Villon v. Marriott Hotel Servs., Inc.
Decision Date | 15 July 2013 |
Docket Number | No. SCCQ–11–0000747.,SCCQ–11–0000747. |
Citation | 130 Hawai'i 130,306 P.3d 175 |
Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Parties | Bert VILLON and Mark Apana, Plaintiffs, v. MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES, INC., dba Wailea Marriott Resort, Defendant. Reneldo Rodriguez and Johnson Basler, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., dba Westin Maui Resort & Spa, Defendant. |
Ashley Ikeda & Lori K. Aquino, Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld, Honolulu, Harold Lichten & Shannon Liss–Riordan, pro hac vice, (Lichten & Liss–Riordan, P.C.), for plaintiffs.
Barry W. Marr & Richard M. Rand, Honolulu, Marr Jones & Wang, for defendant Marriott Hotel Services, dba Wailea Marriott Resort.
Paul Alston, Anna Elento–Sneed, & Maren Calvert, Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing, Honolulu, for defendant Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide dba Westin Maui Resort & Spa.
The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii1 ("District Court") certified the following question2 to this court:
May food or beverage service employees of a hotel or restaurant bring a claim against their employer based on an alleged violation of Haw.Rev.Stat. § 481B–14 by invoking Haw.Rev.Stat. §§ 388–6, 388–10, and 388–11 and without invoking Haw.Rev.Stat. §§ 480–2 or 480–13 ?
The instant certified question picks up where our opinion on a related certified question in Davis v. Four Seasons Hotel, Ltd., 122 Hawai‘i 423, 428 n. 12, 228 P.3d 303, 308 n. 12 (2010) left off: The parties fully briefed their positions, and we also granted leave to file amicus briefs to Four Seasons Hotel, Ltd. ("Four Seasons amicus") and Raymond Gurrobat, Loretta Chong, Marti Smith, Jonalen Kelekoma, and Darren Miyasato ("Gurrobat amici"). The amici curiae have also fully briefed this court.
We now answer the certified question in the affirmative and hold that when a hotel or restaurant applying a service charge for the sale of food or beverage services allegedly violates HRS § 481B–14 (2008) (1) by not distributing the full service charge directly to its employees as "tip income" (in other words, as "wages and tips of employees"), and (2) by failing to disclose this practice to the purchaser of the services, the employees may bring an action under HRS §§ 388–6 (1993), –10 (1993 & Supp.1999), and –11 (1993 & Supp. 1999) to enforce the employees' rights and seek remedies.
The factual background relevant to a certified question proceeding "is based primarily upon the information certified to this court by the district court, as well as the allegations contained within [the plaintiffs' complaint]." Davis, 122 Hawai‘i at 425, 228 P.3d at 305 (citing TMJ Hawaii, Inc. v. Nippon Trust Bank, 113 Hawai‘i 373, 374, 153 P.3d 444, 445 (2007) ) (the court by the district court and the facts set forth in the plaintiff's amended complaint) the information certified to .
In its Certified Questions to the Hawai‘i Supreme Court from the United States District Court for the District of Hawai‘i in Civ. No. 08–00529 LEK–RLP and Civ. No. 09–0016 LEK–RLP ("Certified Questions"), the District Court stated that Bert Villon and Mark Apana's ("Villon Plaintiffs") Amended Class Action Complaint and Reneldo Rodriguez, Johnson Basler, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated's ("Rodriguez Plaintiffs") Second Amended Complaint were before it pursuant to diversity jurisdiction in accordance with the Class Action Fairness Act. In the Villon Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint, they alleged the following facts:
Marriott does not dispute that Plaintiffs did not receive 100% of service charges and that this fact was not disclosed to consumers.
It appears that, at the time the District Court filed its Certified Questions, the Rodriguez Plaintiffs had filed a Third Amended Complaint, which alleged the following facts, similar to those alleged in the Villon Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint:
Starwood does not dispute that Plaintiffs did not receive 100% of the service charges and that this fact was not disclosed to consumers.
Both the Villon Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint and the Rodriguez Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint allege the following as Count V:
As a result of the defendant's unlawful failure to remit the entire proceeds of food and beverage service charges to the food and beverage servers, the plaintiffs have been deprived of income which constitutes wages, which is actionable under Hawaii Revised Statutes Section[s] 388–6, 10, and 11. Pursuant to those statutes, the plaintiffs hereby bring a claim of unpaid wages, including liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees.
Procedurally, the certified questions arose upon the entry of the following orders in the District Court: (1) Order Administratively Terminating, Without Prejudice, Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Class Action Complaint, Filed June 28, 2010, filed September 8, 2010, in Civil No. 08–00529 LEK–RLP (Villon & Apana v. Marriott Hotel Services, Inc., DBA Wailea Marriott Hotel ); and (2) Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Certify Questions of Hawai‘i State Law to the Hawai‘i Supreme Court and Administratively Terminating, Without Prejudice, Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed September 8, 2010, in Civil No. 09–00016 LEK–RLP (Rodriguez & Basler v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., DBA Westin Maui Resort & Spa).
A question of law presented by a certified question is reviewable de novo under the right/wrong standard of review. Francis v. Lee Enters., 89 Hawai‘i 234, 236, 971 P.2d 707, 709 (1999) (citation omitted).
Plaintiffs argue that the language of the relevant statutes, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes ("HRS") §§ 481B–14, 388–1 (1993), 388–6, 388–10, and 388–11, is plain and unambiguous. Richardson v. City & County of Honolulu, 76 Hawai‘i 46, 63, 868 P.2d 1193,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc. v. Haw. Life Flight Corp.
...competition by allowing it to charge lower base prices than its law-abiding competitors); see also Villon v. Marriott Hotel Servs., Inc., 130 Haw. 130, 150, 306 P.3d 175, 195 (2013) ("[A] plaintiff must demonstrate that its injurystems from the negative effect on competition caused by [a de......
-
Gurrobat v. HTH Corp.
...the key issue underlying Defendants' appeal was largely decided by this court in Villon v. Marriott Hotel Services, Inc., 130 Hawai‘i 130, 306 P.3d 175 (2013). Defendants oppose all but $18.85 of Gurrobat's costs requested on various grounds. Finally, Defendants assert that an award of inte......
-
Gurrobat v. HTH Corp., SCAP–12–0000764.
...the key issue underlying Defendants' appeal was largely decided by this court in Villon v. Marriott Hotel Services, Inc., 130 Hawai‘i 130, 306 P.3d 175 (2013). Defendants oppose all but $18.85 of Gurrobat's costs requested on various grounds. Finally, Defendants assert that an award of inte......
-
Trawick v. Tri-Star Rest. Grp., LLC, CIVIL 17-00456 LEK-RLP
...& Supp. 1999), and -11 (1993 & Supp. 1999) to enforce the employees' rights and seek remedies.Villon v. Marriott Hotel Servs., Inc., 130 Hawai`i 130, 132-33, 306 P.3d 175, 177-78 (2013). Further, "[e]mployees are 'any persons' within the meaning of HRS §§ 480-1 and 480-2(e), . . . and are w......
-
Trends in Hawaii Jurisprudence
...with two cases involving certified questions thus far during the fiscal year 2014. In Villon v. Marriott Hotel Servs. Inc., 130 Haw. 130, 306 P.3d 175 (2013), the question was: may food or beverage service employees of a hotel or restaurant bring a claim against their employer based on an a......