Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Adamson v. W.R. Coleman Excavation, LLC

United States District Court, D. Utah

September 19, 2017

MATTHEW ADAMSON, Plaintiff,
v.
W.R. COLEMAN EXCAVATION, LLC, a Utah limited liability company, dba COLEMANXCAVATION; KYLE COLEMAN; WALLACE COLEMAN; and DON COLEMAN, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

          Jill N. Parrish United States District Court Judge

         This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 20) and Motion to Strike Declaration (ECF No. 27). The matter is fully briefed, and the Court finds that oral argument would not materially assist the Court in adjudicating the motion. For the reasons below, the Court grants Defendant's Motion to Strike, grants Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's federal law claim, and dismisses Plaintiff's state law claims without prejudice.

         I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND[1]

         In September 2015, Plaintiff worked as a laborer for Defendant W.R. Coleman Excavation, LLC. On September 21, 2015, Adamson sent this text message to his supervisor, Defendant Don Coleman:

Hey Don it's Matt I was wondering if your able to do cash advances I'm in a real tight situation with my house I understand if you can't thought I would ask you before I try getting loans you're a lot easier to pay off then a loan would be

         When Coleman asked how much Adamson was asking for, Adamson responded:

It would be my whole next check plus some out of my next check if possible I need 1000 if you could I know it's a lot to ask for but I won't burn you ill pay it back but like I Said if not I understand I'll appreciate how ever much you can do

         Although Adamson originally asked for $1, 000, he increased his request to $2, 000 after speaking with his wife. Coleman agreed.

         Sometime after Adamson requested $2, 000, Adamson texted Coleman with another request:

Hey man my wallet got stolen out of my truck last night and it had 400 dollars In it all my money I had to my name and now I have no money to live I was wondering if you could help me out again I hate to ask and don't expect the help it's my only option for help though. I understand it's not your problem but you have been helpful before so I thought I would ask if you cannot I understand completely thanks don

To this, Coleman responded, “Dang dude that sucks bad. Ya I can help ya.” Coleman agreed to advance Adamson an additional $500. Payments to Adamson totaled $2, 500.

         Although Adamson originally offered to have Coleman deduct in full what Adamson owed from his next two paychecks, Coleman determined to deduct smaller amounts over a longer period of time as shown in the table below. The $800 deduction on December 18, 2015 is at the core of this lawsuit.

Date

Cash Advance Repayment Withholding

Year-to-Date Repayment Withholding

Remaining Repayment Balance

September 25, 2015

$250

$250

$2, 250

October 9, 2015

$250

$500

$2, 000

October 24, 2015

$0

$500

$2, 000

November 6, 2015

$400

$900

$1, 600

November 20, 2015

$250

$1, 150

$1, 350

December 4, 2015

$0

$1, 150

$1, 350

December 18, 2015

$800

$1, 950

$550

         II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         On February 3, 2016, Plaintiff Matthew Adamson filed a Complaint against Defendants, bringing tort and contract claims and alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA”) and Utah wage statutes.

         On September 20, 2016, Plaintiff gave a deposition in this case. The deposition lasted only two hours and included direct examination by Mr. Randall Jeffs for the Defendants and cross examination by Plaintiff's own attorney, Mr. Gregory Smith. Defendants' summary judgment motion and Plaintiff's opposition both rely in large part on the testimony Plaintiff gave at that deposition. However, in opposition to Defendants' summary judgment motion, Plaintiff filed a signed declaration (ECF No. 22). Defendants urge this Court to strike ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.