Quantcast

Exotic dancer pursuing wage class action says Miss Kitty's has destroyed evidence

MADISON - ST. CLAIR RECORD

Wednesday, December 25, 2024

Exotic dancer pursuing wage class action says Miss Kitty's has destroyed evidence

Federal Court
Webp beatty2

U.S. Magistrate Mark Beatty | District Court

EAST ST. LOUIS - Former Miss Kitty’s exotic dancer Isis Jones claims Belleville lawyer Mark Peebles should have produced complete records for at least 100 performers but produced only eight identification cards with phone numbers for five.

Jones, who represents a class that U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Beatty certified to pursue wage claims, moved on Aug. 12 to impose default as a sanction.

Her counsel Athena Herman of Peoria claimed neither Miss Kitty’s nor Peebles provided any explanation or justification for its outrageous failure to abide by its preservation duty.

She claimed they removed her ability to substantiate each class member’s entitlement to relief.

“Defendant has never meaningfully participated or otherwise pursued a merits based defense,” she wrote.

She claimed the defense strategy relied wholly on the benefit from willful and malicious destruction of information.

“In carrying out this strategy, Defendant makes a mockery of the judicial process,” she wrote.

Jones sued Miss Kitty’s last year, claiming it classified employees as contractors in violation of the state’s wage collection and minimum wage laws.

Herman claimed Miss Kitty’s took a kickback by charging performers $40 per day shift and $50 per night shift for stage rental.

She claimed Miss Kitty’s commonly failed to pay for hours worked.   

She asserted entitlement to recovery of wages plus damages and other relief.

She claimed the class period for wage collection violations started in 2013 and the period for minimum wage violations started in 2020, with both periods ending at final judgment.

She moved for class certification in January and Peebles didn’t respond by his deadline.

Herman moved to certify the class in February, claiming Peebles didn’t attempt to contact her or the court to request additional time.

She claimed she wasn’t aware of any good cause or excuse that would mitigate or justify the failure to respond.

Beatty waited until June and certified Jones to lead a class action.

He found Peebles sent email to the court explaining his lack of response but he didn’t indicate any opposition to the motion or ask for extra time.

Beatty concluded that Peebles essentially consented to certification of the classes. 

He also found merit in the motion, finding all performers were subject to the same policies and practices regarding treatment, supervision and control.

He found no material differences or unique circumstances existed between Jones and the class that would require individual evidence or individual determinations.

He found that if the question of liability were answered in favor of the class, the parties and the court could determine the best course for adjudicating damages.

He found determining damages might require individual proof from each class member or the class might use statistical sampling.

At a conference on July 2 Beatty directed Peebles to confer with his client and determine what type of contact information was available for class members.

He set a July 16 deadline for a status report.

Peebles didn’t file it and on July 24 Beatty set a conference for Aug. 15.

“Defense counsel shall confer with his client as he was previously directed to do and file a status report with the necessary information prior to the hearing,” he wrote.

Peebles filed his report on Aug. 6, stating he produced eight names, phone numbers and identification cards.

Herman moved for default on Aug. 12, stating Miss Kitty’s was under a strict legal duty to prevent spoliation and preserve critical information.

She claimed Peebles sent photo identification cards for eight class members and five appeared to be accompanied by telephone numbers.

She claimed his conduct raised serious concerns as to diligence and competency.

She claimed his lack of diligence suggested failure to communicate critical preservation instructions to Miss Kitty’s.

She claimed he filed no motions, failed to respond to motions, responded nominally to discovery requests, issued no subpoenas, and served no discovery requests.

“This court must recognize defendant’s malignant intentions and swiftly meet the same with its rightfully deserved sanction of default,” she wrote. 

More News