Aguilar v. David E. Harvey Builders, Inc.

• Docket Number: Civil Action GLS-18-03953
• Decision Date: 31 October 2023
• Parties: ANGELLA AGUILAR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DAVID E. HARVEY BUILDERS, INC., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

1

ANGELLA AGUILAR, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
DAVID E. HARVEY BUILDERS, INC., et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. GLS-18-03953

United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division

October 31, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Honorable Gina L. Simms, United States Magistrate Judge

This Memorandum Opinion contains the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law related to the bench trial conducted in this case.

BACKGROUND

On December 21, 2018 Plaintiffs Angella Aguilar, Luis Baires, Carlos Chavarria, Blanca Ferrer, Jacinto Garcia Romero, Fabricio Marroquin, Antonio Martinez, Wilson Panozo, Freddy Verizaga Prado, Jose Feliciano Revelo, Jose Antonio Torres (“Plaintiffs”) filed suit against: Defendant David E. Harvey Builders, Inc., d/b/a “Harvey-Cleary Builders” (“Defendant Harvey-Cleary” or “Harvey-Cleary”); Defendant Frank Marceron (“Defendant Marceron” or “Mr. Marceron”); The Subcontractors Gateway, Inc. (“TSCG”) and TSCG Drywall and Painting, LLC (collectively “Defendant TSCG”); and Darlene Marceron, alleging violations of: the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq.; the Maryland Wage and Hour Law (“MWHL”), Md. Code. Ann., Labor & Empl. §§ 3-401 et seq.; the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law (“MWPCL”), Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. §§ 3-501 et seq.; and for promissory estoppel

2

and quantum meruit. (ECF No. 1).^[1]

Prior to trial, Darlene Marceron was dismissed from this case, and default judgment was entered against Defendant TSCG for violations of the FLSA, MWHL, and MCPCL.^[2]

By the time of the bench trial, Plaintiffs maintained the following causes of action against Defendant Frank Marceron and Defendant Harvey-Cleary, to wit, violations of: the FLSA, failure to pay minimum and overtime wages (Count I); the MWHL, failure to pay minimum and overtime wages (Count II); and the MWPCL, failure to pay all wages on their regular paydays and for all work performed before they were terminated. (Count III). See ECF Nos. 1, 112, and 135.^[3]Also by the time of trial, Defendant Harvey-Cleary continued to assert that it was not a joint employer of any of the eleven Plaintiffs. Alternatively, if found liable, Defendant Harvey-Cleary persisted in its indemnification crossclaim against TSCG. (ECF Nos. 20, 135).^[4] Furthermore, by the time of trial, Defendant Marceron continued to maintain that he was not the employer of the eleven Plaintiffs. Relatedly, he persisted in his counterclaim against Plaintiff Jacinto Garcia Romero, specifically a declaratory judgment that Plaintiff Romero was also an employer as defined under the FLSA, which would both make him a Defendant in the instant action and operate to bar his FLSA, MWHL and MWPCL claims against Defendant Marceron. (ECF Nos. 44. 143).^[5]Finally, Defendant Marceron also maintained an amended crossclaim against Defendant Harvey-Cleary for indemnification and/or contribution. (ECF Nos. 44, 143).

3

The Court presided over a five-day bench trial from May 22, 2023-May 26, 2023. (ECF Nos. 146-151, 158-162). The Court heard the evidence adduced by Plaintiffs and the Defendants, and has reviewed all of the trial exhibits. (ECF Nos. 153-155, 157-162).

The Court ordered post-trial briefing by the parties, which was filed in July 2023. (ECF Nos. 163-166). The Court has analyzed the parties' post-trial briefing.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a), the Court now provides its findings of fact and conclusions of law. In doing so, and to comply with the Rule, the Court “need only make brief, definite, pertinent findings and conclusions upon the contested matters, as there is no need for overelaboration of detail or particularization of facts.” Wooten v. Lightburn, 579 F.Supp.2d 769, 772 (W.D. Va. 2008). Rule 52(a) does not require the Court to make findings on all facts presented, nor is the Court required to make detailed evidentiary findings. Rather, if the findings are sufficient to support the ultimate conclusion of the court, then they are sufficient. Darter v. Greenville Comm. Hotel Corp., 301 F.2d 70, 75 (4th Cir. 1962).^[6]

In issuing its decision, this Court, sitting as a trier of fact at a bench trial, “has the duty to weigh [all] evidence,” determine the credibility of witnesses, and “draw reasonable inferences and deductions from that evidence.” See generally United States v. Bales, 813 F.2d 1289, 1293 (4th Cir.1987); see also 2 C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 374, at 315 (1982).

Upon consideration of all of the evidence in the record, namely: the Plaintiffs' and Defendants' exhibits admitted at trial; the testimony of the witnesses; the inferences to be drawn from all of the evidence; as well as the parties' post-trial briefing, the Court makes the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein.

4

I. FINDINGS OF FACT

A. STIPULATED FACTS

The parties stipulated to the following facts:

1. Harvey-Cleary was the general contractor for the construction of a Gold's Gym fitness facility in Riverdale, MD (“Gold's Gym Project”) during all period relevant to the Plaintiff's claims

2. Harvey-Cleary and TSCG entered into a subcontract (“the subcontract”) under which TSCG was to perform certain drywall installation and acoustic work on the Gold's Gym Project (also “the Project”).

3. Frank Marceron was the sole owner of TSCG during the relevant period.

4. Each of the Plaintiffs generally worked from 5:00 am to 1:30 pm each workday, with a half-hour lunchbreak, as did other laborers on the Project site.

5. Harvey-Cleary provided each of the Plaintiffs with a sticker that had a unique identifying number, which each Plaintiff was required to wear on his/her hard hat.

6. Each of the Plaintiffs was expected to sign his/her name and hard hat number on a Harvey-Cleary Job Safety Analysis form each day.

(Joint Exhibit 1; Plaintiffs' Exhibit 29).

In the remaining factual sections, the Court makes findings of fact based on its review of all of the exhibits introduced at trial, as well as based on the assessment of the trial witnesses' demeanor and credibility.

B. TSCG, FRANK MARCERON AND HARVEY-CLEARY

1. Frank Marceron and TSCG

In 2017, Frank Marceron founded TSCG, which remained in business approximately one

5

year. (Testimony of Frank Marceron, Trial Day 5). TSCG hired all of the Plaintiffs, each of whom worked on the Gold's Gym Project. The Plaintiffs' employment application forms had “TSCG” written on them and were maintained by TSCG, which Marceron knew. (Testimony of Jacinto Garcia Romero, Day 1; Plaintiff's Exs. 4, 7; Harvey-Cleary Ex. 2; Marceron Ex. 19).

Defendant Marceron ultimately approved of all of the staff who worked for TSCG, and he was the one who established Plaintiffs' hourly wage rates and signed their paychecks, including for the Gold's Gym Project. (Testimony of Jacinto Garcia Romero, Antonio Martinez, Jose Torres, and Fabricio Marroquin, Angella Aguilar, Trial Days 1-3; Plaintiffs' Exs. 26A-26K). As sole owner, Mr. Marceron exercised operational control over all aspects of TSCG's business, and employed Bob Perrone to serve as a TSCG Project Manager, who aided in the supervision and management of Plaintiffs' work. (Testimony of Jacinto Garcia Romero; Plaintiffs' Ex. 4; Plaintiffs' Ex. 21). Although he did not visit the Gold's Gym jobsite, Defendant Marceron remained involved in a managerial capacity on the Project between in or about September 2017 until February 2018, including by communicating with Harvey-Cleary about the work performed by the Plaintiffs and about billing/payment issues. (Harvey-Cleary Ex. 4, Marceron Ex. 27, Plaintiffs' Ex. 39; Testimony of Sarah Haislipp, Trial Day 4; Testimony of Joseph LaFonte, Trial Day 4).

Mr. Marceron also communicated with Sara Haislipp, TSCG's bookkeeper, about the timesheets submitted by Mr. Garcia Romero for the Plaintiffs, and he decided whether Plaintiffs were entitled to be paid for their work on the Project. (Testimony of Sarah Haislipp, Trial Day 4). Defendant Marceron also communicated with her about billing Harvey Cleary for worked performed-and labor and materials related to-the Gold's Gym project. (Testimony of Sarah Haislipp, Trial Day 4; Marceron Ex. 22).

6

TSCG occasionally provided tools and ladders for the Plaintiffs to use on the Gold's Gym Project, which Mr. Marceron directed two employees to transport to the jobsite using his truck. (Testimony of Antonio Martinez and Jose Torres, Trial Days 2-3).

2. Harvey-Cleary: Gold's Gym Project

i. The Subcontract

The subcontract between TSCG and Harvey-Cleary for the Gold's Gym project was signed in October 2017. (Plaintiffs' Ex. 8). There were several key terms to the subcontract; the Court lists a few examples. First, TSCG was responsible for furnishing and paying for all “supervision, labor, materials, equipment. . .tools and supplies,” and to perform the scope of work identified in the contract. (Id., ¶¶ 3(a), 6(h)). Second, TSCG was responsible for “enforce[ing] strict discipline and good order among [its] employees,” and was precluded from employing “any unfit person or anyone not stilled in the task assigned him.” If any TSCG employee were, in Harvey-Cleary's opinion, “incompetent, unsuitable, or a hindrance to the progress of [the Project],” Harvey-Cleary had the discretion to require TSCG to dismiss that employee. (Id., ¶3(e)). Third, if Harvey-Cleary requested copies of TSCG's “payroll journal, ledger, or other record showing the day of payment, amount paid, and number of hours paid for the days on which [work] was performed. . .the rate of wage per hour paid, and the identity of all payees,” then TSCG was required to provide such information. (Id., ¶3(g)). Fourth, TSCG was responsible for hiring, managing, and supervising its employee-workers, for “direct[ing] its own forces,” and for ensuring that its work was at...