Murillo v. Coryell Cnty. Tradesmen, LLC
| Decision Date | 23 June 2017 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-3641 SECTION: "G"(1) |
| Parties | NANCY MURILLO, et al. v. CORYELL COUNTY TRADESMEN, LLC, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
In this litigation, Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants (hereinafter, "Plaintiffs"), approximately 160 individuals hired to work on a construction and renovation project located at 225 Baronne Street in New Orleans, Louisiana, allege that Defendants did not pay overtime wages or minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").1 Defendants and Counterclaimants Roy Anderson Corporation ("Roy Anderson") and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America ("Travelers") have asserted a counterclaim against Plaintiffs pursuant to Louisiana Revised Statute § 9:4833, in which they argue that Plaintiffs "improperly" filed laborers' liens and refused to cancel them after Roy Anderson and Travelers provided a written request to do so.2 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' "Motion to Dismiss Roy Anderson Corp's and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America's Counterclaim."3 Having considered the motion, the memoranda in support and in opposition, and the applicable law, the Court will deny the motion.
This lawsuit arises from the renovation of a luxury hotel and apartment building in downtown New Orleans named "The Strand" at 225 Baronne Street ("the Project").4 Plaintiffs allege that the mostly migrant workers who performed the renovation work were not paid minimum wages or overtime wages while working "grueling" 70-hour workweeks.5 Plaintiffs further contend that their recorded hours were often "adjusted" to reflect shorter work periods so that Defendants Roy Anderson, Ronald Franks, Coryell County Tradesmen ("CCT"), CC Labor, LLC ("CC Labor"), Paul Isaacks, Brandon Isaacks, and Brent Isaacks could pay them less.6
Defendants CCT and CC Labor are alleged to be two family-run construction companies owned by Defendants Paul Isaacks, Brandon Isaacks, and Brent Isaacks.7 Defendant Roy Anderson is alleged to be one of the general contractors that employed Plaintiffs, and Ronald Franks and CCT were two of the subcontractors on the Project.8 Defendant Travelers is alleged to have contracted to pay the obligations of Roy Anderson with respect to the work done on the construction project at issue in this case.9
Plaintiffs Nancy Murillo, Evelyn Mejia, Ambrocio Benito Castro, and Mechlor Acevedo filed a complaint on August 19, 2015, against Defendants CCT, CC Labor, Brandon Isaacks, Brent Isaacks, and Paul Isaacks.10 From November 12, 2015, to November 17, 2015, Plaintiffs filed 146 individual laborers' liens on the Project for the amounts alleged owed for their labor.11 With leave of Court, on February 18, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding additional plaintiffs and adding Ronald Franks, Roy Anderson, and Travelers as Defendants.12 Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, with leave of Court, on May 13, 2016.13
On July 12, 2016, Roy Anderson filed an answer to Plaintiffs' complaint and a crossclaim and third-party demand against Defendant Ronald Franks and Third-Party Defendant National American Insurance Company ("NAIC"), respectively.14 On December 8, 2016, Roy Anderson and Travelers filed a counterclaim against Plaintiffs.15
On January 17, 2017, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion.16 On February 21, 2017, Roy Anderson and Travelers filed an opposition.17 On March 3, 2017, with leave of Court, Plaintiffsfiled a reply.18
In their motion, Plaintiffs aver that Defendant and Counterclaimant Roy Anderson, as the general contractor for the Project, is liable to Plaintiffs for unpaid work performed on the Project via laborers' liens filed by Plaintiffs pursuant to the Louisiana Private Works Act ("PWA").19 Plaintiffs contend that after the work on the Project was completed, they timely filed laborers' liens for their uncompensated labor.20
Plaintiffs assert that Roy Anderson and Travelers' counterclaim is brought pursuant to Louisiana Revised Statute § 9:4833, which allows "interested persons" to recover damages and attorneys' fees from lienholders whose liens are "improperly" filed.21 However, Plaintiffs argue that Roy Anderson and Travelers failed to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that Plaintiffs' liens were filed "improperly."22 According to Plaintiffs, Louisiana Revised Statute § 9:4822(G) sets out the requirements for properly filing a laborers' liens:
In particular, Plaintiffs point out that Roy Anderson and Travelers argue that Plaintiffs' liens were "improperly" filed under Section 9:4822(G)(4), as the lien amounts claimed by Plaintiffs are allegedly "vaguely supported with no reasonable indication of how the amount was calculated."23 However, Plaintiffs point out that Louisiana law only requires lienholders to "set forth the amount and nature" of their lien and "reasonably itemize the elements comprising it . . . ."24 Thus, Plaintiffs argue that their liens are "valid on their face."25 Because Roy Anderson and Travelers failed to allege any facts that are actionable under Sections 4833 and 4822, Plaintiffs aver, their counterclaim must be dismissed.26
Plaintiffs assert that, in support of their counterclaim, Roy Anderson and Travelers allege that the lien amounts claimed by Plaintiffs are much higher than what Plaintiffs stated they were owed in their discovery responses.27 Plaintiffs argue that this is inaccurate, as Plaintiffs contend that Defendants asked for an itemization of the hours worked by Plaintiffs that they were not paidfor and Plaintiffs provided Defendant CCT's payroll documentation in response.28 Plaintiffs assert that this payroll documentation does not account for Plaintiffs' additional claims in their lien amounts for: (1) time waiting to clock in and clock out each day; and (2) time that was "systematically shaved off of each Plaintiff's paycheck each week."29 Moreover, Plaintiffs argue that Roy Anderson and Travelers have not pointed to any statute or case law that allows for terminating a lien because there is a difference between the lien amount and the amount ultimately owed.30 Rather, Plaintiffs assert that the PWA was designed to address such disputes over amounts owed to laborers.31 In sum, Plaintiffs contend that because a dispute as to the amount of the lien does not establish a cause of action under Louisiana Revised Statute § 9:4833, Roy Anderson and Travelers' request for declaratory relief, damages, and attorneys' fees pursuant to Louisiana Revised Statute § 9:4833 must be dismissed.32
In opposition, Roy Anderson and Travelers state that 146 of the Plaintiffs have filed individual laborers' liens on the Project for a total value of $2,362,693.33 By contrast, Roy Anderson and Travelers aver that Plaintiffs claimed in their discovery responses that they wereonly owed $245,892.86, i.e. $2,116,800.14 less than the amounts claimed in the laborers' liens.34
Roy Anderson and Travelers assert that they have sufficiently alleged a claim under Louisiana Revised Statute § 9:4833.35 According to Roy Anderson and Travelers, an owner or interested party may demand in writing that a person who has improperly filed a lien must cancel the lien and, if the person fails to do so after ten days, then he is liable for damages and attorneys' fees.36 Here, Roy Anderson and Travelers argue that it is undisputed that they are "interested parties" under Section 9:4833, as Roy Anderson was the design-builder for the Project and Travelers issued the lien bond that cleared the Project's title after Plaintiffs filed their laborers' liens.37 Roy Anderson and Travelers also contend that they sufficiently alleged that the laborers' liens are improper, because: (1) the amounts listed in each are "vaguely supported without any reasonable indication of how its amount was calculated;" and (2) "because there is a direct contradiction between two sworn statements that each of the Plaintiffs recording the Labor Liens made."38 Additionally, Roy Anderson and Travelers aver that they alleged that this discrepancy between the two numbers claimed demonstrate that the liens are "without reasonable cause for believing [they were] valid in the hope that economic pressure may be placed upon the owner or contractor to extract a settlement or other payment as the price of a release."39
Thus, Roy Anderson and Travelers contend that they have made sufficient allegations to state a claim under Louisiana Revised Statute § 9:4833, as they only need to show that the liens were filed without reasonable cause.40 Roy Anderson and Travelers further argue Louisiana Revised Statute § 9:4822 does not govern the analysis here as Plaintiffs contend, and therefore their counterclaim does not need to "track" the language and requirements of Section 9:4822(G) in order to state a claim under Section 9:4833.41 Roy Anderson and Travelers point out that the comments to Louisiana Revised Statute § 9:4833 make clear that the statute is "designed to discourage the filing of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial