Balboa v. Haw. Care & Cleaning, Inc.

• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii
• Writing for the Court: ALAN C. KAY, Senior District Judge.
• Citation: Balboa v. Haw. Care & Cleaning, Inc., 105 F.Supp.3d 1165 (D. Haw. 2015)
• Decision Date: 28 April 2015
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 14–00009 ACK–RLP.
• Parties: Roosebelt BALBOA; Bernaldo Civ. No. Baldonado; Rolando Baldonaldo; Flordelito Basol; Francisco Boctot, Jr.; Gemma Boctot; Danny Bumanglag; Anselma Cabico; Rogelio Cantorna; Amelia Coma; Luzviminda Cuanang; Edwin De Los Santos; Reymunda Jaramillo; Fu Lee; Mina Macabeo; Mauro Manzano; Jasmine Marbou; Jonas Menor; Juve Mijares; Noel Mijares; Baltazar Navor; Ronaldo Ojeda; Ronaldo Ongcoy; Arnel Pajas; Gloria Palma; Artemia Patague; Andres Ramento; Christina Ramirez; Asis Raquinio; Jayson Raquino; Mojeeb Rinton; Federico Sahagun; Melanie (Rivera) Salvador; Ruel Salvador; Generosa Tuliao, Plaintiffs, v. HAWAII CARE AND CLEANING, INC., Defendant.

105 F.Supp.3d 1165

Roosebelt BALBOA; Bernaldo Civ. No. Baldonado; Rolando Baldonaldo; Flordelito Basol; Francisco Boctot, Jr.; Gemma Boctot; Danny Bumanglag; Anselma Cabico; Rogelio Cantorna; Amelia Coma; Luzviminda Cuanang; Edwin De Los Santos; Reymunda Jaramillo; Fu Lee; Mina Macabeo; Mauro Manzano; Jasmine Marbou; Jonas Menor; Juve Mijares; Noel Mijares; Baltazar Navor; Ronaldo Ojeda; Ronaldo Ongcoy; Arnel Pajas; Gloria Palma; Artemia Patague; Andres Ramento; Christina Ramirez; Asis Raquinio; Jayson Raquino; Mojeeb Rinton; Federico Sahagun; Melanie (Rivera) Salvador; Ruel Salvador; Generosa Tuliao, Plaintiffs,

v.HAWAII CARE AND CLEANING, INC., Defendant.

Civ. No. 14–00009 ACK–RLP.

United States District Court, D. Hawai‘i.

Signed April 28, 2015.

Ryan K. Harimoto, The Law Office of Ryan K. Harimoto, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff.

John S. Mackey, Robert S. Katz, Torkildson, Katz, Fonseca, Jaffe, Moore & Hetherington, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ALAN C. KAY, Senior District Judge.

For the following reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant Hawaii Care and Cleaning, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND¹

Defendant Hawaii Care and Cleaning, Inc. (“HCC”) contracted with Hilton Hotels Corporation, dba Hilton Hawaiian Village (“Hilton”) to perform certain cleaning services at Hilton beginning in June of 2004. (Def.'s CSF ¶ 1; Pl.'s CSF ¶ 1.) Plaintiffs were employees of HCC during the relevant time period and were apparently assigned by HCC to work at Hilton, performing the services set forth in the services agreements between Hilton and HCC.

Specifically, HCC entered into three written agreements with Hilton beginning in June 2004 (collectively referred to as the “Services Agreements”). The agreements are: (1) a Public Area & Window Cleaning Contract effective June 2004 to May 2007, (Def.'s CSF, Ex. A); (2) a Kitchen Night Cleaning Services Agreement effective June 2004 to May 2007, (Id.,Ex. B); and (3) a Services Agreement effective August 2009 to March 31, 2011, (Id.,Ex. D.) After the 2009 Services Agreement expired, HCC and Hilton did not sign another written contract until July of 2013; however, during the time between written contracts, the parties operated on a month-to-month basis under the terms of the 2009 Agreement until the new contract was signed. (Pl.'s CSF, Ex. 15 (Twyman Depo.) at 67.)

The Public Area & Window Cleaning Contract and the Kitchen Night Cleaning Services Agreement both contain clauses stating: “[t]his Agreement is by and between Hilton and Contractor and there are no other third party beneficiaries to this Agreement.” (Def.'s CSF, Ex. A at § 13; Id.,Ex. B at § 13.) Similarly, the August 2009 Services Agreement has a clause stating: “[t]his Agreement is by and between Hotel and Contractor and, other than as specifically set forth in Section F, there are no other third party beneficiaries to this Agreement.” (Id.,Ex. D at § 14.) Section F, in turn, states that Hilton affiliates are third party beneficiaries of the agreement. (Id.§§ F, 15.)

Hilton has a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) with Unite Here Local 5 (“Local 5”), pursuant to which Hilton must require all of its contractors, including HCC, to pay employees who perform bargaining unit work at least the rates specified in the Hilton CBA. (Compl. ¶¶ 42–43; Mot. at 1.) Plaintiffs admit that they were not bargaining unit members of Local 5 at any relevant time, and were not covered by the CBA between Hilton and Local 5. (Pl.'s CSF ¶ 7.)

At some point in 2006, Local 5 initiated a grievance with Hilton under the CBA, presumably involving wages paid to subcontractors, including HCC. To resolve the grievance, HCC was asked to execute an addendum specifically providing that HCC would adhere to the rates specified in the Hilton CBA for employees performing bargaining unit work, and further providing that HCC would indemnify Hilton should future grievances arise over HCC's failure to adhere to the addendum. (Def.'s CSF, Allen Decl. ¶ 7.)

Thus, on December 4, 2006, Hilton and HCC executed an Addendum Agreement (the “2006 Addendum”) to the Public Area & Window Cleaning Contract to provide that HCC comply with the subcontracting clause of CBA between Hilton and Local 5. The 2006 Addendum states, inter alia,that “[i]t is the Contractor's responsibility to follow all requirements of Sections 6.3B, 6.3D and 6.3E (“Subcontracting Clause”) of the collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) (portions of which are currently in a memorandum of agreement) between Local 5 of Unite/HERE! and Owner as to all work to be performed under the Services Agreement.” (Def.'s CSF, Ex. C at ¶ 2.) It also states that the standard wage schedule (taken from the CBA) will be applicable to HCC until the expiration of the Agreement on May 31, 2007. (Id.¶ 1.) Pursuant to the 2006 Addendum, HCC paid its employees according to the minimum union rate schedule on two occasions: in November of 2006 and in May of 2007. (Pl.'s CSF, Ex. 1 (Allen Depo.) at 24.) HCC was compensated for the November 2006 wage increase through a price increase from Hilton, but William Allen, the President of HCC, testified that he was not sure if HCC was so compensated for the May 2007 wage increase. (Id.at 30.) Mr. Allen testified that, thereafter, Hilton did not further compensate HCC for any union wage rate increases, and, thus, HCC did not give any further wage increases to its employees based on the union wage rates between 2007 and 2013. (Id.at 26–28, 32, 51.) The 2006 Addendum contained no language altering or addressing the third party beneficiary language in the original contract.

Plaintiffs assert in the instant suit that HCC failed to pay them the bargaining unit wage rates specified in the Hilton CBA, as they allege HCC was required to do by the 2006 Addendum and 2009 Services Agreement. (See generallyCompl.) Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that HCC failed to pay the required wage rates during the time period from December 7, 2007 to June 30, 2013.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On December 6, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii, alleging three causes of action against Defendant Hawaii Care and Cleaning and Doe Defendants 1–50. (Doc. No. 1, Ex. A.) On January 8, 2014, HCC timely removed the action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1446, 1331, 1367, and 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). (Doc. No. 1.)

The Complaint asserts three causes of action: (1) a third party beneficiary breach of contract claim for breach of the Services Agreements between the Hilton and HCC; (2) a statutory claim for withheld wages that Plaintiffs claim were owing under the Services Agreements; and (3) a claim for unjust enrichment. (Id.,Ex. A.) Plaintiffs seek special, general, double, trebel, punitive, and exemplary damages, as well as back pay, front pay, prejudgment interest, and lost employment benefits. (Id.at 10.)

On August 14, 2014, HCC filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment, along with a concise statement of facts and supporting exhibits. (Doc. Nos. 17 & 18.) On April 2, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their memorandum in opposition to the motion, supported by a concise statement of facts and a number of exhibits. (Doc. Nos. 34 & 35.) HCC filed its reply on April 9, 2015. (Doc. No. 36.) A hearing on the motion was held on April 23, 2015.²

STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate when a “movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The central issue is “whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,477 U.S. 242, 251–52, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). If that burden has been met, the nonmoving party must then come forward and establish the specific material facts in dispute to survive summary judgment. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,475 U.S. 574, 588, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). The Court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Id.at 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348.

In supporting a factual position, a party must “cit[e] to particular parts of materials in the record ... or show[ ] that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1). The nonmoving party “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita,475 U.S. at 585, 106 S.Ct. 1348. “[T]he requirement is that there be no genuineissue of material fact.... Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.”

Anderson,477 U.S. at 247–48, 106 S.Ct. 2505(emphasis in original). Also, “[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the non-moving party's position is not sufficient[ ]” to defeat summary judgment. Triton Energy Corp. v. Square D Co.,68 F.3d 1216, 1221 (9th Cir.1995). Likewise, the nonmoving party “cannot defeat summary judgment with allegations in the complaint, or with unsupported conjecture or conclusory statements.” Hernandez v. Spacelabs Med. Inc.,343 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir.2003).

DISCUSSION

In the instant motion, HCC seeks summary judgment as to all of the claims in the Complaint. The Court will address the viability of each claim in turn.

I. Breach of Contract

As their first cause of action, Plaintiffs bring a breach of contract claim, asserting that they are third party beneficiaries of the Services Agreements between HCC and Hilton. (Compl. ¶¶ 46–50.) Speci...