Commissioner of Labor v. CJM Services, Inc.
Decision Date | 23 March 2004 |
Docket Number | (SC 16880). |
Citation | 842 A.2d 1124,268 Conn. 283 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | COMMISSIONER OF LABOR v. C.J.M. SERVICES, INC., ET AL. |
Sullivan, C. J., and Borden, Katz, Palmer and Vertefeuille, Js.
Steven B. Kaplan, with whom, on the brief, was Paul R. Fitzgerald, for the appellants (named defendant et al.).
Glenn A. Woods, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, and Judith A. Brown, assistant attorney general, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Charles D. Ray and Timothy S. Fisher filed a brief for the Connecticut Construction Industries Association, Inc., as amicus curiae.
This appeal arises from an action by the plaintiff, the commissioner of labor (commissioner), against the defendants C.J.M. Services, Inc. (general contractor), and Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania (ICSP), the general contractor's surety on the bond for a public works project. The commissioner brought an action against the defendants on behalf of the employees of a subcontractor, Big Bell Development Corporation (subcontractor), in order to recover the employees' unpaid prevailing and overtime wages.1 The trial court granted the defendants' motions to strike all counts of the commissioner's amended and second amended complaints. The Appellate Court reversed the trial court's judgment in part and affirmed it in part. Commissioner of Labor v. C.J.M. Services, Inc., 73 Conn. App. 39, 66, 806 A.2d 1105 (2002). We reverse the Appellate Court's judgment in part and affirm it in part.
The opinion of the Appellate Court sets forth the following procedural history. 5 Id., 41-43.
The commissioner then appealed to the Appellate Court, claiming that Id., 44-45.
The Appellate Court concluded that the commissioner had authority under § 31-72 to bring any legal action necessary to recover the lost wages on behalf of the subcontractor's employees, including an action against the general contractor and its surety on the payment bond pursuant to General Statutes §§ 49-416 and 49-42.7 Id., 56. With respect to the first count of the amended complaint and the first count of the second amended complaint, respectively, the Appellate Court concluded that: (1) the surety could be held liable for the unpaid wages on the payment bond; id., 58; and (2) the general contractor could be held liable for the unpaid wages on the payment bond. Id., 61. With respect to the second count of the amended complaint, the Appellate Court concluded that the prevailing wage statute, § 31-53, does not authorize the commissioner to bring an action seeking the recovery of unpaid wages and, therefore, that the second count was legally insufficient to withstand the defendants' motion to strike. Id., 61-64. With respect to the third count of the amended complaint, which alleged that the general contractor had breached the public works contract, the Appellate Court concluded that the commissioner had pleaded insufficient facts to withstand the defendants' motion to strike. Id., 64. Finally, the Appellate Court concluded that it need not address the commissioner's claim for additional relief in the form of an affirmative injunction to enforce the state wage laws as the court already had found the first count legally sufficient. Id., 65.
We granted the defendants' petition for certification limited to the following issues: (1) "Did the Appellate Court properly determine that the [commissioner] has statutory authority under General Statutes § 31-72 to bring suit for unpaid wages on behalf of a subcontractor's employees against a general contractor and its bonding company pursuant to General Statutes §§ 49-41 and 49-42?" and (2) "Did the Appellate Court properly determine that the [commissioner] has statutory authority for imposing liability on the defendant surety under a payment bond where it is argued that the general contractor is not the employer of the subcontractor's employees?" Commissioner of Labor v. C.J.M. Services, Inc., 262 Conn. 921, 812 A.2d 862 (2002). The commissioner presents one alternate ground for affirmance and two adverse rulings for our consideration pursuant to Practice Book § 84-11.8 We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court with respect to both certified questions; accordingly, we do not reach the alternate ground for affirmance. We reverse the first adverse ruling and affirm the second.
Our examination of the record and briefs and our consideration of the arguments of the parties persuades us that the judgment of the Appellate Court concerning both certified questions should be affirmed. The issues were resolved properly in the Appellate Court's concise and well reasoned opinion. Commissioner of Labor v. C.J.M. Services, Inc., supra, 73 Conn. App. 39. Because that opinion fully addresses all arguments raised with respect to those issues in this appeal,9 we adopt it as a proper statement of the applicable law concerning those issues. It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained therein. See Davis v. Freedom of Information Commission, 259 Conn. 45, 55-56, 787 A.2d 530 (2002). We, therefore, do not reach the commissioner's alternate ground for affirmance that General Statutes § 31-2 (d) provides the commissioner with authority to seek injunctive relief against a general contractor and its surety to recover wages due to a subcontractor's employees.
We next consider the first adverse ruling made by the trial court and affirmed by the Appellate Court, review of which the commissioner seeks pursuant to Practice Book § 84-11. Specifically, the commissioner claims that the trial court and the Appellate Court improperly concluded that the commissioner's third count was pleaded insufficiently to withstand a motion to strike. We agree with the commissioner.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Noah B., No. CP00-013544-A (CT 2/16/2005)
... ... Father's visitation—to be supervised. Tribe will be providing services to father. Tribe and father will arrange visitation for baby with father ... That the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is hereby appointed the ... that a trial court is bound by Supreme Court precedent; Jolly, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 237 Conn. 184, 195, 676 A.2d 831 (1996); it ... ...
-
Ribeiro v. Fasano, Ippolito & Lee, P.C.
...in a remedial statute must be resolved in favor of the persons whom the statute is intended to protect”), rev'd in part, 268 Conn. 283, 842 A.2d 1124 (2004). Furthermore, “in interpreting the language of § 52–72, we do not write on a clean slate, but are bound by ... previous judicial inter......
-
Grim v. E. Elec., LLC
...& Sons, Inc., 444 F.Supp.2d 1100 (S.D.Cal.2006) (pursuing claims for prevailing wage and unpaid wages); Commissioner of Labor v. C.J.M. Servs., Inc., 268 Conn. 283, 842 A.2d 1124 (2004) (pursuing claims for prevailing wages and overtime wages). See also Stampco Constr. Co., Inc. v. Guffey, ......
-
In re Felicia S., No. CP01-011139-A (CT 12/29/2004)
... ... who had knowledge of discrete substance abuse treatment services made available to the respondent mother; a licensed clinical social worker ... and Shania S ... That the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is hereby appointed the ... ...