![]() ![]() They additionally claim error in one of the judge's evidentiary rulings. On appeal, the plaintiffs principally challenge the denial of that motion. Claiming that they were owed additional damages as a matter of law, the plaintiffs filed a motion entitled "Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict or In the Alternative to Amend the Verdict or for a New Trial" (posttrial motion). Named as defendants were the club itself, and the two individuals who had served as the club's presidents during the relevant period (collectively, the club).įollowing a nine-day trial, a Superior Court jury found that the club indeed had violated the Tips Act (act), but awarded the plaintiffs far less in damages than they had sought. 149, § 152A, the club was required to distribute to wait staff. She brought a class action - on behalf of herself and others similarly situated - alleging that the house charge amounted to a "service charge" that, pursuant to the so-called Tips Act, G. ![]() The named plaintiff, Stacy Norrell, worked as a server at some of the events. During the 2011-2016 time frame, the club charged the sponsors of such events (patrons) specified prices for the food and beverages it served to guests at the events, and then added a twenty-two percent supplemental charge that was listed on invoices as a "house charge." The club did not distribute the monies collected for the house charge to those who served the food andĭrinks, but kept the money itself. The Spring Valley Country Club hosts wedding receptions, golf outings, and other private events at its facility in Sharon. Sullivan, J., and a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was heard by him. ĬIVIL ACTION commenced in the Superior Court Department on February 26, 2014. 149, § 152A (act), due to its failure to remit to the plaintiffs certain charges labeled variously on invoices and in promotional materials as a "house charge" or "service charge," the judge did not err in denying the plaintiffs' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, where, in those instances in which the defendant did not use descriptive language adequate to invoke the protections of the act's safe harbor provision, the plaintiffs bore the burden of proving that the charge was one that a patron would reasonably expect to be given to wait staff and there was ample evidence on which the jury could conclude that reasonable patrons would have understood that the defendant intended to retain the charge for itself. In a civil action arising out of a dispute between the defendant country club and its restaurant servers (plaintiffs) over the defendant's alleged violation of the Tips Act, G. Practice, Civil, Motion in limine, Judgment notwithstanding verdict. 57 FebruJCourt Below: Superior Court, Norfolk County Present: Meade, Milkey, & Desmond, JJ. SPRING VALLEY COUNTRY CLUB, INC., & others. SPRING VALLEY COUNTRY CLUB, INC., 98 Mass. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |