Conca v. RJ Lee Group Inc et al

Filing 95

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - denying 82 Motion for Reconsideration Signed by Senior Judge Edward F. Shea. (VR, Courtroom Deputy)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

5
6
7

No.

JAMES CONCA,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10

4:15-CV-5017-EFS

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

v.
RJ LEE GROUP, INC., a Pennsylvania
Corporation, and RICHARD J. LEE,

11
Defendants.
12
13
Before the Court, without oral argument, is Defendants’ Motion
14
for Reconsideration. ECF No. 82. Defendants believe the Court erred in
15
its

summary-judgment

order

by

not

dismissing

Plaintiff’s

Wrongful

16
Withholding of Wages Claim pursuant to RCW 49.52.050-070.
17
The Court denied summary judgment because “summary judgment is
18
appropriate only if the contract or the contract provision in question
19
is unambiguous.” Castaneda v. Dura-Vent Corp., 648 F.2d 612, 619 (9th
20
Cir. 1981). “A contract or a provision of a contract is ambiguous if
21
it

is

reasonably

susceptible

of

more

than

one

construction

or

22
interpretation.” Id. The Court looked at the language of the contract
23
and found it to be ambiguous and therefore denied summary judgment.
24
Defendants argue that because the Court held that the contractual
25
language was ambiguous it necessarily means that there is a bona fide
26

ORDER - 1

1

dispute.

ECF

No.

82.

Defendants’

argument,

2

however,

is

based

on

imperfect logic and confused legal standards.

3

“Contract interpretation is generally a determination of fact;

4

‘it is the process that ascertains the meaning of a term by examining

5

objective manifestations of the parties' intent.’”

6

Corp., 151 Wash. App. 818, 829 (2009) (citing Denny's Rests., Inc. v.

7

Sec.

8

touchstone of contract interpretation is the parties’ intent. Id. The

9

Court

Union

looks

Title

“for

Ins.

the

Co.,

71

parties’

Wash.

intent

App.

in

194,

the

Durand v. HIMC

201

(1993)).

contract’s

The

language,

10

subject, and objective; the circumstances surrounding formation; the

11

parties' subsequent conduct; and the reasonableness of the parties’

12

interpretations.” Id. (quoting Tanner Elec. Coop. v. Puget Sound Power

13

& Light, 128 Wash.2d 656, 674 (1996)).
Just because the language of a contractual provision is found to

14
15

be

objectively

16

necessarily mean that a jury cannot find that the parties agreed to a

17

specific meaning of the provision, or that the Defendants did not

18

subjectively believe that they were under an obligation to pay the

19

Plaintiff, or that they did not willfully withhold wages. What the

20

contractual provision means, what the parties’ intent was, whether

21

Defendants’ subjectively believed that they were under an obligation

22

to pay the Plaintiff, and whether they willfully withheld wages, are

23

all

24

contractual

25

summary

26

subjective understanding.

questions

ambiguous

of

provision

judgment

ORDER - 2

fact

for

to

summary-judgment

be

determined

objectively

review

does

not

by

ambiguous
require

purposes

a

for

the

jury.
the

Court

does

not

Finding
purposes

to

also

a
of

find

1
2
3
4
5

Accordingly,

IT

IS

HEREBY

ORDERED,

Defendant’s

Motion

for

Reconsideration, ECF No. 82, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this

Order and provide copies to all counsel.
DATED this

12th

day of April 2016.

6
s/Edward F. Shea
EDWARD F. SHEA
Senior United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Q:\EFS\Civil\2015\5017.ord.deny.recon.lc2.docx

ORDER - 3