Opinion
1 CA-CV 21-0492
03-29-2022
MATTHEW LAWRENCE HANNAH, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. FIESTA FLOORING LLC, et al., Defendant/Appellee.
Matthew Lawrence Hannah, Buckeye Plaintiff/Appellant Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, P.L.C., Phoenix By John G. Sestak, Jr. Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CV2021-003777 The Honorable Christopher A. Coury, Judge
Matthew Lawrence Hannah, Buckeye Plaintiff/Appellant
Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, P.L.C., Phoenix By John G. Sestak, Jr. Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the Court's decision, in which Vice Chief Judge David B. Gass and Judge Angela K. Paton joined.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
McMURDIE, Judge.
¶1 Matthew Lawrence Hannah appeals from the superior court's order dismissing his claims for unpaid overtime wages. We find no reversible error and affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶2 Throughout this action, Hannah alleged Fiesta Flooring refused to pay him and coworkers overtime pay while requiring workweeks exceeding 70 hours. He alleged Fiesta Flooring fired him in July 2017 for taking two days off to get married. He was homeless soon after.
¶3 An attorney representing a class action lawsuit against Fiesta Flooring contacted Hannah and sought to persuade him to join the class. See Hawthorn v. Fiesta Flooring, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-00019 WJ/SCY, 2020 WL 3085921 (D.N.M. June 10, 2020). Hannah believed he had joined, but after the parties settled, the attorney wrote to Hannah explaining he could not recover from the settlement because he did not submit a signed consent to join the class.
¶4 In January 2021, Hannah filed an individual claim against Fiesta Flooring in the U.S. District Court, seeking $20,000 in unpaid wages. The court dismissed the claim as time-barred under 29 U.S.C. § 255.
¶5 In March 2021, Hannah filed the same allegations in the superior court and requested $40,000. See A.R.S. § 23-364(G) ("Any employer who fails to pay the wages or earned paid sick time required under this article shall be required to pay the employee the balance of the wages or earned paid sick time owed, including interest thereon, and an additional amount equal to twice the underpaid wages or earned paid sick time."). Fiesta Flooring moved to dismiss, arguing the statute of limitation had lapsed for the state-law claim. See A.R.S. § 23-364(H) (claims made under this section subject to two- or three-year statute of limitation).
¶6 The court granted Fiesta Flooring's motion and dismissed Hannah's complaint with prejudice.
¶7 Hannah appealed. We have jurisdiction under A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) and -2101(A)(1).
DISCUSSION
¶8 We review a judgment granting a motion to dismiss for an abuse of discretion but review de novo the superior court's statutory interpretation. Madison v. Groseth, 230 Ariz. 8, 11, ¶ 8 (App. 2012).
¶9 Hannah argues that he would have filed sooner had he not been incarcerated. He asserts that the prison's law library was closed for weeks because of COVID-19 restrictions, and he lacked access to the legal forms necessary to initiate the action whenever the law librarian was not present. But Hannah waived the issue because he did not raise it below. See Trantor v. Fredrikson, 179 Ariz. 299, 300 (1994) ("[E]rrors not raised in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal.").
¶10 We find no error in the court's decision. Even when an employer willfully violates Arizona's wage and employee benefits protections, a civil action to enforce them must be commenced within three years. A.R.S. § 23-364(H). As the superior court found, A.R.S. § 23-364(H) required Hannah to file his complaint by the end of July 2020, about seven months before he filed. His complaint is time-barred.
CONCLUSION
¶11 We affirm.