BENTON – Plaintiff Michael Stone of Madison County, former employee of mechanical contractor Corrigan Brothers, seeks back pay not only from the brothers but also from their office managers.
Stone argues at U.S. district court that payroll manager Dawn Wallace and billing manager Dawn Carpenter qualify as employers under Illinois wage law.
Wallace and Carpenter, residents of Illinois, claim Stone sued them only to assert state court jurisdiction over defendants Jim and Dennis Corrigan.
The brothers reside in Missouri and operate through a Missouri corporation.
Attorney C.J. Baricevic of Belleville filed the suit in Madison County in January, claiming Stone failed to receive bonuses under a contract he signed in 2007.
The caption of the complaint carried their names, but a first reference in the text identified payroll and billing managers as Down 1 and Down 2.
The eighth count, apparently applying to Wallace, spelled her last name “Lawless.”
Corrigan Brothers removed the suit to district court in March, alleging fraudulent joinder of Wallace and Carpenter.
Corrigan Brothers counsel Robert Golterman of St. Louis moved to dismiss Wallace and Carpenter on April 7, stating they didn’t sign the contract.
Golterman wrote that Stone made no substantive allegations regarding them but it didn’t matter because nothing in the law would permit them to be considered employers.
He wrote that the brothers didn’t even employ Wallace on the date of the contract.
“Plaintiff did not work for them, did not receive wages or other compensation from either of them, and neither Ms. Wallace nor Ms. Carpenter were officers, agents, or decision makers of Corrigan Brothers,” Golterman wrote.
He attached declarations of Wallace and Carpenter stating they never had a role in deciding whether wages were paid or whether a separated employee would receive final compensation.
Baricevic moved to remand the suit to Madison County on April 9, claiming Stone needed to conduct discovery about Wallace and Carpenter.
He wrote that Stone named two corporate agents “that may have been responsible for the allegations contained within the complaint.”
He again misspelled Wallace in conceding that, “Carpenter and Wilson were not and are not corporate entities that negotiated with plaintiff.”
He wrote that they were in positions relevant to the nature of the act and were potentially responsible.
“Although the possibility exists that each named party may harbor no liability, the parties will not know for certain until discovery can be conducted,” he wrote.
Golterman opposed Madison County jurisdiction on May 14, writing that Stone’s motion made it clear he had no basis for his claims.
“These are not allegations, but the possibility of allegations,” he wrote. “Plaintiff could have simply accessed a Corrigan Brothers employee directory, picked out any Illinois resident to name as a defendant in an attempt to defeat diversity, and argued that the random employee might have been responsible for the allegations contained within the complaint.”
Baricevic opposed Golterman’s motion to dismiss Wallace and Carpenter on May 18, stating they were officers, agents, servants, or employees.
He wrote that an agent who exceeds his authority or takes an active part in violating a duty the principal owes to a third person may be held liable.
“Plaintiff has alleged that Ms. Wallace and Ms. Carpenter failed to pay him all sums due and owed him,” he wrote.
“They therefore took an active part in violating the duty to pay him what he was owed.
“If plaintiff establishes through discovery that Dawn Wallace and Dawn Carpenter are in privity with Corrigan Brothers, and a judgment is obtained against Corrigan Brothers for breach of contract, Wallace and Carpenter could be arguably liable under this theory.”
Golterman asked permission to reply, and District Judge Staci Yandle granted it.
On June 11, he wrote that there was no proof that Wallace and Carpenter were agents and there was proof that they weren’t.
He wrote that there was no allegation that they did anything that could constitute taking an active part in violating any duty or even what the duty was.
“Plaintiff is grasping at straws and knows it, admitting that any proof of privity would need to be established through discovery,” he wrote.
“They were not parties to any contract involving plaintiff, and no amount of additional discovery is going to change that.”