Coley et al v. Aeroframe Services L L C et al

Filing 82

ORDER re 76 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Alfred Mueller, Richard Theriot, Morris W Domingue, Lindsay Halpin, Troy Hayes, Vernon Holzknecht, Simona Lasalle, Robert Coley. On or before November 12, 2021, plaintiffs are to a mend their memorandum in support of their motion to set forth the total amount claimed by each. The total amount is to be further broken down by for wages, for penalties, and for attorney fees only. The court will not do any math for plaintiffs. 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 plain tiffs to make such aclaim for any additional sum and will suggest to the district court the additional sum claim be denied for each. Plaintiffs 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 COLEY, ET AL.

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-cv-2324

VERSUS

:

JUDGE DONALD E. WALTER

AEROFRAME SERVICES, LLC, ET AL

:

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KAY

ORDER

On July 28, 2021, plaintiffs were ordered to file a Motion for Summary Judgment with
respect to each plaintiff’s claim for wages, penalties, and attorney fees against Aeroframe Services,
LLC, and to attach appropriate summary judgment type evidence. Doc. 75. Plaintiffs were 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 her favor.” Id.
On August 13, 2021, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and attached an
affidavit setting forth the wages each claimed each was owed and each attached his or her contract
with counsel where he or she agreed to pay one-third of recovery as a contingency. Doc. 76.
Plaintiffs also each made a claim for “an additional sum of _____ representing other unpaid wage
benefits such as purchased vacation, regular earned unused vacation, and paid time off.” Doc. 76,
atts. 3-16. Each plaintiff inserted an amount into the blank listed in the affidavit. No plaintiff
totaled his or her claim in his or her request. Defendant Aeroframe Services, LLC, filed an
opposition adopting its opposition to Cooley, supra. Doc. 79.
On or before November 12, 2021, plaintiffs are to amend their memorandum in support of
their motion to set forth the total amount claimed by each. The total amount is to be further broken

down by for wages, for penalties, and for attorney fees only. The court will not do any math for
plaintiffs. 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 plaintiffs to make such a
claim for any “additional sum” and will suggest to the district court the “additional sum” claim be
denied for each. Plaintiffs 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.