Jorge Duran-Quezada v. Clark Construction Group, LLC
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:13-cv-02963-JFM. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999425932]. [14-1069]
Appeal: 14-1069
Doc: 33
Filed: 08/29/2014
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1069
JORGE DURAN-QUEZADA;
CASTRO,
CARLOS
GALLEGOS;
MARCELINO
MERCADO
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
CLARK CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC; BALFOUR BEATTY CONSTRUCTION,
LLC; MANGANARO MIDATLANTIC, LLC,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (8:13-cv-02963-JFM)
Submitted:
August 21, 2014
Decided:
August 29, 2014
Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephen Christopher Swift, Charity C. Emeronye Swift, SWIFT &
SWIFT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, PLLC, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellants.
Michael J. Schrier, Katherine A. Calogero, JACKSON
KELLY PLLC, Washington, DC, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 14-1069
Doc: 33
Filed: 08/29/2014
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Jorge
Duran-Quezada,
Carlos
Gallegos,
and
Marcelino
Mercado Castro (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) appeal the district
court’s order granting the Defendants’ motion to dismiss for
failure
to
state
a
claim
under
Fed.
R.
Civ.
P.
12(b)(6).
Plaintiffs argue that the Davis-Bacon Act, 40 U.S.C.A. §§ 31413144, 3146, 3147 (West 2005 & Supp. 2014), confers a private
cause of action.
Finding no error, we affirm.
We review de novo a district court’s order dismissing
a complaint for failure to state a claim, assuming that all
well-pleaded nonconclusory factual allegations in the complaint
are true.
Aziz v. Alcolac, Inc., 658 F.3d 388, 391 (4th Cir.
2011).
When determining whether a statute implicitly creates a
private
cause
of
action,
we
focus
on
Congressional
Thompson v. Thompson, 484 U.S. 174, 179 (1988).
intent.
“[U]nless this
congressional intent [to create a private cause of action] can
be
inferred
from
the
language
of
the
statute,
the
statutory
structure, or some other source, the essential predicate for
implication of a private remedy simply does not exist.”
Nw.
Airlines, Inc. v. Transp. Workers Union, 451 U.S. 77, 94 (1981).
The majority of our sister Circuits to address this
question have concluded that “neither the language, the history,
nor
the
structure
of
the
[Davis-Bacon
implication of a private right of action.”
2
Act]
supports
the
United States ex
Appeal: 14-1069
Doc: 33
Filed: 08/29/2014
Pg: 3 of 3
rel. Glynn v. Capeletti Bros., Inc., 621 F.2d 1309, 1317 (5th
Cir. 1980); see Gronchowski v. Phoenix Constr., 318 F.3d 80, 85
(2d Cir. 2003) (collecting cases); Bane v. Radio Corp. of Am.,
811
F.2d
1504
(4th
Capeletti Bros.).
Cir.
1987)
(No.
86-2036)
(agreeing
with
While the decisions of other circuits are not
binding, their reasoning is persuasive, and we conclude that the
district court did not err in dismissing Plaintiffs’ complaint.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.
dispense
with
oral
argument
because
the
facts
and
We
legal
contentions are adequately presented in the material before this
court and argument will not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?