Case Law Broussard-Wadkins v. Maples

Broussard-Wadkins v. Maples

Document Cited Authorities (41) Cited in (8) Related

895 F.Supp.2d 1159

Audrey BROUSSARD–WADKINS, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.Wade MAPLES, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. CV–09–S–1563–NE.

United States District Court,

N.D. Alabama,

Northeastern Division.

Sept. 28, 2012.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Howard W. Foster, Matthew A. Galin, Foster, PC, Chicago, IL, Lance V. Oliver, Rebecca Merritt Deupree, Motley Rice LLC, Mt. Pleasant, SC, W.H. Narwold, Motley Rice LLC, Hartford, CT, Lance Harrison Swanner, The Cochran Firm PC, Dothan, AL, Raymond P. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Fitzpatrick & Brown LLP, Robert J. Camp, The Cochran Firm, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiffs.

Robert Carl Cannon, Constangy Brooks & Smith, Atlanta, GA, Gerald R. Paulk, Gerald R. Paulk PC, Scottsboro, AL, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

C. LYNWOOD SMITH, JR., District Judge.

+-------------------+
¦Table of Contents  ¦
+-------------------¦
¦                   ¦
+-------------------+

+---------------------------------------------------+
¦I. ¦Overview of Civil Remedies Under Rico     ¦1164¦
+---+------------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦                                          ¦    ¦
+---+------------------------------------------+----¦
¦II.¦Motion to Strike                          ¦1165¦
+---------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦A.¦Legal Standard                     ¦1165¦
+---+--+-----------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦B.¦Expert Report of Edward Mallon     ¦1166¦
+-----------------------------------------------+

+------------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦  ¦1.¦Mallon's methods                      ¦1167 ¦
+---+--+--+--------------------------------------+-----¦
¦   ¦  ¦2.¦Mallon's opinions                     ¦1168 ¦
+---+--+--+--------------------------------------+-----¦
¦   ¦  ¦3.¦The admissibility of Mallon's opinions¦1169 ¦
+------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦  ¦a.¦Speculation                       ¦1169¦
+---+---+--+--+----------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦  ¦b.¦Specific opinions                 ¦1171¦
+-----------------------------------------------------+

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦i.    ¦Opinion regarding unauthorized workers     ¦1171   ¦
+----+---+---+---+------+-------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦ii.   ¦Opinion regarding attestation on I–9 Forms ¦1173   ¦
+----+---+---+---+------+-------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦iii.  ¦Opinion regarding knowingly hiring         ¦1173   ¦
¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦      ¦illegalimmigrants                          ¦       ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦  ¦c.¦Conclusions                       ¦1174¦
+-----------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦C.¦Expert Report of Dr. George Borjas ¦1174¦
+-----------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦1.¦Dr. Borjas's qualifications         ¦1174¦
+---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦2.¦Methods used by Dr. Borjas          ¦1174¦
+----------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a. ¦Autonomy of Maples Industries in setting wages    ¦1175   ¦
+----+----+---+---+--------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b. ¦Impact of labor supply on the wage scale of       ¦1177   ¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦MaplesIndustries.                                 ¦       ¦
+----+----+---+---+--------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦c. ¦Conclusions and calculation of damages            ¦1179   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦3.¦Reliability and admissibility       ¦1179¦
+----------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦  ¦a.¦Incompleteness                    ¦1180¦
+---+---+--+--+----------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦  ¦b.¦Reliability                       ¦1180¦
+-----------------------------------------------------+

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦i.    ¦Market power analysis                      ¦1180   ¦
+----+---+---+---+------+-------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦ii.   ¦Hispanic school enrollment                 ¦1181   ¦
+----+---+---+---+------+-------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦iii.  ¦Alternative causes and conflict with Dr.   ¦1182   ¦
¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦      ¦Borhas's academic publications             ¦       ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦                                                       ¦      ¦
+----+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦III.¦Motion for Summary Judgment                            ¦1184  ¦
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦A.¦Relevant Facts                     ¦1185¦
+-----------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦   ¦1.¦Maples Industries and defendants             ¦1185  ¦
+----+---+--+---------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦   ¦2.¦Plaintiffs and other hourly employees        ¦1186  ¦
+----+---+--+---------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦   ¦3.¦Hiring hourly-wage employees                 ¦1187  ¦
+----+---+--+---------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦   ¦4.¦Fraudulent documents and unauthorized workers¦1190  ¦
+----+---+--+---------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦   ¦5.¦Wages                                        ¦1191  ¦
+----+---+--+---------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦   ¦6.¦Immigration enforcement at Maples Industries ¦1192  ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦B.¦Discussion                         ¦1193¦
+-----------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦1.¦The INA “hiring provision”          ¦1193¦
+----------------------------------------------------+

+---------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦   ¦  ¦a. ¦Plaintiffs' attack on Mateo's credibility¦1195 ¦
+----+---+--+---+-----------------------------------------+-----¦
¦    ¦   ¦  ¦b. ¦Plaintiffs' “common sense” arguments     ¦1196 ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦2.¦The “attestation provision”         ¦1199¦
+----------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦   ¦  ¦a.¦Compliance with the verification provision¦1200  ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------+

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦i.   ¦Statutory interpretation                    ¦1200   ¦
+----+---+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦ii.  ¦Application of the statute to the facts in  ¦1201   ¦
¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦     ¦the record                                  ¦       ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+---------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦   ¦  ¦b. ¦Compliance with the attestation provision¦1204 ¦
+----+---+--+---+-----------------------------------------+-----¦
¦    ¦   ¦  ¦c. ¦Damages and proximate cause              ¦1205 ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------------+

+---------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦                                          ¦    ¦
+---+------------------------------------------+----¦
¦IV.¦Conclusion and Orders                     ¦1206¦
+---------------------------------------------------+

Plaintiffs, Audrey Broussard–Wadkins and Darlene Harbin, were hourly-wage employees of Maples Industries, Inc. They commenced this putative class action against the owners and officers of that company: i.e., Wade Maples, John Maples, Howard Moore, and Gina Mateo.1 Plaintiffsallege that defendants conspired to depress the wages of hourly employees of Maples Industries by knowingly hiring immigrants who had been brought into the United States illegally, and by falsely attesting to the validity of employment documents in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. (“RICO”). 2 Plaintiffs brought the action on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons: i.e., current and former hourly-wage employees of Maples Industries who are legally authorized to work in the United States. 3 This opinion addresses three motions: defendants' motion for summary judgment; 4 defendants' motion to exclude the reports of plaintiffs' expert witnesses, Edward Mallon and Dr. George J. Borjas; 5 and plaintiffs' motion for class certification.6

I. OVERVIEW OF CIVIL REMEDIES UNDER RICO

In addition to the criminal sanctions provided by RICO, see18 U.S.C. § 1963(a),7 Congress declared that “[a]ny person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district court and shall...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Start a free trial
2 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama – 2017
Jones v. Novartis Pharm. Corp.
"...to ensure they meet the standards for admissibility under Rule 702." Id. (internal quotation omitted).Broussard–Wadkins v. Maples , 895 F.Supp.2d 1159, 1165 (N.D. Ala. 2012), aff'd sub nom. Broussard v. Maples , 535 Fed.Appx. 825 (11th Cir. 2013).The burden under Rule 702 rests squarely wit..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama – 2018
Patel v. City of Madison
"...to ensure they meet the standards for admissibility under Rule 702." Id. (internal quotation omitted).Broussard-Wadkins v. Maples, 895 F. Supp. 2d 1159, 1165 (N.D. Ala. 2012), aff'dsub nom. Broussard v. Maples, 535 F. App'x 825 (11th Cir. 2013). The burden under Rule 702 rests squarely with..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
2 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama – 2017
Jones v. Novartis Pharm. Corp.
"...to ensure they meet the standards for admissibility under Rule 702." Id. (internal quotation omitted).Broussard–Wadkins v. Maples , 895 F.Supp.2d 1159, 1165 (N.D. Ala. 2012), aff'd sub nom. Broussard v. Maples , 535 Fed.Appx. 825 (11th Cir. 2013).The burden under Rule 702 rests squarely wit..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama – 2018
Patel v. City of Madison
"...to ensure they meet the standards for admissibility under Rule 702." Id. (internal quotation omitted).Broussard-Wadkins v. Maples, 895 F. Supp. 2d 1159, 1165 (N.D. Ala. 2012), aff'dsub nom. Broussard v. Maples, 535 F. App'x 825 (11th Cir. 2013). The burden under Rule 702 rests squarely with..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Used by the world's leading companies

Herbert Smith Freehills Logo Princeton University Logo University of Oxford Logo K2 Intelligence LLC Logo Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP Logo Kobre & Kim LLP Logo Wiley Logo ABA Logo Perez Lorca Logo Fisher Phillips Logo
vLex Footer Logo
© 2025 vLex. All rights reserved.