Can Employer Fraudulent Misrepresentation be Included in Employment Law Case

[Just Blue]

Sir
Admin Review Board issued a Final ORDER in 2015 on the name of the company the Defendant owns 100 pc.The Defendant closed this company in year 2011 even before the order issued .In year 2015 when plaintiff approached Defendant for judgement money ,Defendant said he closed the company . Plaintiff approached circuit court further and case number issued in year 2016 on the name of the Defendant The outcome of this case further awaited .From 2016 , Defendant passed many motions to dismiss the case on various grounds and all of them were struck .Same time Plaintiff motion for summary judgement was denied too . The outcome surely will be in favor of plaintiff and anticipating order new one on the Defendant name . Due proce

That didn't answer my question.

 

[quincy]

Case


From 2006 plaintiff didnot engage counsel. It was pro se. After decision issued in 2015 , plaintiff had to engage counsel becuase his primary place of residence was India and it was essential for him to engage counsel because Defendant was denying to pay .

Thank you for answering some of my questions and thank you for the additional information. But I am still not quite understanding your role in this. Are both you and the plaintiff living in India?

Although I know that gathering information can be helpful, and FreeAdvice can be a good source for legal information, I don’t think the plaintiff can hope to find a solution on an Internet forum.

The plaintiff should rely on his attorney in Illinois or, if he no longer has an attorney, it appears time for the plaintiff to hire another one.

 

[careers4u100]

Sir ,
Complaint filed by Plaintiff on Defendant and his company in year 2006 .Plaintiff was working for Defendant company in years 2005 2006 2007 when the complaint was filed and it was filed due to non payment of wages .. Defendant contested on it .Admin Review Board issued Final Decision and Order in year 2015 on the name of the company .Defendant saying he is not liablebecause he closed the company in year 2011 .Both Plaintiff and Defendant were pro se until 2015 .Since Defendant didnot pay ,Plaintiff approached counsel ,counsel told plaintiff that the order cannot be readily enforced because it contained name of the company and company was defunct by then .Hence it was important to approach circuit court and bring Defendant personally liable .So there is a case number in circuit court in year 2016 with Defendant name as Defendant and prosecuting party name as plaintiff.The order issued by Admin Review Board says in the matter of(( Defendant and Defendant company name Vs Complainant name )) ,but ORDER issued only on the ((company name)) .The Defendant fraudulently and misrepresenting himself to escape paying .Can Plaintiff bring it to the notice of court through another complaint if so would it be a different forum ?

 

[careers4u100]

Thank you for answering some of my questions and thank you for the additional information. But I am still not quite understanding your role in this. Are both you and the plaintiff living in India?

Although I know that gathering information can be helpful, and FreeAdvice can be a good source for legal information, I don’t think the plaintiff can hope to find a solution on an Internet forum.

The plaintiff should rely on his attorney in Illinois or, if he no longer has an attorney, it appears time for the plaintiff to hire another one.

Yes .Me and Plaintiff both in India.Plaintiff was employee of Defendant company and was working for his company .The complaint was filed due to non payment of wages .Plaintiff returned to India in year 2007 and fought the case pro se .

 

[careers4u100]

Yes .Me and Plaintiff both in India.Plaintiff was employee of Defendant company and was working for his company .The complaint was filed due to non payment of wages .Plaintiff returned to India in year 2007 and fought the case pro se .

plaintiff engaged counsel in year 2016 after final decision and order issued by Admin Review Board

 

[careers4u100]

That didn't answer my question.

Sir , Can you please confirm if I replied to your question ?

 

[quincy]

Yes .Me and Plaintiff both in India.Plaintiff was employee of Defendant company and was working for his company .The complaint was filed due to non payment of wages .Plaintiff returned to India in year 2007 and fought the case pro se .

What has the plaintiff done to enforce the order?

Why are you the one who is seeking answers for the plaintiff?

 

[careers4u100]

As a close associate to plaintiff ,Iam trying to help him find solutions to his ongoing legal issues .
He worked for the defendant company , did not paid paid ,filed complaint in 2006, order issued in 2015,still doesnot get paid .
To enforce the order ,he approached circuit court .

 

[quincy]

As a close associate to plaintiff ,Iam trying to help him find solutions to his ongoing legal issues .
He worked for the defendant company , did not paid paid ,filed complaint in 2006, order issued in 2015,still doesnot get paid .
To enforce the order ,he approached circuit court .

In all of these years, has the plaintiff tried to file a lien on the defendant’s property, garnish defendant’s wages, anything? Or has the plaintiff simply pleaded with the defendant to pay?

I really think the plaintiff needs assistance from an attorney in Illinois. The amount owed is substantial, especially for a wage claim.

 

[careers4u100]

Plaintiff asked Defendant to pay in years 2015 and 2016 .Defendant denied .So plaintiff approached circuit court without a lawyer for enforcing the order .Since plaintiff was in India he was asked to engage a counsel and he did it .Counsel says until there is a order on the name of Defendant ( the Admin Review Board , Final Order was on the name of the Defendant Company ),we cannot initiate any lien on ARB order and a order on the name of the Defendant is required for the lien .Please correct if wrong .
As of now Hon Judge order on Defendant name awaited .

 

[Shadowbunny]

It’s hidden in the text but the state is Illinois.

Thanks, quincy -- don't know why that was so hard for me to spot!

 

[quincy]

Thanks, quincy -- don't know why that was so hard for me to spot!

It was hidden pretty well.

careers4u100, the major mistake the plaintiff made was not naming the owner of the company as defendant back in 2006. The plaintiff should have had an attorney‘s assistance at that time. There is a lot that could have been done to, at the very least, prevent the sale of company assets during the pendency of the action.

Although I understand that the plaintiff is now trying to remedy his earlier errors by changing the name of the defendant 14 years later, I am not convinced he will have success. He needs to find an attorney in Illinois.

And he is the one who needs to be involved, not a well-meaning friend or associate, as nice as you might be to offer him your help.

Good luck.

 

[Litigator22]

It was hidden pretty well.

careers4u100, the major mistake the plaintiff made was not naming the owner of the company as defendant back in 2006. The plaintiff should have had an attorney‘s assistance at that time. There is a lot that could have been done to, at the very least, prevent the sale of company assets during the pendency of the action.

Although I understand that the plaintiff is now trying to remedy his earlier errors by changing the name of the defendant 14 years later, I am not convinced he will have success. He needs to find an attorney in Illinois.

And he is the one who needs to be involved, not a well-meaning friend or associate, as nice as you might be to offer him your help. Good luck.

Perhaps it was hidden from your view as well, but the plaintiff/associate made no such major mistake in preparing his claim. Please note that we are told that the claim as originally filed with Illinois Department of Labor named both the company and the individual purported owner of the company. And that the IDOL hearing officer ruled against both named defendants.

. . . won a Department of Labor Case in 2015 against Defendant and Owner of company. .

What seems to have followed is an appeal from the hearing officer's finding resulting in the Administrative Review Board absolving the individual defendant of liability.

The Final Decision and ORDER issued by Admin Review Board on name of the company (only).

What's missing here is any mention of the "plaintiff/associate" having filed a timely appeal to the circuit court challenging the ORDER of the ARB dismissing the claim against the individual defendant.

I don't know how much time is allowed to appeal from an ARB order and I am not about to jeopardize my eyesight by reading the Illinois statutes on line. But we know that the time limitation isn't expressed in years! Plus, those of us that should know are aware that those appeal times are known as jurisdictional.

In this sense the term jurisdictional means that there are no extensions granted or excuses accepted. And if not complied with to the letter, the body or tribunal to whom the notice of appeal is directed cannot exercise jurisdiction over the subject matter. Thus res adjudicata thrives! Or at least it should obtain. Why this case has bounced about in the system for such length of time, if in fact it has and we only have third hand say of it, is puzzling.
_________________________________

Lastly, you need to rethink your stated position that the associate was entitled to a preliminary injunction freezing the business assets of his employer pending resolution of his wage claim. There are no such laws paralyzing an employer in such a fashion.

There are means whereby a plaintiff can obtain a pre-judgment attachment of a defendant's assets. But only under prescribed exigent circumstances, and then only upon the posting of bond. But never mandated by an administrative body such as the Illinois Department of Labor.

 

[quincy]

Perhaps it was hidden from your view as well, but the plaintiff/associate made no such major mistake in preparing his claim. Please note that we are told that the claim as originally filed with Illinois Department of Labor named both the company and the individual purported owner of the company. And that the IDOL hearing officer ruled against both named defendants.



What seems to have followed is an appeal from the hearing officer's finding resulting in the Administrative Review Board absolving the individual defendant of liability.



What's missing here is any mention of the "plaintiff/associate" having filed a timely appeal to the circuit court challenging the ORDER of the ARB dismissing the claim against the individual defendant.

I don't know how much time is allowed to appeal from an ARB order and I am not about to jeopardize my eyesight by reading the Illinois statutes on line. But we know that the time limitation isn't expressed in years! Plus, those of us that should know are aware that those appeal times are known as jurisdictional.

In this sense the term jurisdictional means that there are no extensions granted or excuses accepted. And if not complied with to the letter, the body or tribunal to whom the notice of appeal is directed cannot exercise jurisdiction over the subject matter. Thus res adjudicata thrives! Or at least it should obtain. Why this case has bounced about in the system for such length of time, if in fact it has and we only have third hand say of it, is puzzling.
_________________________________

Lastly, you need to rethink your stated position that the associate was entitled to a preliminary injunction freezing the business assets of his employer pending resolution of his wage claim. There are no such laws paralyzing an employer in such a fashion.

There are means whereby a plaintiff can obtain a pre-judgment attachment of a defendant's assets. But only under prescribed exigent circumstances, and then only upon the posting of bond. But never mandated by an administrative body such as the Illinois Department of Labor.

The “associate” (careers4u100) has nothing at all to do with the Illinois matter. Careers4u100 (the associate of the plaintiff) is simply helping out the plaintiff. They both live in India.

Please also note - because you like careful reading - I questioned early on why there was a problem now since it appeared both the company and the owner of the company were named as defendants in the original complaint. Careers4u100 responded to that. He said only the company was named as defendant.

The plaintiff is now seeking to change the defendant from “company” to “owner of company,” AFTER the finding against the company, so the plaintiff can hold the owner of the now-defunct company liable.

I don’t think the plaintiff will be successful in his attempt, 14 years after filing his complaint. The complaint should have been amended years ago.

But an attorney in Illinois can determine this better.