Rackard v. Aeroframe Services L L C et al

Filing 92

ORDER re 87 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Robert Rackard. On or before November 12, 2021, plaintiff is to amend his memorandum in support of his motion to set forth the amount claimed. The total amount is to be further broken do wn by amount for wages, for penalties, and for attorney fees only. The court will not do any math for plaintiff. The additional sum included in the affidavit is unsupported by any documentation and was not an item included for the Cooley matters so t hat we are able to simply refer to our ruling there tosubstantiate that award. We consider the time passed for this plaintiff to make such a claim for any additional sum and will suggest to the district court that claim be denied. Plaintiff will have every opportunity to object to that recommendation at the time it is issued. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kathleen Kay on 10/21/2021. (crt,Benoit, T)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAKE CHARLES DIVISION

ROBERT RACKARD

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-cv-0991

VERSUS

:

JUDGE DONALD E. WALTER

AEROFRAME SERVICES, LLC, ET AL

:

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KAY

ORDER

On July 28, 2021, plaintiff was ordered to file a Motion for Summary Judgment with
respect to his claim for wages, penalties, and attorney fees against Aeroframe Services, LLC, and
to attach appropriate summary judgment type evidence. Doc. 86. Plaintiff was invited to “adopt
the argument made by plaintiffs in Cooley, et al v. Aeroframe Services, LLC, 14-cv-987 unless this
plaintiff has additional reasons for judgment in his favor.” Id.
On August 18, 2021, plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and attached
an affidavit setting forth the wages he claims he was owed and attached his contract with
counsel where he agreed to pay one-third of her recovery as a contingency. Doc. 87. Plaintiff
also made a claim for “an additional sum of $3,076.92 representing other unpaid wage
benefits such as purchased vacation, regular earned unused vacation, and paid time off.” Doc.
87, att. 3. Plaintiff did not total his claim in his request. Defendant Aeroframe Services, LLC,
filed an opposition adopting its opposition to Cooley, supra. Doc. 88.
On or before November 12, 2021, plaintiff is to amend his memorandum in support of his
motion to set forth the amount claimed. The total amount is to be further broken down by amount
for wages, for penalties, and for attorney fees only. The court will not do any math for plaintiff.

The “additional sum” included in the affidavit is unsupported by any documentation and was not
an item included for the Cooley matters so that we are able to simply refer to our ruling there to
substantiate that award. We consider the time passed for this plaintiff to make such a claim for
any “additional sum” and will suggest to the district court that claim be denied. Plaintiff will have
every opportunity to object to that recommendation at the time it is issued.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers this 21st day of October, 2021.