United States of America v. Appelbaum

Filing 35

ORDER directing parties to address in a filing with the Court no later than Wednesday, Sept. 30, 2015, the aforementioned issue set out above in this Order. Signed by District Judge Richard Voorhees on 9/22/2015. (cbb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12-cv-186 (LEAD), 3:14-CV-504 (CONSOLIDATED)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ERIC APPELBAUM,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
______________________________________ )
)
CLAUDIA APPELBAUM,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
)
)
Defendant.
)
)

ORDER

The parties dispute whether Eric Appelbaum was an officer of Warde Electric
Contracting, Inc. In reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Court takes notice of the consent
judgment in the action Chao v. Eric Appelbaum, et al. (Doc. 30-16). The Court notes that
Defendant Eric Appelbaum, in his consent judgment, admitted the allegations set forth in the
Secretary’s Complaint. See id. ¶ 6. The Complaint is already in the record at Plaintiff’s Exhibit
12 (Doc. 30-14). Pertinent to the Court’s analysis is Paragraph 9, which states that “at all times
relevant to the allegations herein, defendant Eric Appelbaum was an owner and officer in the
Plans’ sponsors, Warde Electric Contracting Inc. and L.A.B. Electric Sales Corp.” (Doc. 30-14,
at ¶ 9). The allegations in the Secretary’s Complaint appear to encompass the time period at

issue in the instant case. (Id. at ¶ 25, referring to the period of January 1, 1992 to December 31,
2001).
The Court would like the parties to address whether or not the allegations that were
admitted in the prior Department of Labor case are admissible in the instant case. For example,
is Appelbaum’s admission that he was an officer admissible in the instant case? The Court directs
the parties to Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Court’s prior decision in Smith
v. Waverly Partners, et. al., No. 3:10-cv-28, 2012 WL 4086774 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 17, 2012).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED THAT the parties address the aforementioned issue
in a filing with the Court by no later than Wednesday, September 30, 2015.

Signed: September 22, 2015