Cauvel v. Schwan's Home Serv. Inc
| Decision Date | 10 February 2011 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 6:10-cv-00012 |
| Parties | Richard L. Cauvel, II, Plaintiff, v. Schwan's Home Service, Inc., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia |
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed on January 10, 2011 (docket no. 41), and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on the same day (docket no. 43). The Court has diversity jurisdiction to hear this dispute. I have fully considered the arguments and authorities set forth in the parties' filings, as well as those presented at the January 26, 2011 hearing. For the following reasons, I will grant Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and will deny Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as moot.
I. Background
Plaintiff Richard L. Cauvel, II ("Cauvel") brought suit against Defendant Schwan's Home Service, Inc. ("Home Service") in the Circuit Court for Rockbridge County, Virginia, alleging breach of contract, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment claims, and seeking $104,817 plus interest and costs. Home Service removed the matter to this Court on the basis of federal diversity jurisdiction (docket no. 1).
The following facts are not in dispute. Home Service is an online grocery store that offers food delivery to one's home. Cauvel's allegations arise out of his employment by Home Service, for which Cauvel worked from March 1988 until his termination on April 26, 2008. In 2001, Cauvel signed an employment agreement with Home Service to serve as a Sales Manager (also referred to as a Local General Manager, or LGM), a position he held until he was terminated. As a Sales Manager, Cauvel was responsible for "the sales and distribution of frozen food products within an assigned territory." (Position Description, Ex. 4 to Def's Br. Supp. Mot. Summ. J.) Among other duties, Cauvel was responsible for implementing and maintaining "all governmental and corporate programs and policies" at his location. (tiff's) He was also responsible for ensuring that "a team of Customer Service Managers maintain a system of routes that provide for regular servicing at residential homes or places of business to sell a large variety of frozen food products." (tiff's)
During the course of his employment, there were occasions when Cauvel drove company vehicles, and Cauvel recorded the time he spent driving company vehicles in a company time log. (See Cauvel Dep. 46:22-47:8, July 27, 2010; id. 114:17-25; Time Log, Ex. 8 to Def.'s Br. Supp. Mot. Summ. J.) As a condition of his employment, Cauvel had to "meet the Federal Department of Transportation eligibility requirements, including appropriate driver's license and corresponding medical certification." (Position Description.)
Home Service maintains a "Fleet Safety Policies and Procedures" manual ("Manual"), which contains policies and procedures developed to ensure motor vehicle safety and compliance with federal, state, and local regulations. (Manual at A-l, Ex. 12 to PL's Br. Opp'n.) The Manual "applies to all employees... who operate motor vehicles, other than passenger motor vehicles that are owned and/or operated on behalf of the company." (tiff's) Cauvel received a copy of the Manual and acknowledged in writing that he read and understood the requirements, polices, and procedures expected of him. (Exs. 5-6 to Def.'s Br. Supp. Mot. Summ. J.)
In January 2007, Cauvel received a memorandum from the president of Home Service confirming his participation for the 2007 fiscal year in Home Service's Annual Incentive Plan ("AIP" or "Plan"), a program for rewarding, with a compensation bonus, an employee in Cauvel's position whose sales performance meets certain sales targets. (See Memorandum dated Jan. 18, 2007 and Plan, Ex. 9 to Def.'s Br. Supp. Mot. Summ. J.) Attached to the memorandum was a copy of the "Annual Incentive Plan Administrative Guidelines." (tiff's) Cauvel had participated in the annual sales incentive program since he became a Sales Manager at Home Service, and he had been awarded bonuses in past years. (PL's Br. Opp'n 4; Def.'s Reply 3.)
The 2007 Plan's administrative guidelines state, in pertinent part, as follows:
The [employee] must be in good standing (i.e., in compliance with all applicable laws and company rules, regulations and policies) with the Company through the date payment is made to be eligible to receive an award under the [ ] AIP.
...
Executive management shall have full and final authority to... [designate the amount, method and time of payment;... [conclusively interpret the provisions of the plan and resolve all issues arising from its application; [and] [a]dopt, amend or rescind the plan....
...
The Company retains full and final authority to terminate, change, amend, administer and rescind this Plan at any time with or without notice for any reason.
(Plan at 1, 2, 4.).
After the close of the fiscal year, Home Service performed an internal audit of the financial reports of the company and determined that awards under the Plan "would be paid in full." Cauvel attests that in an effort to earn a bonus under the Plan, he "worked many extra hours that year." (Cauvel Aff. | 1, Jan. 19, 2011.) Based on Cauvel's sales performance in 2007, Home Service computed that he became eligible for a bonus in the amount of $104,817 under the Plan. (Location General Manager Computation for 2007 Bonus, Ex. 11 to Def.'s Br. Supp. Mot. Summ. J.) At the national sales meeting in Las Vegas in January 2008, at which Cauvel was not present, Cauvel's supervisor accepted on Cauvel's behalf an oversized, non-negotiable check in the amount of $104,817. (Cauvel Dep. 96:5-9, 96:18-21, 98:9-13.) Then, at a ceremony in February, Cauvel was presented with an oversized check in the amount of $104,817, which he did not retain. (tiff's 96:9-15, 99:1-6.) These oversized checks did not confer actual payment of the $104,817.
On February 10, 2008, Cauvel was arrested and charged in Virginia with driving while intoxicated ("DWI"), and his driver's license was suspended from February 10 through February 18. (Ex. 12 to Def.'s Br. Supp. Mot. Summ. J.; Cauvel Dep. 81:18-22, 86:16-20.) Cauvel did not report the arrest or the license suspension to his supervisor until he was confronted by his supervisor on February 27. (Cauvel Dep. 83:15-84:21.) As a result, Home Service suspended Cauvel from employment without pay and instructed him that he would be terminated at the end of a sixty-day period if he did not secure an acquittal of the DWI charge. (tiff's 92:15-20.)
On March 15, 2008, during Cauvel's sixty-day suspension period from employment, Home Service distributed the Plan award payments to qualifying employees. (Cardoni Dep. 18:17-19, Nov. 16, 2010.) Cauvel was informed by his supervisor that he would not receive the award payment because he was not in good standing with the company. (Cauvel Dep. 95:1296:3.) Upon the expiration of the sixty-day suspension period, Cauvel was terminated. (tiff's 105:8-19.) Cauvel was later convicted of DWI. (tiff's 86:24-25; Ex. 27 to PL's Br. Opp'n.)
Prior to bringing this suit, Cauvel filed a voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Virginia. Cauvel failed to list his potential claim against Home Service for the failure to pay the $104,817 as an asset on his bankruptcy petition, in violation of 11 U.S.C. § 521.
Cauvel disclosed the potential claim to his attorney, James O. Clough, before the bankruptcy petition was filed, but his attorney determined that he did not need to list the potential claim. (Cauvel Aff. 5, 8, Jan. 6, 2011; Clough Aff. 2-6, Jan. 7, 2011.) According to Clough's affidavit, Clough did not list the claim because "Cauvel did not intend, at that time, to file a lawsuit against Schwan's [Home Service]" and because Clough "did not feel that the potential claim against Schwan's [Home Service] had sufficient merit to include it as an asset." (Clough Aff. If 6.) Clough asserts that he did not seek to knowingly withhold relevant information, and any omission was "inadvertent." (tiff's If 9.) When Clough learned that Cauvel filed the instant suit, the bankruptcy proceeding was reopened, and the claim against Home Service was disclosed to the bankruptcy court. (See Cauvel Aff, Jan. 6, 2011.) The bankruptcy court subsequently entered an order directing that Cauvel pay over to the bankruptcy trustee fifteen percent of any amount recovered from Home Service in excess of Cauvel's attorney fees and costs. (Ex. 11 to PL's Br. Opp'n.)
In this litigation, Home Service asserts the affirmative defense of judicial estoppel. Cauvel's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment requests the Court to strike the defense of judicial estoppel. Home Service's Motion for Summary Judgment requests judgment in its favor on each of the claims asserted against it.
ii. Applicable Law
The Court has diversity jurisdiction over the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441. Virginia law governs the claims.
Summary judgment is appropriate if "the 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). In order to preclude summary judgment, the dispute about a material fact must be "'genuine, ' that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., Ml U.S. 242, 248 (1986); see also JKC Holding Co. v. Wash. Sports Ventures, Inc., 264 F.3d 459, 465 (4th Cir. 2001). However, if the evidence of a genuine issue of material fact "is merely colorable or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted." Anderson, All U.S. at 250. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial