Scheme No #4: Carlos Torres et al. v. Gristede’s Operation Corp. and Gristede’s Foods, Inc, and Produce Operating Corp. and Foods NY, Inc. and James Monos and Galo Balseca

Another fraudulent class action lawsuit was reported back in 2004 against multiple employers and their corporate officers. The case was filed at the United States District Court Southern District of New York, case number: ECF CASE 03 CV 3316 (RMB). There are multiple reasons to consider this case fraudulent including 1) Probable Cause, 2) Fake Consent,  3) and Subject Matter Jurisdiction.

In United States criminal law, probable cause is the standard by which police authorities have reason to obtain a warrant for the arrest of a suspected criminal or the issuing of a search warrant. In this case, probable cause was never established. According to labor law, probable cause can be established against an employer if the Department of Labor conducts an audit and find a violation. Carlos Torres v. Gristede’s Operation Corp. et al. case never established this probable cause that was required.

Secondly, fake consent. In Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA), consent can be written if probable cause is established. Once probable cause is identified by the DOL, stakeholders shall receive a notice from the DOL consisting of an invitation to move forward with a lawsuit. However, this never happened in this case. Below is the comparison between fake consent (right) and original consent (left).

See other documents:

Class Action Complaint: Carlos v. Gristede’s Operation et al.

Fake CONSENT TO Be a Party Plaintiff. 2

Affidavit OF Service