Posts tagged "Yarpah"

Yarpah v. Bowden Hospitality Newton LLC, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-061-17)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT. 1684CV02746-BLS2 ____________________ ROLAND YARPAH, and all others similarly situated v. BOWDEN HOSPITALITY NEWTON LLC d/b/a Crowne Plaza Hotel, and INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP RESOURCES, INC. ____________________ MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON INTERNATIONAL HOTELS GROUP RESOURCES, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS and PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND HIS COMPLAINT TO ADD NEW DEFENDANTS Roland Yarpah worked for several years at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Newton, Massachusetts. He claims that the Hotel violated the Massachusetts Tips Act (G.L. c. 149, § 152A) by levying an eight percent “administrative charge” for functions where food or alcohol are served, not telling customers that this charge is not a tip paid to servers, and nonetheless keeping monies collected for this charge instead of paying them to wait staff and service bartenders. Yarpah sued Bowden Hospitality Newton LLC, which owns and operates the Hotel. He has also sued Intercontinental Hotels Group Resources, Inc. (IHGR). IHGR has moved to dismiss the claims against it with prejudice on the ground that the facts alleged do not plausibly suggest that IHGR charged, received, or had any control over the disputed charge. IHGR also showed that it has no contractual relationship with Bowden, and that Holiday Hospitality Franchising, LLC (“HHFL”) is the entity that gave Bowden license to do business as a Crowne Plaza Hotel. Yarpah then moved to amend the complaint to delete IHGR as a defendant and instead sue HHFL and its parent Six Continent Hotels, Inc. (“SCH”); both of these entities assert that Yarpah has no standing to sue them. Yarpah also seeks to add as a defendant Ward Childs, who manages the hotel for Bowden. The Court will allow the motion to dismiss the claims against IHGR with prejudice because Yarpah made clear at oral argument that he does not oppose that request. It will also permit Yarpah to add Childs as a defendant, without opposition. The Court will deny the request to add HHFL and SCH as defendants, however. Neither of them had any control over or received any revenue from the – 2 – administrative charges. As a result they owe no duty under the Tips Act, and Yarpah lacks standing to sue them. It would therefore be futile to amend the complaint to add them as defendants. See generally Johnston v. Box, 453 Mass. 569, 583 (2009) (“Courts are not required to grant motions to amend prior [pleadings] where ‘the proposed amendment … is futile.’ ” (quoting All Seasons Servs., Inc. v. Commissioner of Health & Hosps. of Boston, 416 Mass. 269, 272 (1993)); Thermo Electron Corp. v. Waste Mgmt. Holdings, Inc., 63 Mass. App. Ct. 194, 203 (2005) (affirming denial of motion for leave to assert counterclaim that […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - May 31, 2017 at 11:26 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,