United States District Court, D. Colorado
AARON ROJAS, EDGAR TEJADA, IVAN PAREDES, ULISES CISNEROS, ADOLFO RIOS, HUGO BUENA RODRIGUEZ, JESUS ENRIQUEZ REYES, GUILLERMO VASQUEZ, MARIO ALVIDREZ, and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
WESTCO FRAMERS, LLC, DUSTY GRAY, TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA, and GROATHOUSE CONSTRUCTION, INC., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ EARLY MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
William J. Martínez United States District Judge
Aaron Rojas, Edgar Tejada, Ivan Paredes, Ulises Cisneros, Adolfo Rios, Hugo Buena Rodriguez, and Jesus Enriquez Reyes (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring this action against Defendants Westco Framers, LLC (“Westco”), Dusty Gray, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America (“Travelers”), and Groathouse Construction, Inc. (“Groathouse”) (collectively, “Defendants”). (ECF No. 51.) Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Early Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (the “Motion”) against Travelers. (ECF No. 41). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied.
The following relevant facts are undisputed, unless otherwise noted. Defendant Groathouse was the principal contractor on the Sublette County Senior Center Project in Pinedale, Wyoming (the “Senior Center Project”). (ECF No. 41 ¶ 3.) Defendant Westco was a subcontractor on the Senior Center Project. (Id. ¶ 4.) Plaintiffs allege that they performed construction labor on the Senior Center Project from roughly October 2013 to some time in or around March 2014. (Id. ¶ 1; ECF No. 51 ¶ 18.) Plaintiffs allege that they performed this labor under contract with Westco. (ECF No. 41 ¶ 5; ECF No. 51 ¶ 12.) Plaintiffs assert that they were not paid for some portion of the hours they worked on the Senior Center Project. (ECF No. 41 ¶ 2; ECF No. 51 ¶ 15.) Groathouse executed a bond or bonds for the Senior Center Project, with Defendant Travelers acting as surety, that guarantee(s) payment for labor performed on the Senior Center Project. (Id. ¶ 6.)
On January 23, 2015, six of the Plaintiffs commenced this suit against Defendants. (ECF No. 1.) On March 5, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, adding Plaintiff Reyes. (ECF No. 15.) The First Amended Complaint asserts claims for breach of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., unpaid amounts for labor pursuant to Wyoming Statutes § 16-6-113, failure to pay prevailing wages pursuant to Wyoming Statutes § 27-4-401, willful withholding of wages pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes § 8-4-101, breach of fiduciary duty and civil theft under the Colorado Trust Fund Act, breach of contract, and quasi contract. (Id.)
On July 31, 2015, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion against Travelers. (ECF No. 41.) Groathouse and Travelers filed a joint Response to the Motion on August 21, 2015. (ECF No. 44.) Plaintiffs filed a Reply to the Response on September 1, 2015. (ECF No. 45.) Westco and Dusty Gray do not oppose the Motion. (ECF No. 43.) On June 26, 2015, a Second Amended Complaint was filed for the sole purpose of adding two new plaintiffs to the case: Guillermo Vasquez and Mario Alvidrez. (ECF No. 33 at 2; ECF No. 51.)
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate only if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Henderson v. Inter-Chem Coal Co., Inc., 41 F.3d 567, 569 (10th Cir. 1994). Whether there is a genuine dispute as to a material fact depends upon whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or, conversely, is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986); Stone v. Autoliv ASP, Inc., 210 F.3d 1132 (10th Cir. 2000); Carey v. U.S. Postal Serv., 812 F.2d 621, 623 (10th Cir. 1987).
A fact is “material” if it pertains to an element of a claim or defense; a factual dispute is “genuine” if the evidence is so contradictory that if the matter went to trial, a reasonable jury could return a verdict for either party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. The Court must resolve factual ambiguities against the moving party, thus favoring the right to a trial. Houston v. Nat’l Gen. Ins. Co., 817 F.2d 83, 85 (10th Cir. 1987).
A. Plaintiffs’ Claim Pursuant to Wyo. Stat. § 16-6-113
Plaintiffs are seeking partial summary judgment against Travelers. (ECF No. 41 at 3.) Plaintiffs only claim against Travelers in this suit is a statutory claim pursuant to Wyoming Statutes § 16-6-113 (see ECF No. 51 at 11), which is the enforcement mechanism for Wyoming’s public works construction bond requirement:
any contract entered into with the state, any county, city, town, school district or other political subdivision of the state for the construction, major maintenance or renovation of any public building or other public structure or for any public work or improvement and the contract price exceeds seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7, 500.00), shall require any contractor before beginning work under the contract to furnish the state or any political subdivision, as appropriate, a bond or if the contract price is one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150, 000.00) or less, any other form of guarantee approved by the state or the political subdivision.
Wyo. Stat. § 16-6-112. Bonds pursuant to § 16-6-112 “shall be . . . [f]or the use and benefit of any person performing any work or labor . . . in ...