Beltran v. Noonan et al

Filing 1102

ORDER Denying 859 , 860 , 863 , 864 , 866 , 867 , 869 , 871 , 873 , 877 , 879 , 884 , 890 , and 915 Motions for Summary Judgment. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 06/19/2018. (athom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 14-cv-03074-CMA-KMT
JOHANA PAOLA BELTRAN,
LUSAPHO HLATSHANENI,
BEAUDETTE DEETLEFS,
ALEXANDRA IVETTE GONZALEZ,
JULIANE HARNING,
NICOLE MAPLEDORAM,
LAURA MEJIA JIMENEZ,
SARAH CAROLINE AZUELA RASCON,
CAMILA GABRIELA PEREZ REYES,
CATHY CARAMELO, and
LINDA ELIZABETH,
Plaintiffs,
v.
INTEREXCHANGE, INC.,
USAUPAIR, INC.,
GREATAUPAIR, LLC,
EXPERT GROUP INTERNATIONAL INC., d/b/a Expert AuPair,
EURAUPAIR INTERCULTURAL CHILD CARE PROGRAMS,
CULTURAL HOMESTAY INTERNATIONAL,
CULTURAL CARE, INC., d/b/a Cultural Care Au Pair,
AUPAIRCARE INC.,
AU PAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
APF GLOBAL EXCHANGE, NFP, d/b/a/ Aupair Foundation,
AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR FOREIGN STUDY, d/b/a Au Pair in America,
AMERICAN CULTURAL EXCHANGE, LLC, d/b/a GoAuPair,
AGENT AU PAIR,
A.P.E.X. AMERICAN PROFESSIONAL EXCHANGE, LLC, d/b/a ProAuPair,
20/20 CARE EXCHANGE, INC., d/b/a The International Au Pair Exchange,
ASSOCIATES IN CULTURAL EXCHANGE, d/b/a GoAuPair, and
GOAUPAIR OPERATIONS, LLC, d/b/a GoAuPair,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The Court addresses in this Order the parties’ competing Motions for Summary
Judgment, most of which were filed on February 16, 2018:
•

Certain Defendants’ Joint Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 860);

•

Defendant InterExchange. Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 859);

•

Defendant Cultural Homestay International’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. # 863);

•

Defendant GreatAuPair, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 864);

•

Defendant Expert Group International, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. # 866);

•

Defendant USAuPair, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 867);

•

Defendant APF Global Exchange, NFP’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. # 869);

•

Defendant AuPairCare, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 871);

•

Defendant Au Pair International, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #
873);

•

Defendant EurAupair InterCultural Child Care Programs’ Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. # 877);

•

Defendant Cultural Care, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 879),
and its Supplemental Brief in Support thereof (Doc. # 1097);

2

•

Defendants American Cultural Exchange, LLC’s and GoAuPair Operations,
LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 884);

•

Defendants A.P.E.X. American Professional Exchange, LLC’s and 20/20 Care
Exchange, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 890);

•

Defendant American Institute for Foreign Study’s Brief in Support of Certain
Defendants’ Joint Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 1004);

•

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 915).

Various Defendants responded to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment on March
16, 2018. (Doc. ## 931, 932, 933, 937, 940.) Plaintiffs replied in support of their Motion
for Summary Judgment on April 13, 2018. (Doc. # 987.) With the Court’s permission
(Doc. # 1063), Defendants American Cultural Exchange, LLC and GoAuPair
Operations, LLC filed a Joint Sur-Reply in opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary
Judgment on May 3, 2018. (Doc. # 1065.)
Plaintiffs responded to all Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment in a
consolidated Response on March 17, 2018. (Doc. # 946.) Certain Defendants jointly
replied in support of their Motions for Summary Judgment on April 13, 2018. (Doc.
# 988.)
The Court has repeatedly and extensively explained the factual and procedural
background of this class action in previous orders. See, e.g., (Doc. ## 240, 569, 828,
1079.) It declines to do so again here. The Court, having reviewed all filings and
relevant case law and being fully advised in the premises, denies all Motions for
Summary Judgment.
3

I.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary judgment is warranted when “the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A fact is “material” if it is essential to the proper
disposition of the claim under the relevant substantive law. Wright v. Abbott Labs., Inc.,
259 F.3d 1226, 1231–32 (10th Cir. 2001). A dispute is “genuine” if the evidence is such
that it might lead a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Allen v.
Muskogee, Okl., 119 F.3d 837, 839 (10th Cir. 1997). When reviewing a motion for
summary judgment, a court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party. Id. However, conclusory statements based merely on conjecture,
speculation, or subjective belief do not constitute competent summary judgment
evidence. Bones v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 366 F.3d 869, 875 (10th Cir. 2004).
The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a
genuine dispute of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Id. In
attempting to meet this standard, a movant who does not bear the ultimate burden of
persuasion at trial does not need to disprove the other party’s claim; rather, the movant
need simply point out to the Court a lack of evidence for the other party on an essential
element of that party’s claim. Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 671 (10th
Cir. 1998) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986)).
Once the movant has met its initial burden, the burden then shifts to the
nonmoving party to “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for
trial.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986). The nonmoving party
4

may not simply rest upon its pleadings to satisfy its burden. Id. Rather, the nonmoving
party must “set forth specific facts that would be admissible in evidence in the event of
trial from which a rational trier of fact could find for the nonmovant.” Adler, 144 F.3d at
671. Stated differently, the party must provide “significantly probative evidence” that
would support a verdict in her favor. Jaramillo v. Adams Cty. Sch. Dist. 14, 680 F.3d
1267, 1269 (10th Cir. 2012). “To accomplish this, the facts must be identified by
reference to affidavits, deposition transcripts, or specific exhibits incorporated therein.”
Id.
II.

DISCUSSION

Upon review of the parties’ numerous, lengthy briefings and the evidence
referenced therein, the Court determines that genuine issues of material fact preclude
the Court from granting any of the Motions to Summary Judgment. Among the
numerous genuine issues of material fact:
•

Whether an anti-competitive conspiracy existed among and between Defendants
to fix au pairs’ stipends at $195.75, see (Doc. # 860 at 5–22; Doc. # 946 at 7–
29);

•

Whether increased competition in the au pair services market would change the
market structure and increase au pairs’ wages, see (Doc. # 946 at 57–65);

•

Whether RICO Defendants engaged in racketeering activity, such as wire fraud,
by conveying false wage information to au pairs, see (Doc. # 859 at 4; Doc.
# 946 at 87–88);

5

•

Whether Defendants are joint employers of au pairs, see (Doc. # 860 at 35–41;
Doc. # 915 at 6–13);

•

Whether the federal government intended for the statutes and regulations
governing the au pair program to preempt state and local regulations, see (Doc.
# 860 at 26–33; Doc. # 946 at 126–37);

As such, no party is entitled to summary judgment.
III.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1.

Certain Defendants’ Joint Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 860) is
DENIED;

2.

Defendant InterExchange. Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 859)
is DENIED;

3.

Defendant Cultural Homestay International’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. # 863) is DENIED;

4.

Defendant GreatAuPair, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 864) is
DENIED;

5.

Defendant Expert Group International, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. # 866) is DENIED;

6.

Defendant USAuPair, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 867) is
DENIED;

7.

Defendant APF Global Exchange, NFP’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. # 869) is DENIED;
6

8.

Defendant AuPairCare, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 871) is
DENIED;

9.

Defendant Au Pair International, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
# 873) is DENIED;

10.

Defendant EurAupair InterCultural Child Care Programs’ Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. # 877) is DENIED;

11.

Defendant Cultural Care, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 879) is
DENIED;

12.

Defendants American Cultural Exchange, LLC’s and GoAuPair Operations,
LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 884) is DENIED;

13.

Defendants A.P.E.X. American Professional Exchange, LLC’s and 20/20 Care
Exchange, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 890) is DENIED; and

14.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 915) is DENIED.

DATED: June 19, 2018

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

7