135 A.3d 1202
R.I.2016Background
- Bisbano was a commission-based sales rep for Strine (hired 2006) who primarily brought CVS business; terminated in June 2010 after CVS learned he had given money to a CVS employee.
- Bisbano sued Strine in federal court (removed from Superior Court) in 2010 asserting multiple claims arising from his termination; the District Court granted summary judgment for defendants, affirmed by the First Circuit.
- During the federal litigation the parties’ counsel exchanged letters about disputed commissions; Strine paid $38,275 in April 2011 and explicitly stated acceptance of the check would not waive Bisbano’s right to seek additional commissions.
- In June 2014 Bisbano filed a new Superior Court suit (amended to add Menasha) asserting breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith related to unpaid commissions for a CVS “Flu Promotion” job and disputed deductions.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment asserting res judicata and that the three-year statute of limitations in Rhode Island’s Payment of Wages Act (commissions = wages) barred the suit.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment on statute-of-limitations grounds (and also noted res judicata); the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed, holding the Wage Act’s 3-year limitations period controlled and Bisbano’s suit (filed June 2014) was time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which statute of limitations applies to unpaid commissions? | Bisbano: claim is a common-law breach of contract so the 10-year contract SOL applies. | Defendants: commissions are "wages" under the Payment of Wages Act, so the 3-year SOL applies. | Held: Substance controls over form; commissions are wages under the Wage Act so the 3-year SOL applies; Bisbano's claim barred. |
| Whether the second suit is barred by res judicata because of the federal judgment | Bisbano: claims here are factually distinct (commission accounting) and parties agreed/acquiesced to split claims into a separate suit. | Defendants: federal judgment extinguished Bisbano's claims; no agreement to split claims; correspondence inadmissible as settlement communications. | Held: Court did not decide res judicata because statute-of-limitations dispositive; trial justice had also found no agreement to split claims. |
| Admissibility of counsel correspondence (Rule 408) to show agreement to split claims | Bisbano: letters show defendants agreed to accept service for a separate suit and thus acquiesced to splitting claims. | Defendants: correspondence is settlement negotiation protected by Rule 408 and inadmissible to prove agreement/liability. | Held: Trial justice noted Rule 408 argument but did not make a specific ruling; the Supreme Court resolved the case on statutory limitations and did not rely on the correspondence. |
| Relation-back (Rule 15(c)) / procedural arguments to avoid SOL | Bisbano: asserted relation-back and procedural positions to preserve claim. | Defendants: timeliness governed by Wage Act and facts show accrual in 2010, triggering SOL. | Held: Court found accrual occurred by end of 2010 when Strine received CVS payment and notified Bisbano; claim not timely and relation-back did not save it. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sola v. Leighton, 45 A.3d 502 (R.I. 2012) (standard for reviewing summary judgment)
- National Refrigeration, Inc. v. Standen Contracting Co., 942 A.2d 968 (R.I. 2008) (summary judgment review principles)
- Martin v. Howard, 784 A.2d 291 (R.I. 2001) (look to substance of claim to determine applicable limitations period)
- Plunkett v. State, 869 A.2d 1185 (R.I. 2005) (summary judgment standard)
- Bisbano v. Strine Printing Co., 737 F.3d 104 (1st Cir. 2014) (appellate disposition of Bisbano's federal claims)