Cates v. Mosher Enters., Inc.
Decision Date | 31 May 2017 |
Docket Number | NO. A-1-CA-34867.,A-1-CA-34867. |
Citation | 403 P.3d 687 |
Parties | William Shawn CATES and Bobby Cheresposy, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MOSHER ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant-Appellee/Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Flintco West, Inc., Third-Party Defendant. |
Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
Youtz & Valdez, P.C., Shane C. Youtz, Stephen Curtice, James A. Montalbano, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellants.
Bingham, Hurst & Apodaca, P.C., Wayne E. Bingham, Albuquerque, NM for Appellee.
{1}PlaintiffsWilliam Shawn Cates and Bobby Cheresposy, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, appeal, contending that the district court erred in determining that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain their private action under the Public Works Minimum Wage Act (the Act), NMSA 1978, §§ 13-4-10 to -17 (1937, as amended through 2011).Plaintiffs sought to recover from DefendantMosher Enterprises, Inc. wages for 2009 work that they allege were incorrectly based on the 2008 prevailing wage determined by the Department of Workforce Solutions(the Department).The district court determined that the Act did not confer a private right of action and dismissed Plaintiffs' action for lack of jurisdiction, without prejudice, so that Plaintiffs could pursue their administrative remedies.We hold that the Legislature intended to create a private right of action under the Act.
{2}Plaintiffs sued, alleging that they and others similarly situated were not compensated the appropriate wage rate for all hours worked on a renovation project for the University of New Mexico.A class was certified, and each party filed a motion for summary judgment as to liability.During the hearing on the parties' motions for summary judgment, the district court raised sua sponte the question of whether the Act provided for a private right of action.Plaintiffs argued that "the intent of the [L]egislature was to make [a] provision for a private right of action."Plaintiffs referenced a ruling from a different district court judge determining that there was a private right of action under the Act and represented that "[i]t is one of those legal issues ... that parties to these cases don't litigate anymore."Plaintiffs explained that it was "generally accepted that there is a private right of action."
{3} Following the hearing, the district court issued a letter to counsel expressing concern about whether the Act permits a private action for damages without first exhausting administrative remedies.And the court invited supplemental briefing on the question.After supplemental briefing, the court determined that, unlike the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act, the Act does not confer a private right of action.The court reasoned that the " ](Citations omitted.)The court dismissed the case without prejudice to allow Plaintiffs the opportunity to pursue their administrative remedies before bringing the case before the district court.This appeal followed.
{4} At the heart of the controversy are statutory provisions that, with apologies for the length of the quoted material, we fully set out here.Section 13-4-14 reads:
(Citation omitted.)We note Plaintiffs' care to highlight Subsections (A) and (B) of Section 13-4-14 are comparable to sections of the federal Davis-Bacon Act (Davis-Bacon), 40 U.S.C. § 3144(2013), which read as follows:
Our Supreme Court has similarly noted the parallels between Subsections (A) and (B) of the Act and the Davis-Bacon legislation.SeeMem'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Tatsch Constr., Inc. , 2000-NMSC-030, ¶ 26, 129 N.M. 677, 12 P.3d 431.Subsections (C) and (D) of the Act, however, have no Davis-Bacon counterpart.Federal cases split on whether a private right of action exists under Davis-Bacon, with the majority holding against a private right of action.CompareOperating Eng'rs Health & Welfare Tr. Fund v. JWJ Contracting Co. , 135 F.3d 671, 676(9th Cir.1998)( ), with McDaniel v. Univ. of Chicago , 548 F.2d 689, 695(7th Cir.1977)().
{5} On appeal, Plaintiffs argue that: (1)the Act, unlike Davis-Bacon, "clearly contemplates" a private right of action, as evidenced by the fact that the Act includes language making violators liable to employees and allowing employees to recover attorney fees; (2) employees are not required to exhaust administrative remedies prior to pursuing a private right of action; and (3)the district court erred in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear this case.Because we hold that there is a private right of action that is separate and distinct from any administrative remedies in the Act, we need not and do not address Plaintiffs' second and third arguments regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies and jurisdiction, which would only be relevant if Plaintiffs' access to the district court were somehow contingent on an administrative process.
{6}...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Velasquez v. Regents of N. N.M. Coll.
...challenge to the verdict requires us to interpret the WPA, our review is de novo. See Cates v. Mosher Enters., Inc. , 2017-NMCA-063, ¶ 14, 403 P.3d 687 ("We review interpretation of statutory provisions de novo.").A. Summary of Facts{9} Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Pl......
-
Picacho Hills Dev. Co. v. Coll (In re Picacho Hills Util. Co.)
...by the first three factors set forth in Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 78 (1975). See Cates v. Mosher Enterprises, Inc., 2017-NMCA-063, ¶ 7, 403 P.3d 687, 690 (citing Yedidag v. Roswell Clinic Corp., 2015-NMSC-012, ¶ 31, 346 P.3d 1136, 1146). Those factors are:(1) Was the statute enacted for the......
-
Cisneros v. EP Wrap-It Insulation, LLC
...under the PWMWA without first pursuing administrative remedies through the Workforce Solutions Department. Cates v. Mosher Enters, Inc., 403 P.3d 687, 694 (N.M. Ct. App. 2017). In Cates, the Court found that "the plain language of Section 13-4-14(C) and (D) evidences legislative intent to c......
-
Coll v. Picacho Hills Dev. Co. (In re Picacho Hills Util. Co.)
...and (3) Would a private remedy either frustrate or assist the underlying purpose of the legislative scheme? Cates v. Mosher Enterprises, Inc., 403 P.3d 687, 690 (N.M. App. 2017) (citing Cort v. Ash , 422 U.S. 66, 95 S.Ct. 2080, 45 L.Ed.2d 26 (1975) ).Here, we have a state statute that is si......