Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mujo v. Jani-King International, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

April 12, 2018

SIMON MUJO and INDRIT MHARREMI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
JANI-KING INTERNATIONAL, INC., JANI-KING INC., and JANI-KING OF HARTFORD, INC., Defendant.

          RULING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

          VICTOR A. BOLDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Simon Mujo and Indrit Muharremi, on behalf of a putative class of over 100 Jani-King franchisees (collectively “Plaintiffs”), have sued Jani-King International, Inc., Jani-King, Inc., and Jani-King of Hartford, Inc. (collectively “Jani-King”). In this diversity action, Mr. Mujo and Mr. Muharremi allege that Jani-King has unlawfully classified them as independent contractors under the Connecticut Wage Law, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-58 et seq., and that the various fees, costs, client sales tax, and charge backs under Jani-King's franchise agreement violate Section 31-72 of the Connecticut General Statues.

         Plaintiffs now move for reconsideration of the Court's March 31, 2018 Order, granting in part and denying in part Jani-King's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.

         For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.

         I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         A. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

         Jani-King provides commercial cleaning services to its customers. Am. Compl. ¶ 15. Jani-King franchisees, two of whom are Mr. Mujo and Mr. Muharremi, conduct these cleaning services. Id. To carry out their business, Jani-King, under the terms of a franchise agreement (“Agreement”), allegedly enters into independent contractor relationships with individuals who then perform janitorial work for Jani-King customers. Id. Jani-King allegedly required all members of the putative class to sign substantially similar agreements before working for Jani-King. Id. ¶ 16.

         Under the terms of these agreements, Jani-King allegedly required Plaintiffs to pay an initial and non-refundable franchise fee down payment, a condition predicate for Jani-King providing them with the opportunity to perform cleaning services under Jani-King's cleaning contracts between Jani-King and their customers. Id. ¶ 17. Mr. Mujo and Mr. Muharremi and a subset of the putative class members allegedly paid the down payment to Jani-King as a lump sum at the time of entering into the contract. Id. A second subset of putative class members allegedly paid a portion of the down payment at the time of entering into the contract and paid the outstanding balance as monthly deductions drawn from the compensation paid to them by Jani-King. Id.

         Plaintiffs allege that they are not free from Jani-King's control and direction with respect to Plaintiffs performance of services, under the terms of the Agreement. Id. ¶ 20. Plaintiffs also maintain that Jani-King's methods, procedures, and policies with which Jani-King requires Plaintiff to comply “are numerous and detailed and control the manner in which Plaintiffs and the putative class members must perform their tasks.” Id.

         Plaintiffs also maintain that Jani-King deducts monthly various sums of money from their wages, including royalty fees, advertising fees, finder's fees, accounting fees, technology fees, complaint fees, services fees, non-reported business fees, client sales tax, lease deductions, and various other fees. Id. ¶ 23.

         B. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on December 5, 2016, and, on February 9, 2017, filed an Amended Complaint, alleging two counts: (1) Jani-King has violated the Minimum Wage Act; and (2) Jani-King has been unjustly enriched. ECF Nos. 1, 41.

         On March 31, 2018, the Court dismissed Count One of the Amended Complaint, except to the extent that the various fees and deductions required under the Agreement may violate public policy, as expressed by Section 31-73(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes.

         Plaintiffs now move for reconsideration, or, in the alternative, for the Court to certify the question for definitive resolution ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.