Quimby v. Becovic Management Group, Inc.
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 395
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Quimby left Becovic in May 2008 and filed a wage claim with the Indiana DOL on October 23, 2008.
- Her DOL form included an assignment language: she assigned all rights to the Commissioner of Labor for processing under IC 22-2-9-1 et seq.
- DOL investigated; some deductions were improper and directed Becovic to pay $590.39, which Becovic paid by check dated April 20, 2009.
- On May 13, 2009 Quimby filed a Wage Payment/Wage Claim action in Marion Superior Court after the DOL resolution.
- Trial court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim because Quimby had assigned the claim.
- Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Quimby was not the real party in interest and should have pursued the Wage Payment statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal was proper for lack of real-party-in-interest. | Quimby is the beneficiary of the claim despite assignment. | Quimby assigned the claim to the DOL and is not the real party in interest. | Affirmed; real party in interest did not ratify or substitute. |
| Whether the Wage Claim vs Wage Payment statutes govern the claim. | Wage Claim statute applies to her because of the claim's timing and nature. | Quimby should have pursued under the Wage Payment statute since she voluntarily left employment. | Quimby should have brought the claim under the Wage Payment statute. |
| Whether DOL assignment barred court action after administrative resolution. | DOL resolution should not bar subsequent court relief. | Assignment to DOL precludes later court action by the assignor. | Assignment precludes later suit by the assignor; no ratification or substitution found. |
| Whether claim-splitting barred filing a second action under Wage Payment. | Second action covers different grounds not previously raised. | Indiana law bars claim splitting; all grounds must be litigated at once. | Claim splitting barred; second action prejudices the defendant and is improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- E & L Rental Equipment, Inc. v. Bresland, 782 N.E.2d 1068 (Ind.Ct.App. 2003) (Wage Claim vs Wage Payment distinction; timely forum choice)
- Gifford (Quimby v. Gosnay?), 74 N.E.2d 1007 (Ind.Ct.App. 2001) (assignment defeats real-party status; see Gifford)
- Hollis v. Defender Security Co., 941 N.E.2d 536 (Ind.Ct.App. 2011) (employee status time of filing governs Wage Claim vs Wage Payment)
- Erie Insurance Co. v. George, 681 N.E.2d 183 (Ind. 1997) (policy on not splitting claims; equitable claims barred from piecemeal recovery)
- Roby v. Eggers, 130 Ind. 415, 29 N.E. 365 (1891) (no splitting of a single claim for relief)
- Wabash Valley Power Ass'n, Inc. v. Rural Electrification Admin., 903 F.2d 445 (7th Cir. 1990) (avoid multiple litigation; same transaction same theory of recovery)