Bennett v. Unitek Global Servs., LLC
| Decision Date | 09 September 2013 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 10 C 4968 |
| Parties | JAMES BENNETT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITEK GLOBAL SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber
Before the Court are Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment and Defendants' Motion to Strike. For the reasons below, Defendants' motion to strike is granted in part and denied in part and Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment are granted in part. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims and dismisses these claims without prejudice to allow Plaintiffs to re-file in state court if they choose.
Plaintiffs James Bennett ("Bennett"), Jerome Garrison ("Garrison") and Jermaine Litt ("Litt") bring this suit against Defendants DirectSAT and Unitek Global Services, LLC (collectively, the "Defendants") alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law("IMWL"), and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"). The relevant facts are as follows.
DirectSAT ("DirectSAT") employs individuals who install, upgrade, and service DirectTV customers. It began operating in Illinois in 2006. For its installation services, DirectSAT hires subcontracting companies and independent contractors.
Plaintiff James Bennett entered into an agreement with DirectSAT in September 2006 (the "September 2006 Agreement"). The 2006 Agreement provided that Bennett would perform satellite installation services for DirectSAT on behalf of his company, Illinois Wiring, Inc. ("Illinois Wiring") for a one-year period. This Agreement contained an automatic renewal clause that would continue the parties' business relationship unless written notification of cancellation was provided.
Bennett formed Illinois Wiring in 2004 and was the company's sole owner and president. After the September 2006 Agreement with DirectSAT expired, Illinois Wiring remained in business, but discontinued performing services for DirectSAT. Eventually, the company dissolved in 2009.
Shortly thereafter, Bennett formed a different company, Unlimited, LLC ("Unlimited"). Unlimited operated out of the same location and performed essentially the same services as Illinois Wiring.
In April 2009, Bennett entered into a second agreement (the "2009 Agreement") with DirectSAT. The term on this contract was again one year. The other terms of the 2009 Agreement were generally the same as the 2006 Agreement, with the exception being that in 2009, Bennett was performing installation services on behalf of his new company, Unlimited.
After the 2009 Agreement expired, the business relationship between Bennett and DirectSAT ceased. Unlimited continues to perform cable installation services in Illinois today.
In August 2010, Bennett filed a Complaint against DirectSAT and Unitek Global Services, LLC ("Unitek"). In his Complaint, Bennett alleged that Defendants failed to provide overtime compensation and deducted monies from his paychecks without his consent.
In February 2012, Bennett amended his Complaint to add Plaintiffs Jerome Garrison and Jermaine Litt. Garrison and Litt were co-owners of Professional Services, Inc. ("Professional Services") at the time they executed their first Agreement with DirectSAT in November 2006.
Professional Services performed cable, satellite, and alarm installation work. It was formed prior to November 2006 and had contractual agreements with other companies prior to entering into an agreement with DirectSAT. When Garrison and Litt formed Professional Services, they were required to satisfy corporatereporting requirements, pay federal and state taxes, provide their own insurance and purchase their own trucks and tools. They ran the company out of Garrison's residence.
At some point in 2009, Professional Services dissolved. Subsequently, Garrison and Litt formed a new company, Sat1Pro, Inc. ("Sat1Pro"). Garrison and Litt were the co-owners of Sat1Pro and operated the business out of Garrison's home.
On November 7, 2006, Garrison and Litt entered into their first Agreement ("the November 2006 Agreement") with DirectSAT. Like Bennett, Litt and Garrison's Agreement was executed on behalf of their company, Professional Services. The terms of the November 2006 Agreement were virtually identical to the one Bennett executed. It identified Professional Services as an "Independent Contractor" and was for a one-year period with an automatic renewal unless written notification of cancellation was provided. See, Defs.' L.R. 56.1 Statement of Material Facts as to Litt and Garrison, Ex. 5.
On or about January 1, 2009, Garrison and Litt entered into a second Agreement (the "January 2009 Agreement") with DirectSAT on behalf of Professional Services. The January 2009 Agreement was again nearly identical to the other Agreements described above.
On or about April 29, 2009, Garrison and Litt entered into a third Agreement with DirectSAT ("the April 2009 Agreement").This Agreement was on behalf of their new company, Sat1Pro, and contained the same terms as the other agreements described above.
At some point in 2009, DirectSAT terminated the April 2009 Agreement with Sat1Pro. Sat1Pro remains in business today.
Plaintiffs Bennett, Garrison and Litt filed their Second Amended Complaint in February 2012. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs claim to be employees of DirectSAT and allege that DirectSAT and Unitek failed to pay them appropriate wages and overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA, the IMWL, and the IWPCA. Defendants have moved for summary judgment against all Plaintiffs on all counts. They have filed two separate motions - one for Bennett and one for Garrison and Litt.
Summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party "shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and [it] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). A dispute is "genuine" if the evidence would permit a reasonable jury to find for the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute is material if it could affect the outcome of the case. Id. If the moving party satisfies its burden, the non-movant must present facts to show a genuine dispute exists to avoid summary judgment. See, Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). To establish a genuine issue of fact, the non-moving party "must domore than show that there is some metaphysical doubt as the material facts." Sarver v. Experian Info. Sys., 390 F.3d 969, 970 (7th Cir. 2004).
After Plaintiffs filed their response to Defendants' summary judgment motions, Defendants filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' declarations, exhibits, and Local Rule 56.1(b) submissions. See, ECF No. 142. Prior to addressing the merits of Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment, the Court examines briefly the Motion to Strike.
Defendants contend that portions of Plaintiffs' responses to Defendants' Statements of Material Fact should be struck because Plaintiffs failed to abide by Local Rule 56.1. They also ask the Court to strike Plaintiffs' unauthenticated exhibits and contradictory declarations. The Court will address all three objections in turn.
1. Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants'
Local Rule 56.1 Statements of Material Fact
Local Rule 56.1 governs motions for summary judgment. Its purpose is to "make it relatively simple for the court to determine whether there are bona fide issues of fact requiring a trial." Widmar v. Sun Chemical, No. 11-C-1818, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148684 at *1 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 16, 2012). The Rule requiresthe party moving for summary judgment to put forth a statement of "material facts" which consist of "short numbered paragraphs" that include specific references to "affidavits" or "other parts of the record" that support the facts set forth. L.R. 56.1(a).
Pursuant to Rule 56.1, the party opposing summary judgment must give "a concise response" to each of the movant's statements. L.R. 56.1(b). If the opposing party denies a fact as true, the Rule requires the opposing party to provide "specific reference to affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials" that support the denial. Id.
Defendants claim a substantial portion of Plaintiffs' responses to Defendants' Local Rule 56.1 Statements must be struck because Plaintiffs failed to abide by Local Rule 56.1. Specifically, Defendants take issue with the additional facts Plaintiffs added to a number of the Statements.
After reviewing the responses Defendants objected to, the Court finds the argument well-taken. Plaintiffs' response to Defendants' paragraph 67 is a good example. See, Pl.'s Resp. to Def. Bennett's L.R. 56.1 Statements of Fact ¶ 67, ECF No. 130, PageID# 1687-90. This paragraph explains Mr. Bennett's responsibilities as owner of Unlimited. Specifically, Defendants' state Bennett's responsibilities included payroll, picking up equipment, supervising technicians, and maintainingbank accounts. Id. at PageID# 1687. As support, they reference Bennett's deposition testimony. See, id.
In response to this statement, Bennett begins by stating, "[d]isputed in part." Id. He then proceeds to provide a three and half page explanation of his roles and responsibilities. See, id. Explanations of this kind are not appropriate in a response to a Local Rule 56.1 Statement. See, L.R. 56.1(b). Accordingly, the Court strikes this response and deems the fact admitted. See, Malec v. Sanford, 191 F.R.D. 581, 584 (N.D. Ill. 2000) (). While Plaintiffs argue that the response is appropriate because Defendants included four separate facts in Paragraph 67, the Court disagrees. To be clear, Paragraph 67 is three lines long....
To continue reading
Request your trial