Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-0105
April 6, 2004
ORDER
AND NOW, this 6th day of April, 2004, upon consideration of Defendant Salim Hayek's Motion to Dismiss and Motion for a More Definitive Statement (Docket No. 4), Plaintiff Ernest Camponovo's opposition thereto (Docket No. 7) and Defendant Hayek's reply to Plaintiff's opposition (Docket No. 8), it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff's sole cause of action is under the Pennsylvania Wage Payment Collection Law ("PWPCL") where he is attempting to collect a money judgment from the Officers of Prometheus Health Imaging, Inc. ("Prometheus"), where a judgment was previously entered against Prometheus, but where Prometheus has not paid the judgment. Plaintiff is not attempting to relitigate whether there was a breach of the employment contract. Accordingly, the employment contract is not an issue in this case.
Additionally, Hayek has prematurely asked the Court to determine whether he can be held liable under the PWPCL for Prometheus' debts. Based on the authority that Hayek submitted to the Court, such a determination requires findings of fact.
Hayek asserts that he can only be held liable under the PWPCL if he was a policy maker or an active decision maker. Hayek baldly asserts that he was a "non-active" officer who did not take a role in management and who was just a "figurehead." Clearly, Hayek's role in the company requires findings of fact that cannot be made on a motion to dismiss, especially since Hayek has not supplied any evidence to support his assertions.