Opinion
No. 33094-6-II.
February 26, 2008.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clark County, No. 04-2-02359-2, John F. Nichols, J., entered March 11, 2005.
Reversed and remanded by unpublished opinion per Penoyar, J., concurred in by Van Deren, A.C.J., and Bridgewater, J.
Francis and Patricia Woods (the Woods) appeal an order of summary judgment denying their claim for overtime compensation against Mitchell Brothers Truck Line (Mitchell Bros.). We reverse summary judgment against the Woods, reverse the order denying their motion for summary judgment against Mitchell Bros., and award damages and prejudgment interest as alleged in the complaint. We remand for the trial court to determine the amount of attorney fees the Woods are entitled to recover for the proceedings below. We also award attorney fees to the Woods as the prevailing party on appeal.
Facts
Mitchell Bros. employed Francis Woods as an interstate truck driver for almost nine years, ending on May 20, 2003. He worked out of Mitchell Bros. Vancouver, Washington terminal, a three-or four-acre parcel housing a shop, a fueling station, office buildings, a parking lot, and a truck parking lot. Mitchell Bros. has one other terminal in British Columbia that it opened about a year before it terminated Woods. Woods worked exclusively out of the Vancouver, Washington terminal. There he began each route, was dispatched, returned from his routes, turned in his bills of lading and expense sheets, and received his pay. His routes took him out of Washington into Oregon, Idaho, Utah, and Montana.
After Mitchell Bros. terminated Woods, he and his wife, Patricia Woods, sued Mitchell Bros. for (1) not paying him overtime compensation under RCW 49.46.130(1), for (2) wrongful withholding of wages under RCW 49.48.010, and for (3) willful failure to pay wages under RCW 49.52.050(2). As relief, he sought compensation for the unpaid wages under claims (1) and (2), double damages for claim (3), reasonable attorney fees under RCW 49.46.090(1), 49.48.030, and 49.52.070, prejudgment interest, and compensation for any adverse tax consequences of the award.
Chapter 49.46 RCW is Washington's Minimum Wage Act, hereafter, the MWA.
Based on his trucker's log books, Woods calculated his unpaid overtime compensation at $12,474.13 for the period within the statute of limitations. He calculated the prejudgment interest owing as $4,805.54. Mitchell Bros. did not controvert these amounts; rather, it asserted that Woods never worked overtime within the State of Washington and that it had no obligation to pay him overtime for hours worked in other states. The trial court agreed, granted Mitchell Bros. summary judgment, and dismissed the complaint.
The Woods appealed this decision on April 6, 2005. On April 25, 2005, the Woods filed a motion to stay the briefing scheduling in this case pending a decision in Bostain v. Food Express, Inc. No. 31461-4-II. We lifted the stay after issuing an opinion in that case and reimposed the stay after the Supreme Court granted discretionary review on October 13, 2005. After the Supreme Court decided Bostain v. Food Express, Inc., 159 Wn.2d 700, 153 P.3d 846 (2007), we lifted the stay and the parties filed briefs discussing Bostain as it applies here.
Bostain v. Food Express, Inc., 127 Wn. App. 499, 111 P.3d 906 (2005), reversed by Bostain v. Food Express, Inc., 159 Wn.2d 700, 153 P.3d 846 (2007).
analysis
We review the motions for summary judgment de novo and make the same inquiry as the trial court; summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show there is no genuine issue about any material fact and, assuming facts most favorable to the nonmoving party, establish that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Wilson v. Steinbach, 98 Wn.2d 434, 437, 656 P.2d 1030 (1982).
The Bostain decision resolved the primary legal issue here in holding that a Washington State based employee must be paid overtime even when the overtime hours accrue outside of the state. However Mitchell Bros. asserts that the Bostain holding does not apply because Woods was an Oregon resident. Mitchell Bros. relies on the holding in Bostain that "[i]n relevant part, the MWA regulates only employers who are doing business in Washington and who have hired Washington-based employees." Bostain, 159 Wn.2d at 719. Without meaningful analysis, Mitchell Bros. concludes that because Woods was an Oregon resident, he could not be a Washington-based employee and therefore the overtime provisions of the MWA do not apply to him.
The Bostain Court did not define "Washington-based" but common sense dictates that Woods was a Washington-based employee. While he lived in Oregon and was an Oregon resident, his employer was a Washington corporation situated in Washington State. Woods traveled into Washington to Mitchell Bros. terminal where he was dispatched on his trucking routes. When he finished a route, he would return to the Washington-based terminal, where he would file his bills of lading, await further dispatches, and receive his paychecks. Woods's Oregon residency was irrelevant to his Washington-based employment. See Burnside v. Simpson Paper Co., 123 Wn.2d 93, 100, 864 P.2d 937 (1994) (in deciding choice of law questions, Washington uses the "most significant relationship" standard) (citing Johnson v. Spider Staging Corp., 87 Wn.2d 577, 580-81, 555 P.2d 997) (1976) (Washington law appropriate choice in wrongful-death action against Washington corporation)).
Mitchell Bros. also asserts that the Bostain holding violates the commerce clause and is therefore unconstitutional. The Bostain Court, under nearly identical circumstances, found no commerce clause violation.
U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3.
While this appeal was pending, the United States Supreme Court denied Mitchell Bros.' petition for certiorari and, thus, its commerce clause claim has been finally adjudicated. See Food Express v. Bostain, Larie E., Et ux., No. 07-402 (order denying certiorari dated November 26, 2007).
Finally, Mitchell Bros. argues that we should remand to determine the damages award. The Woods ask us to award the amount they pleaded because it is uncontroverted. As in Bostain, we award the Woods their request for overtime wages in the amount of $12,474.13, their request for prejudgment interest in the amount of $4,805.54, attorney fees for their efforts below, and attorney fees for this appeal. We remand this matter for the trial court to set a reasonable amount of attorney fees and to enter judgment against Mitchell Bros. We deny the Woods's request for double damages under RCW 49.52.070. Bostain, 159 Wn.2d at 723 (bona fide dispute relieves employer of paying double damages).
We reverse and remand for the trial court to determine an appropriate award of attorney fees for the superior court proceedings and this appeal and to enter judgment against Mitchell Bros.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered.
VAN DEREN, A.C.J., and BRIDGEWATER, J., concur.