of the

Complaint, and refer the Court to the text of Labor Law Article 6 § 196-d for the true and correct

contents thereof.

49. Paragraph 49 contains no factual allegations to which a response is required. To

the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 49 of the

Complaint, and refer the Court to the text of 12 NYCRR 146-2.19(b) for the true and correct

contents thereof.

50. Paragraph 50 contains no factual allegations to which a response is required. To

the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 50 of the

Complaint, and refer the Court to the text of 12 NYCRR 146-2.19(b) for the true and correct

contents thereof.

51. Paragraph 51 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the

extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 51 of the Complaint.

52. Paragraph 52 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the

extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 52 of the Complaint.

53. Paragraph 53 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the

extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 53 of the Complaint.

54. Paragraph 54 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the

extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 54 of the Complaint.

(00597039.DOC. 1}

7 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/06/2018 01:09 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2018

55. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 55 of the Complaint.

56. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 56 of the Complaint.

57. Paragraph 57 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the

extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 57 of the Complaint.

58. Paragraph 58 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the

extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 58 of the Complaint.

AS TO "SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST
VIOLATION"
DEFENDANTS: OVERTIME WAGE

59. Paragraph 59 contains no factual allegations to which a response is required. To

the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 59 of the

Complaint, except admit that the New York Labor Law contains certain employee protections,

and refer the Court to the text of Articles 6 and 19 of the New York Labor Law for the true and

correct contents thereof.

60. Paragraph 60 contains no factual allegations to which a response is required. To

the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 60 of the

Complaint, and refer the Court to the text of Labor Law Article 6 § 196-d for the true and correct

contents thereof.

61. Paragraph 61 contains no factual allegations to which a response is required. To

the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 61 of the

Complaint, and refer the Court to the text of Title 12 NYCRR § 146-1.4 for the true and correct

contents thereof.

62. Paragraph 62 contains no factual allegations to which a response is required. To

the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 62 of the

(00597039.DOC. 1}

8 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/06/2018 01:09 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2018

Complaint, and refer the Court to the text of New York Labor Law § 651 for the true and correct

contents thereof.

63. Paragraph 63 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the

extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 63 of the Complaint.

64. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 64 of the Complaint as they pertain to Plaintiff,

but deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations

contained therein as they related to members of the putative class.

65. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 65 of the Complaint.

66. Paragraph 66 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the

extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 66 of the Complaint.

67. Paragraph 67 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the

extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 67 of the Complaint.

68. Paragraph 68 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the

extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 68 of the Complaint.

AS TO "THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST
DEFENDANTS: FAILURE TO PAY
WAGES"

69. Defendants repeat and reallege their responses to the foregoing paragraphs as

though fully set forth herein.

70. Paragraph 70 contains no factual allegations to which a response is required. To

the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 70 of the

Complaint, except admit that the New York Labor Law contains certain employee protections,

and refer the Court to the text of NYLL Article 6 for the true and correct contents thereof.

71. Paragraph 71 contains no factual allegations to which a response is required. To

the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 71 of the

(00597039.DOC. 1} 9

9 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/06/2018 01:09 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2018

Complaint, and refer the Court to the text of NYLL § 191 for the true and correct contents

thereof.

72. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 72.

73. Paragraph 73 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the

extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 73 of the Complaint.

74. Paragraph 74 contains no factual allegations to which a response is required. To

the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 74 of the

Complaint, and refer the Court to the text of NYLL § 193 for the true and correct contents

thereof.

75. Paragraph 75 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the

extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 75 of the Complaint.

76. Paragraph 76 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the

extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 76 of the Complaint,

and specifically deny that Plaintiff or any putative class member has suffered any damages and

further deny that Plaintiff or any putative class member is entitled to any relief from Defendants

whatsoever.

RELIEF"
AS TO "PRAYER FOR

"Wherefore"
Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief demanded in the

clause of Plaintiff's Complaint, and is not entitled to any other form of relief whatsoever.

(00597039.DOC. 1} 10

10 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/06/2018 01:09 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2018

Without assuming the burden of proof as to any of the following defenses where the law

does not impose such burden on Defendants, Defendants assert the following affirmative

defenses:

AS AND FOR A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

77. Gotham Hall and Ziegfeld have fully compensated Plaintiff and all other

employees for all work performed.

AS AND FOR A SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

78. Plaintiff cannot recover liquidated damages on behalf of himself or any other

employees under the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") because the Defendants at alltimes acted

in good faith and believed that their conduct was not in violation of the NYLL or any other

federal, state or local laws, rules, regulations or guidelines.

AS AND FOR A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

79. To the extent that the Plaintiff could establish that any of the Defendants are liable

under the NYLL (and they cannot), recovery must be limited because the Defendants did not act

willfully.

AS AND FOR A FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

80. Any act or omission on the part of the Defendants was in good faith and it had

reasonable grounds for believing that such acts or omissions were not in violation of and were in

conformity with NYLL, written administrative regulations, orders, rulings, approvals or

interpretations of the U.S. and New York State Departments of Labor and, therefore, some or all

of the claims in the complaint are barred.

AS AND FOR A FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

81. The Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of payment.

(00597039.DOC. 1} 11

11 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/06/2018 01:09 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2018

AS AND FOR A SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

82. In the event it isdetermined that Defendants, or any of them, are liable under the

NYLL, such Defendants are entitled to a set-off with respect to Plaintiff and every other

employee for monies already paid, including for any hours that a particular employee was not

working.

AS AND FOR A SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

83. This action is barred, in whole or in part, as a result of Plaintiff's own wrongful

and dilatory conduct and his own actions or inactions.

AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

84. This action may not be maintained as a class action under Article 9 of the New

York Civil Practice Law and Rules.

AS FOR A NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

85. Neither Gotham Hall, the Operating Entity, Ziegfeld, Auerbacher nor Kurtz are

covered employers under the NYLL as such pertains to Plaintiff's claims.

AS FOR A TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

86. Gotham Hall and Ziegfeld each engage individuals, including Plaintiff, to work at

their respective private events via a staffing company, and the staffing company is Plaintiff's

employer, not Gotham Hall or Ziegfeld. Accordingly, the staffing company is responsible for

paying any wages, including overtime wages, to Plaintiff and other individuals hired to work

events for Gotham Hall and/or Ziegfeld, not Gotham Hall or Ziegfeld.

AS FOR AN ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

87. To the extent any overtime might have been inadvertently underpaid or unpaid,

any amounts owed are de minimis and thus Plaintiff may not recover therefor.

(00597039.DOC.1} 12

12 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/06/2018 01:09 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2018

AS AND FOR A TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

88. Plaintiff's claim for overtime pay may not be maintained as Plaintiff was paid

wages in excess of those required under applicable regulations of the New York State

Department of Labor.

AS AND FOR A THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

89. The Complaint should be dismissed because it fails to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted.

AS AND FOR A FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

90. Gotham Hall and Ziegfeld each, in their respective Event Contracts, very clearly

state that the Administrative Charge "equal to twenty-three percent (23%) of the charge to [the

beverages"
customer] hereunder for food and added to the account as an administrative charge

"is not a gratuity; itis not paid to any supervisory or event staff.Any gratuities shall be at [the

discretion."
customer's] sole

AS AND FOR A FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

91. Plaintiff's claims may not be maintained as a class action.

AS AND FOR A SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

92. The putative class is not numerous.

AS AND FOR AN SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

93. The questions of law or fact are not common to the putative class.

AS AND FOR A EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

94. The claims or defenses of the parties are not typical of the claims or defenses of

the putative class.

(00597039.DOC. 1} 13

13 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/06/2018 01:09 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2018

AS AND FOR A NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

95. The interests of the putative class will not be fairly and adequately protected.

AS AND FOR A TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

96. Plaintiff is not similarly situated with those he alleges are putative members of a

class.

AS FOR A TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

97. Plaintiff is not an adequate representative of the putative class members.

AS FOR A TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

98. Plaintiff did not perform any work for Gotham Hall or Ziegfeld until December

2017, and therefore the time period relevant to this action begins on the date Plaintiff first

performed services for Gotham Hall or Ziegfeld, and not March 2012 as Plaintiff alleges.

AS FOR A TWENTY- THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

99. This action cannot be maintained as a class action because there is no commonality

between Plaintiff's circumstances and those of any other employees or former employees of Gotham

Hall or Ziegfeld.

AS FOR A TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

100. Should the Court certify this matter as a collective or class action, Defendants

reassert each of these affirmative defenses with respect to each class member or person filing a

consent to this action.

AS AND FOR A TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

101. Defendants reserve the right to raise additional affirmative defenses and to

supplement those asserted herein upon discovery of further information and investigation into

Plaintiff's claims.

(00597039.DOC.1} 14

14 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/06/2018 01:09 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2018

WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully pray that the Court enter judgment dismissing

the Complaint, with prejudice, denying each and every one of Plaintiff's claims and prayers for

relief, and grant Defendants and such other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems just,

equitable and proper.

Dated: June 6, 2018
New York, New York

ELLENOFF GROSSMAN & SCHOLE LLP

By:
Amanda M. Fugazy
Paul P. Rooney
Valerie J. Bluth
Ilan Weiser
1345 Avenue of the Americans
New York, New York 10105

(212) 370-1300

Attorneys for Defendants

(00597039.DOC. 1} 15

15 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/06/2018 01:09 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2018

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
â€â€â€â€â€â€â€â€â€â€â€â€
â€”â€”â€”â€”â€”â€”â€”â€”â€”â€”â€”ââ€”â€
€â€- â€”
â€
â€”â€
â€
â€”â€
â€”â€
â€”â€”
-------------------------------------------------------------------X

VINCENT SETTECASI, on behalf of himself and Index No. 152791/2018
others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

-against- VERIFICATION

GOTHAM HALL, LLC, GOTHAM HALL
OPERATING ENTITY, LLC, CORE ZIEGFELD, LLC
d/b/a ZIEGFELD BALLROOM, SIMON
AUERBACHER, BRUCE A. KURTZ, and any other
related entities,

Defendants.
â€â€
â€
â€â€
â€â€
â€â€
â€â€
â€â€
â€â€
â€â€
â€â€
â€â€
â€â€
â€ â€”â€â€
â€â€â€
â€â€
â€â€
â€â€
â€â€
â€â€
â€â€
â€â€
â€â€

Case Info

Judge

PERRY, W Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

June 06, 2018

Case Filing Date

March 29, 2018

County

Parties

BLUTH, VALERIE J Attorney for the Defendant
BLUTH, VALERIE J Attorney for the Defendants
BROWN, JEFFREY KEVIN Attorney for the Plaintiff
Bruce A. Kurtz Defendant
CALAMIA, JENNIFER Attorney for the Defendant
COHEN, BRETT R. Attorney for the Plaintiff
COREE SPENCER, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated Plaintiff
Core Ziegfeld, LLC d/b/a ZIEGFELD BALROOM Defendant
FUGAZY, AMANDA M. Attorney for the Defendant
FUGAZY, AMANDA M. Attorney for the Defendants
Gotham Hall, LLC Defendant
Gotham Hall Operating Entity, LLC Defendant
LEEDS, SUZANNE BROOKE Attorney for the Plaintiff
PAMELA GRAHAM Plaintiff
ROONEY, PAUL PATRICK Attorney for the Defendant
ROONEY, PAUL PATRICK Attorney for the Defendants
SANON, STEPHANIA CABRINI Attorney for the Defendant
SANON, STEPHANIA CABRINI Attorney for the Defendants
SHIHABI, MOHAMMAD BASHIER Attorney for the Defendant
SHIHABI, MOHAMMAD BASHIER Attorney for the Defendants
Simon Auerbacher Defendant
TOMPKINS, MICHAEL ALEXANDER Attorney for the Plaintiff
VINCENT SETTECASI Plaintiff
WEISER, ILAN Attorney for the Defendant
WEISER, ILAN Attorney for the Defendants
WILLIAM RAND Attorney
STEPHEN SONNENBERG Attorney
DANA GOTTLIEB
ANDREW MARKS Attorney
Clifford Chen Attorney
JADE BROWN Attorney
LOIS TRAUB Attorney
Mark Bisard Attorneys for Defendants
EDWARD PHILLIPS Attorneys for Defendants
MARTIN SCHEINMAN Attorney
MARIA BIANCO Attorney
LEEOR KLEIN
Michael Tompkins Attorneys for Plaintiffs

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Answer: Vincent Settecasi, Pamela Graham, Coree Spencer, Individually And On Behalf Of Others Similarly Situated v. Gotham Hall, Llc, Gotham Hall Operating Entity, Llc, Core Ziegfeld, Llc D/B/A Ziegfeld Balroom, Simon Auerbacher, Bruce A. Kurtz

Preview

Case Info

Parties