Schutt v. Luke Gardner, Luke Gardner, LLC
| Decision Date | 05 February 2019 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 18-5832 RJB |
| Parties | CHRIS SCHUTT, Plaintiff, v. LUKE GARDNER, LUKE GARDNER, LLC and F/V QUANTUM LEAP, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 16) and the Defendants' Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 20). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motions and the file herein.
This case arises from the Defendants alleged failure to pay the Plaintiff full wages from a 2015 fishing season. Dkt. 1. It is undisputed that the Court has jurisdiction over the parties under maritime law. 28 U.S.C. § 1333. The parties now file cross motions for summary judgment. Dkts. 16 and 20. For the reasons provided, the Plaintiff's motion (Dkt. 16) should be granted, and the Defendants' motion (Dkt. 20) should be granted, in part, and denied, in part.
According to the Plaintiff, he was hired in the spring of 2012 to work as a deckhand aboard the F/V QUANTUM LEAP during the summer 2012 Alaska salmon fishing season. Dkt. 18, at 1. The Plaintiff negotiated and agreed to the terms of his employment orally on the phone and by text while the Plaintiff was in California and Defendant Luke Gardner, the owner and master of the F/V QUANTUM LEAP, and one of two principals in Luke Gardner, LLC (a Washington company), was in the state of Washington. Dkt. 22. Plaintiff returned to work for Gardner for the 2013, 2014 and 2015 salmon seasons. Dkt. 18. For the 2015 season, the Plaintiff states that they again negotiated their agreement while the Plaintiff was in California and Gardner was in Washington, and that the Plaintiff "agreed to work for defendants as a deckhand aboard the F/V QUANTUM LEAP during the salmon season in exchange for a 9% crew share." Dkt. 18, at 2. The Plaintiff maintains that he "interpreted [their] agreement to mean that [he] was to be paid 9% of the net proceeds from all fish caught during the 2015 salmon season, due within a reasonable time after receipt by Mr. Gardner." Id.
The F/V QUANTUM LEAP is a Coast Guard documented vessel that is registered in the State of Alaska and has never been used for commercial fishing in any state but Alaska. Dkt. 22, at 3. At the time of this dispute, she was 18 gross tons (Dkt. 22, at 21), and was fishing in the Egegik district of Bristol Bay, Alaska (Dkt. 22, at 4).
According to Defendant Gardner, crew members are customarily "paid on percentage shares of vessel production." Dkt. 22, at 5. He explains that "[t]he processing plants (Icicle Seafoods for example) pay whatever they want whenever they want in lieu of their obligations to the vessels. . . It is common to have a price on the ticket while the fish are caught and sold then latein the season - or after, the processors will make an additional payment to the vessels, called a 'retro' payment." Id., at 8.
According to Gardner, the terms of the oral employment contracts with crew members, including the one he had with the Plaintiff for the 2015 season are as follows:
Earnings - you are working for 'x' percentage of gross fish sales less fish taxes and minus agreed upon deductions. Fish sales or prince increases after you have left the work of the vessel are not to be considered in earnings. General maintenance = the total sum of food, laundry and other General Maintenance to be split equally amongst crew and skipper on an even per day pro rate split. You are responsible for your own travel arrangements to and from Egegik . . . [Gardner] pay[s] for crew licenses at the end of the season as a bonus. Completing the season - season is completed when the boat and gear are winterized and stowed in Egegik to [Gardner's] satisfaction.
Dkt. 22, at 6-7. Gardner states that "[i]t is customary that vessels make lay share payments to crewmen shortly after the first payments from the processors in the fall." Dkt. 22, at 9. He maintains that it is "much more variable when and under what conditions" payment to a crewman is made from the processors' spring payments. Dkt. 22, at 10. According to Gardner, he "conditions the payment on the crewman returning for the following season - in other words a 'return bonus.'" Dkt. 22, at 10. Gardner asserts that this was his agreement with the Plaintiff over the 2015 season - the Plaintiff had to return for the 2016 season to receive that last portion of the retroactive 2015 pay, consistent with prior years. Dkt. 22, at 10-14.
The Plaintiff states that while in Alaska, he received a "$9,000 advance from Icicle Seafoods on Mr. Gardner's account." Dkt. 18, at 2. The Plaintiff asserts that Icicle Seafoods stopped accepting fish in early August of 2015, and the remaining fish were sold to Ocean Beauty and Trident Seafoods. Dkt. 18, at 3. The Plaintiff indicates that he received two additional checks from Defendant "Luke J. Gardner, LLC" issued from Washington for the 2015salmon season: one dated August 20, 2015 for $4,615.57 for "crew pay," and another dated November 10, 2015 for $752.29 for "Ocean Beauty & Trident Ice 2015" from the same account. Dkt. 18, at 2, 6 and 7. The Plaintiff states that he "expected that in the spring of 2016, he would be paid retro related to the 2015 Alaska salmon season." Dkt. 18, at 3.
The Plaintiff states that on March 25, 2016, Mr. Gardner emailed him that: "Trident kicked down a dime, and I expect nothing less, when you show up to continue you[r] employment that will be worth about 2000 to 2700, depending on how the chips fall with the late non icicle fish." Dkt. 18, at 3 and 9.
In the spring of 2016, the Plaintiff and Mr. Gardner began negotiating the Plaintiff's possible employment for the 2016 salmon season. Dkt. 18, at 3. The parties struggled to come to terms. Id. Mr. Gardner made the Plaintiff an offer and around two weeks before the 2016 season was about to begin, the Plaintiff informed Mr. Gardner that he was not going to accept the position. Dkt. 22, at 17. The Plaintiff did not receive any further payment from Defendants related to the 2015 Alaska salmon season.
On October 11, 2018, the Plaintiff filed this case, asserting claims under 46 U.S.C. §§ 10601 and 10602 for failure to have a written fishing agreement. Dkt. 1. The Plaintiff also makes a breach of contract claim and asserts that he is "entitled to remedies provided by federal and/or state law." Id. In the relief portion of his Complaint, he seeks earned wages, "double wage penalties," costs and attorney's fees. Id.
On December 20, 2018, the Plaintiff filed his motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 16. He moves the Court for an order holding that he "is entitled to bring claims under Washington lawrelated to defendants' nonpayment of wages." Id. The Plaintiff also moves for summary judgment of dismissal on the Defendants' statute of limitations/laches defense. Id.
The Defendants oppose the motion. Dkt. 21. They argue that federal admiralty law applies, and if admiralty incorporates state law, then the incorporation of Alaska law, as opposed to Washington state law, is proper. Id. The Defendants maintain that fisherman are exempt from Alaska's Wage and Hour Act. Id. They assert that the statute of limitations for wage claims under Alaska law is two years, calculated from the time of his termination, which was August 4th or 5th of 2015; they maintain that his October 11, 2018 case was filed too late. Id. ().
In their response, the Defendants also move to strike paragraph four of the Plaintiff's declaration (Dkt. 18, at 2) regarding whether Gardner has failed to pay other crew members. Dkt. 21.
The Plaintiff replies and argues federal maritime law and Washington State law apply. Dkt. 26. He asserts that under federal maritime law, Washington law, and Alaska law, the statute of limitations for a breach of contract action is three years, so under any of the possible laws, the claim for the statute of limitations defense should be dismissed. Id. He asserts Alaska law doesn't conflict with Washington law: it provides remedies (from which fishermen are not precluded) under AS 23.05.140(d) for the non-payment of wages after termination and under the Alaska R. Civ. P. 82, the Plaintiff, if he prevails would be entitled to attorneys' fees. Id. The Plaintiff states that he is not making a claim under Alaska's Wage and Hour Act. Id.
The Defendants move for summary judgment, arguing that there are no issues of fact and they are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law because the Plaintiff did not say he had an agreement to receive "retro" pay, only that he interpreted the agreement that way. Dkt. 20. Theymaintain that the Plaintiff's interpretation of the agreement is insufficient evidence that there was an agreement. Id. They further note that because the vessel is under 20 gross tons, 46 U.S.C. §§ 10601 and 10602 do not apply, so these claims should be dismissed. Id.
The Plaintiff responds and argues that there are issues of fact as to whether the parties' oral contract included retro pay. Dkt. 28. The Plaintiff now acknowledges that due to the size of the F/V QUANTUM LEAP (less than 20 gross tons), 46 U.S.C. §§ 10601 and 10602 do not apply. Dkt. 28, at 2, n.1. In light of this acknowledgement, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to the claims under 46 U.S.C. §§ 10601 and 10602 should be granted (Dkt. 20) and those claims dismissed without further analysis.
The Defendants reply and repeat their prior assertions that there are no issues of fact and they are entitled to a judgment. Dkt. 29. They point to a declaration by another party who states that the Plaintiff knew that the retro pay was...
To continue reading
Request your trial