Broussard-Wadkins v. Maples
| Decision Date | 28 September 2012 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. CV–09–S–1563–NE. |
| Citation | 895 F.Supp.2d 1159 |
| Parties | Audrey BROUSSARD–WADKINS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Wade MAPLES, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Howard W. Foster, Matthew A. Galin, Foster, PC, Chicago, IL, Lance V. Oliver, Rebecca Merritt Deupree, Motley Rice LLC, Mt. Pleasant, SC, W.H. Narwold, Motley Rice LLC, Hartford, CT, Lance Harrison Swanner, The Cochran Firm PC, Dothan, AL, Raymond P. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Fitzpatrick & Brown LLP, Robert J. Camp, The Cochran Firm, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiffs.
Robert Carl Cannon, Constangy Brooks & Smith, Atlanta, GA, Gerald R. Paulk, Gerald R. Paulk PC, Scottsboro, AL, for Defendants.
Plaintiffs, Audrey Broussard–Wadkins and Darlene Harbin, were hourly-wage employees of Maples Industries, Inc. They commenced this putative class action against the owners and officers of that company: i.e., Wade Maples, John Maples, Howard Moore, and Gina Mateo.1 Plaintiffsallege that defendants conspired to depress the wages of hourly employees of Maples Industries by knowingly hiring immigrants who had been brought into the United States illegally, and by falsely attesting to the validity of employment documents in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. (“RICO”). 2 Plaintiffs brought the action on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons: i.e., current and former hourly-wage employees of Maples Industries who are legally authorized to work in the United States. 3 This opinion addresses three motions: defendants' motion for summary judgment; 4 defendants' motion to exclude the reports of plaintiffs' expert witnesses, Edward Mallon and Dr. George J. Borjas; 5 and plaintiffs' motion for class certification.6
In addition to the criminal sanctions provided by RICO, see18 U.S.C. § 1963(a),7 Congress declared that “[a]ny person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district court and shall...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., Case No.: 2:13–CV–624–VEH
...to ensure they meet the standards for admissibility under Rule 702." Id. (internal quotation omitted).Broussard–Wadkins v. Maples , 895 F.Supp.2d 1159, 1165 (N.D. Ala. 2012), aff'd sub nom. Broussard v. Maples , 535 Fed.Appx. 825 (11th Cir. 2013).The burden under Rule 702 rests squarely wit......
-
Patel v. City of Madison
...to ensure they meet the standards for admissibility under Rule 702." Id. (internal quotation omitted).Broussard-Wadkins v. Maples, 895 F. Supp. 2d 1159, 1165 (N.D. Ala. 2012), aff'dsub nom. Broussard v. Maples, 535 F. App'x 825 (11th Cir. 2013). The burden under Rule 702 rests squarely with......