A Top Newport Restaurant Group Repeatedly Delays Response to Fed. Lawsuit Alleging Wage Violations
GoLocalProv News Team
A Top Newport Restaurant Group Repeatedly Delays Response to Fed. Lawsuit Alleging Wage Violations
One of the government's allegations is that the owners kept employees' tips.
The restaurants' lawyer, in the latest request for a delay to respond to the lawsuit filed in August, said one of the owners had a wedding in October and would be "largely unavailable."
GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLASTAs GoLocal was first to report this summer, Stoneacre Brasserie, Stoneacre Garden, and Stoneacre Tapas along with owners Christopher Bender and David Crowell are the defendants in the federal lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court by United States Secretary of Labor Marty Walsh.
One of the allegations maintained by Walsh and the U.S. Department of Labor is that Bender and Crowell — along with managers at the Stoneacre locations — included themselves in the restaurants’ tip-sharing pools in violation of federal law.
Walsh says the defendants “failed to pay their employees the federal minimum wage and required overtime, kept employees’ tips, misclassified employees as exempt from overtime pay requirements, and failed to maintain accurate employment-related records, all in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.”
When the lawsuit was filed in August, the defendants were required to answer the motion within 21 days.
Now, after multiple filings, they have requested until the middle of November to respond.
On August 4, summons were issued to Crowell, Bender, and the three entities named in the suit — Stoneacre Brasserie, Stoneacre Garden, and Stoneacre Tapas.
“Within 21 days after service of this summons…you must serve the plaintiff an answer to attached complaint,” according to the summons. “The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney.”
United States Department of Labor trial attorney Sheila Gholkar in the Office of the Solicitor in the JFK Federal Building in Boston was listed as the plaintiff’s attorney
On August 10, the defendants filed waivers of the service of summons — for the first extension of time in which they would be required to respond.
“I understand the I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 60 days from 8/05/2022,” acknowledged the defendants, in motions signed by their attorney Brian Lamoureux.
On September 19, Lamoureux filed a motion to extend the response deadline.
“Defendants respectfully move for entry of an order allowing Defendants to have until and including November 3, 2022 to plead or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s complaint. The parties are exchanging information regarding Plaintiff’s claims and Defendants believe that such an extension is warranted under the circumstances,” wrote Lamoureux.
On October 18, Lamoureux requested even more time.
"Defendants respectfully move for entry of an order extending Defendants’ current deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint by an additional two weeks (i.e., from November 4, 2022 to November 18, 2022). The parties continue to exchange information regarding Plaintiff’s claims and Defendants believe that such an extension is warranted under the circumstances," wrote Lamoureux.
"Further, one of Defendants’ principals is marrying on October 22, 2022 and will largely be unavailable for a period of time," he continued. "This is Defendants’ second request for an extension. Plaintiff has no objection to this request."