Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Peltier v. Almar Management, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

January 17, 2017

CRAIG U. PELTIER, Plaintiff,
v.
ALMAR MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant.

          ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT ALMAR MANAGEMENT, INC.'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

          Derrick K. Watson United States District Judge

         INTRODUCTION

         Craig Peltier brings this action against his former employer, Almar Management, Inc. (“Almar”), for failure to pay wages in accordance with Hawaii Revised Statutes (“HRS”) § 103-55 and for breach of contract, as an alleged third-party beneficiary of a contract between Almar and a state agency. Because no private right of action exists to enforce HRS § 103-55, Almar's Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings is granted as to Count I. On the state of the current record, however, including the absence of the contract on which Peltier relies, the Court is not able to determine whether Peltier's contract claim is based solely on an alleged violation of HRS § 103-55, and whether permitting such a claim would enable him to circumvent the lack of a private right of action under that statute itself. Accordingly, Almar's Motion is denied without prejudice with respect to Count II.

         BACKGROUND

         Peltier was employed by Almar and ALTRES, Inc. from May 1, 2012 until his termination on March 3, 2014 at the Kewalo Basin Harbor, a commercial small boat harbor controlled by the State of Hawaii. Complaint ¶¶ 8, 12. The state agency responsible for the harbor, the Hawaii Community Development Authority (“HCDA”), contracted with Almar to provide operations and maintenance services. According to Peltier, the March 1, 2009 contract requires Almar to enforce relevant Hawaii Administrative Rules (“HAR”) related to Kewalo Basin Harbor and to pay wages to its employees consistent with HRS § 103-55. Complaint ¶¶ 9-10. Peltier asserts that under the statute, Almar and ALTRES were required to pay him “wages of at least what the State would have paid a public employee performing similar work, ” but failed to do so. Complaint ¶ 13. In particular, he alleges that:

14. Almar did not give notice to Plaintiff, either through a workplace posting or on his paycheck, that he was to be paid wages no less than what the State would have paid a public employee performing similar work.
* * * *
16. During that time period, Plaintiff generally worked six days a week, with Fridays being his off day.
17. ALMAR did not post work schedules in advance of each work week.
18. Plaintiff oftentimes was required to work more than eight hours in one day or more than forty hours in a week.
19. Plaintiff would regularly record his hours.
20. Oftentimes his supervisor would unilaterally change the hours Plaintiff reported in an effort to evade the obligation to pay Plaintiff overtime.
21. Plaintiff worked on all legal holidays, but was not paid overtime.
22. During the entire time that he was employed by Almar and ALTRES, Plaintiff was paid a wage less than the wage of a public employee performing similar work.
23. During the time that Plaintiff was employed by Almar and ALTRES, Almar and ALTRES were aware that their employees under the Contract were being paid wages less than the wages of public employees performing similar work.
24. Almar and ALTRES did not take any remedial action towards Plaintiff to address the prior underpaid wages and to make sure that in the future Plaintiff was being paid a wage no less than the wage of a public employee performing similar work.
* * * *
33. Also, shortly before being terminated, Plaintiff contacted the HCDA by telephone inquiring about the wages that Almar was required to pay him to comply with the Contract and State law.

         Complaint. Peltier was terminated by Almar and ALTRES on March 3, 2014 for cause, but Peltier alleges his termination was in retaliation for various protected activities. Complaint ¶¶ 26-44.

         Peltier filed his Complaint in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii on March 1, 2016.[1] He alleges claims for: (1) violation of HRS § 103-55 (Count I); (2) breach of contract (Count II); (3) violation of HRS § 378-62 (Count III); and (4) termination in violation of public policy (Count IV). Almar removed the matter to this Court on August 4, 2016 and now seeks judgment on the pleadings on Counts I and II.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         The standard governing a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is functionally identical to that governing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. United States ex rel. Caffaso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1054 n.4 (9th Cir. 2011). For a Rule 12(c) motion, the allegations of the nonmoving party are accepted as true, while the allegations of the moving party that have been denied are assumed to be false. See Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir. 1989). A court evaluating a Rule 12(c) motion must construe factual allegations in a complaint in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009). Under Rule 12(c), “[j]udgment on the pleadings is properly granted when, accepting all factual allegations as true, there is no material fact in dispute, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Chavez v. United States, 683 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Fleming, 581 F.3d at 925); see also Jensen Family Farms, Inc. v. Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control Dist., 644 F.3d 934, 937 n.1 (9th Cir. 2011).

         DISCUSSION

          I. Count I: Whether A Private Right Of Action ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.