Webb v. Roofing Analytics, LLC
121 So. 3d 756
| La. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Webb sued Roofing Analytics, LLC (RA) for unpaid wages, penalties, and attorney fees; trial court awarded $16,175.25 in unpaid wages, $9,726.30 in penalties, $31,250 in attorney fees, and costs.
- RA denied Webb was an employee, claiming Webb was an independent contractor and alleging Mrs. Webb involvement; RA alleged conspiracies and misappropriation of funds.
- Trial court found Webb was RA’s employee, based in part on a Schedule for Percentage of Payment and Advancement signed May 11, 2010; Cook’s credibility was rejected.
- Webb presented exhibits showing unpaid commissions and RA’s poor record-keeping; RA failed to rebut with credible evidence.
- RA moved for a new trial; the trial court denied the motion; RA appealed and Webb cross-appealed seeking appellate attorney fees; the appellate court affirmed and awarded additional fees to Webb.
- The opinion affirms the trial court’s findings on employment status, damages, penalties, and awards, and increases Webb’s appellate attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the denial of RA’s new-trial motion proper? | Webb argues no fraud/illicit conduct affected the outcome. | RA contends Webb lied/CRA engaged in ill practices to secure judgment. | Yes, denial affirmed; no fraud/ill practices shown. |
| Was Webb properly barred from impeaching Webb with an incomplete deposition? | Webb would argue admission of deposition evidence was proper; exclusion not reversible. | RA asserts incomplete deposition should have been allowed for impeachment. | Held improperly reviewed; deposition not proffered; no de novo review. |
| Did the trial court err in finding Webb was an employee rather than an independent contractor? | Webb relies on control, commission structure, and Schedule showing employer authority. | RA argues internal inconsistencies and lack of explicit contract show contractor status. | No manifest error; Webb is an employee. |
| Did Webb prove entitlement to the unpaid commissions (damages)? | Webb presented Exhibit H and corroborating testimony; some records were imperfect but persuasive. | RA argues lack of corroborating evidence and reliance on Webb’s self-serving testimony. | Yes, Webb proved $16,175.25 in unpaid commissions. |
| Are penalties under La. R.S. 23:632 and attorney fees appropriate; should appellate fees be awarded? | Penalties and fees warranted for a well-founded suit; appellate work justifies additional fees. | RA disputes penalties/fees due and contest appellate fee request. | Penalties affirmed; appellate fees increased to total $35,000. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pollock v. Talco Midstream Assets, Ltd., 22 So.3d 1033 (La.App.2d Cir. 2009) (nullity grounds can be raised via motion for new trial; discretion to grant)
- Atkins v. Louisiana Mut. Medical Ins. Co., 105 So.3d 781 (La.App.2d Cir. 2012) (motion for new trial standard; deference to trial court")
- Kem Search v. Sheffield, 434 So.2d 1067 (La. 1983) (partial nullification standards for fraud/ill practices)
- Belle Pass Terminal, Inc. v. Jolin, Inc., 800 So.2d 762 (La. 2001) (fraud/ill-practices evaluation factors for annulment)
- Jeansonne v. Schmolke, 40 So.3d 347 (La. 2010) (employer-employee determination factors; case-by-case)
- Stobart v. State, through Dept. of Transp. and Development, 617 So.2d 880 (La.1993) (manifest-error standard for factual findings)
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La.1989) (credibility/weight of conflicting testimony)
- Gresham v. Speights, 133 So.2d 846 (La.App.2d Cir.1961) (employee vs independent contractor indicators)
- Tri-Star of Louisiana v. Touchet, 520 So.2d 989 (La.App.3d Cir.1987) (commissioned sales as employee indicators)
- Dugas v. Aaron Rents, Inc., 839 So.2d 1205 (La.App.3d Cir.2003) (commissions treated as wages for RS 23:631)