Cozart v. Bluestone Industries, Inc.
5:18-cv-00397
S.D.W. VaJun 24, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Kenneth Cozart sued Bluestone Industries, Inc., alleging violations of the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act based on bounced paychecks; he later added three individual defendants (Jillean L. Justice, James C. Justice III, and James T. Miller).
- Defendant moved for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of all claims against the three individual defendants for lack of evidence imposing individual liability.
- Plaintiff requested Rule 56(d) relief to conduct additional discovery (including depositions of individual defendants); the Court granted that request and ordered briefing after depositions.
- Depositions were noticed for April 2 and April 24, 2019, but no further filings or opposition to the summary judgment motion were made by Plaintiff after the discovery extension.
- The Court applied the Federal Rule 56 summary judgment standard and found Plaintiff failed to produce evidence creating a genuine dispute as to any element of claims against the individual defendants.
- The Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and entered judgment in favor of Jillean L. Justice, James C. Justice III, and James T. Miller.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether individual defendants can be held liable under WVWPCA and FLSA for bounced paychecks | Cozart alleged individual liability by adding the three officers/director but did not present a developed factual showing | No evidence supports imposing individual liability on the three officers/director; summary judgment appropriate | Court held Plaintiff failed to show material facts against individuals; summary judgment for individual defendants |
| Whether additional discovery (Rule 56(d)) required before ruling | Plaintiff sought more discovery (depositions) to oppose summary judgment | Defendants moved for summary judgment; argued record showed no dispute | Court granted Rule 56(d) initially, allowed depositions, but Plaintiff did not file opposition after depositions were noticed; court proceeded to decide on merits |
| Whether Plaintiff met burden to create a genuine dispute of material fact | Plaintiff did not respond with more than speculation or scintilla of evidence | Defendants argued Plaintiff failed to meet the nonmoving-party burden under Celotex/Anderson | Court found Plaintiff failed to make the necessary showing and entered judgment for defendants |
| Proper standard to apply (motion to dismiss vs summary judgment) | Plaintiff’s pleadings referenced in parts of briefing; no active argument preserved | Defendants’ brief contained some motion-to-dismiss style arguments but moved under summary judgment standard | Court applied Rule 56 summary judgment standard and not a motion-to-dismiss standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541 (U.S. 1999) (summary judgment standard regarding genuine issues of material fact)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (movant's and nonmovant's burdens on summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (standard for determining genuine dispute and reasonable jury)
- Hoschar v. Appalachian Power Co., 739 F.3d 163 (4th Cir. 2014) (view evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- News & Observer Publ’g Co. v. Raleigh-Durham Airport Auth., 597 F.3d 570 (4th Cir. 2010) (definition of material fact)
- FDIC v. Cashion, 720 F.3d 169 (4th Cir. 2013) (sufficiency of evidence to allow a reasonable jury to return verdict)
- JKC Holding Co. v. Wash. Sports Ventures, Inc., 264 F.3d 459 (4th Cir. 2001) (nonmoving party must produce more than a scintilla of evidence)