Broussard-Wadkins v. Maples, Civil Action No. CV–09–S–1563–NE.
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama |
| Writing for the Court | C. LYNWOOD SMITH |
| Citation | 895 F.Supp.2d 1159 |
| Parties | Audrey BROUSSARD–WADKINS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Wade MAPLES, et al., Defendants. |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. CV–09–S–1563–NE. |
| Decision Date | 28 September 2012 |
895 F.Supp.2d 1159
Audrey BROUSSARD–WADKINS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Wade MAPLES, et al., Defendants.
Civil Action No. CV–09–S–1563–NE.
United States District Court,
N.D. Alabama,
Northeastern Division.
Sept. 28, 2012.
[895 F.Supp.2d 1162]
Howard W. Foster, Matthew A. Galin, Foster, PC, Chicago, IL, Lance V. Oliver, Rebecca Merritt Deupree, Motley Rice LLC, Mt. Pleasant, SC, W.H. Narwold, Motley Rice LLC, Hartford, CT, Lance Harrison Swanner, The Cochran Firm PC, Dothan, AL, Raymond P. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Fitzpatrick & Brown LLP, Robert J. Camp, The Cochran Firm, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiffs.
Robert Carl Cannon, Constangy Brooks & Smith, Atlanta, GA, Gerald R. Paulk, Gerald R. Paulk PC, Scottsboro, AL, for Defendants.
C. LYNWOOD SMITH, JR., District Judge.
+-------------------+
¦Table of Contents ¦
+-------------------¦
¦ ¦
+-------------------+
+---------------------------------------------------+
¦I. ¦Overview of Civil Remedies Under Rico ¦1164¦
+---+------------------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+---+------------------------------------------+----¦
¦II.¦Motion to Strike ¦1165¦
+---------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦A.¦Legal Standard ¦1165¦
+---+--+-----------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦B.¦Expert Report of Edward Mallon ¦1166¦
+-----------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦1.¦Mallon's methods ¦1167 ¦
+---+--+--+--------------------------------------+-----¦
¦ ¦ ¦2.¦Mallon's opinions ¦1168 ¦
+---+--+--+--------------------------------------+-----¦
¦ ¦ ¦3.¦The admissibility of Mallon's opinions¦1169 ¦
+------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦a.¦Speculation ¦1169¦
+---+---+--+--+----------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦b.¦Specific opinions ¦1171¦
+-----------------------------------------------------+
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦i. ¦Opinion regarding unauthorized workers ¦1171 ¦
+----+---+---+---+------+-------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ii. ¦Opinion regarding attestation on I–9 Forms ¦1173 ¦
+----+---+---+---+------+-------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦iii. ¦Opinion regarding knowingly hiring ¦1173 ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦illegalimmigrants ¦ ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦c.¦Conclusions ¦1174¦
+-----------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦C.¦Expert Report of Dr. George Borjas ¦1174¦
+-----------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦1.¦Dr. Borjas's qualifications ¦1174¦
+---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦2.¦Methods used by Dr. Borjas ¦1174¦
+----------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦a. ¦Autonomy of Maples Industries in setting wages ¦1175 ¦
+----+----+---+---+--------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦b. ¦Impact of labor supply on the wage scale of ¦1177 ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦MaplesIndustries. ¦ ¦
+----+----+---+---+--------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦c. ¦Conclusions and calculation of damages ¦1179 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦3.¦Reliability and admissibility ¦1179¦
+----------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦a.¦Incompleteness ¦1180¦
+---+---+--+--+----------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦b.¦Reliability ¦1180¦
+-----------------------------------------------------+
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦i. ¦Market power analysis ¦1180 ¦
+----+---+---+---+------+-------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ii. ¦Hispanic school enrollment ¦1181 ¦
+----+---+---+---+------+-------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦iii. ¦Alternative causes and conflict with Dr. ¦1182 ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Borhas's academic publications ¦ ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+----+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦III.¦Motion for Summary Judgment ¦1184 ¦
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦A.¦Relevant Facts ¦1185¦
+-----------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦1.¦Maples Industries and defendants ¦1185 ¦
+----+---+--+---------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦2.¦Plaintiffs and other hourly employees ¦1186 ¦
+----+---+--+---------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦3.¦Hiring hourly-wage employees ¦1187 ¦
+----+---+--+---------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦4.¦Fraudulent documents and unauthorized workers¦1190 ¦
+----+---+--+---------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦5.¦Wages ¦1191 ¦
+----+---+--+---------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦6.¦Immigration enforcement at Maples Industries ¦1192 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦B.¦Discussion ¦1193¦
+-----------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦1.¦The INA “hiring provision” ¦1193¦
+----------------------------------------------------+
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦a. ¦Plaintiffs' attack on Mateo's credibility¦1195 ¦
+----+---+--+---+-----------------------------------------+-----¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦b. ¦Plaintiffs' “common sense” arguments ¦1196 ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦2.¦The “attestation provision” ¦1199¦
+----------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦a.¦Compliance with the verification provision¦1200 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦i. ¦Statutory interpretation ¦1200 ¦
+----+---+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ii. ¦Application of the statute to the facts in ¦1201 ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the record ¦ ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦b. ¦Compliance with the attestation provision¦1204 ¦
+----+---+--+---+-----------------------------------------+-----¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦c. ¦Damages and proximate cause ¦1205 ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
+---------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+---+------------------------------------------+----¦
¦IV.¦Conclusion and Orders ¦1206¦
+---------------------------------------------------+
[895 F.Supp.2d 1163]
Plaintiffs, Audrey Broussard–Wadkins and Darlene Harbin, were hourly-wage employees of Maples Industries, Inc. They commenced this putative class action against the owners and officers of that company: i.e., Wade Maples, John Maples, Howard Moore, and Gina Mateo.1 Plaintiffs
[895 F.Supp.2d 1164]
allege that defendants conspired to depress the wages of hourly employees of Maples Industries by knowingly hiring immigrants who had been brought into the United States illegally, and by falsely attesting to the validity of employment documents in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. (“RICO”). 2 Plaintiffs brought the action on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons: i.e., current and former hourly-wage employees of Maples Industries who are legally authorized to work in the United States. 3 This opinion addresses three motions: defendants' motion for summary judgment; 4 defendants' motion to exclude the reports of plaintiffs' expert witnesses, Edward Mallon and Dr. George J. Borjas; 5 and plaintiffs' motion for class certification.6
In addition to the criminal sanctions provided by RICO, see18 U.S.C. § 1963(a),7 Congress declared that “[a]ny person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains....” 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). Section 1962 makes it illegal to participate in a RICO “enterprise” that engages in a “pattern of racketeering activities,” or to “conspire” to do so. 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)- (d); see also Beck v. Prupis, 529 U.S. 494, 506, 120 S.Ct. 1608, 146 L.Ed.2d 561 (2000) (stating that, to prove a violation of the conspiracy provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), a plaintiff must show that the defendants (1) knowingly and willfully joined a conspiracy (2) with the purpose of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)).
To establish the requisite “pattern of racketeering activity,” a plaintiff must demonstrate the “commi[ssion] of at least two distinct but related predicate acts.” Edwards v. Prime, Inc., 602 F.3d 1276, 1292 (11th Cir.2010) (alteration and emphasis supplied) (quoting Williams v. Mohawk Industries, Inc., 465 F.3d 1277, 1282 (11th Cir.2006)). Although the minimum number of predicate acts necessary to establish a “pattern” is two, the mere existence of two acts does not automatically satisfy the pattern...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., Case No.: 2:13–CV–624–VEH
...to ensure they meet the standards for admissibility under Rule 702." Id. (internal quotation omitted).Broussard–Wadkins v. Maples , 895 F.Supp.2d 1159, 1165 (N.D. Ala. 2012), aff'd sub nom. Broussard v. Maples , 535 Fed.Appx. 825 (11th Cir. 2013).The burden under Rule 702 rests squarely wit......
-
Jones v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., Case No.: 2:13-CV-624-VEH
...ensure they meet the standards for admissibility under Rule 702." Id. (internal quotationPage 5 omitted).Broussard-Wadkins v. Maples, 895 F. Supp. 2d 1159, 1165 (N.D. Ala. 2012), aff'd sub nom. Broussard v. Maples, 535 F. App'x 825 (11th Cir. 2013). The burden under Rule 702 rests squarely ......
-
Patel v. City of Madison, Case No.: 5:15-CV-0253-VEH
...to ensure they meet the standards for admissibility under Rule 702." Id. (internal quotation omitted).Broussard-Wadkins v. Maples, 895 F. Supp. 2d 1159, 1165 (N.D. Ala. 2012), aff'dPage 5 sub nom. Broussard v. Maples, 535 F. App'x 825 (11th Cir. 2013). The burden under Rule 702 rests square......
-
Jones v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., Case No.: 2:13–CV–624–VEH
...ensure they meet the standards for admissibility under Rule 702." Id. (internal quotation omitted).Broussard–Wadkins v. Maples , 895 F.Supp.2d 1159, 1165 (N.D. Ala. 2012), aff'd sub nom. Broussard v. Maples , 535 Fed.Appx. 825 (11th Cir. 2013).The burden under Rule 702 rests squarely w......
-
Jones v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., Case No.: 2:13-CV-624-VEH
...they meet the standards for admissibility under Rule 702." Id. (internal quotationPage 5 omitted).Broussard-Wadkins v. Maples, 895 F. Supp. 2d 1159, 1165 (N.D. Ala. 2012), aff'd sub nom. Broussard v. Maples, 535 F. App'x 825 (11th Cir. 2013). The burden under Rule 702 rests squarely wi......
-
Patel v. City of Madison, Case No.: 5:15-CV-0253-VEH
...ensure they meet the standards for admissibility under Rule 702." Id. (internal quotation omitted).Broussard-Wadkins v. Maples, 895 F. Supp. 2d 1159, 1165 (N.D. Ala. 2012), aff'dPage 5 sub nom. Broussard v. Maples, 535 F. App'x 825 (11th Cir. 2013). The burden under Rule 702 rests squa......