Conka v. Ranger Sec. Servs., Inc.

LADISLAV CONKA v. RANGER SECURITY SERVICES, INC., ET AL.

No. 1782

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2017

March 29, 2021

Circuit Court for Montgomery County

Case No. 422472-V

UNREPORTED

Kehoe, Leahy, Reed, JJ.

Opinion by Reed, J.

*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.

On June 20, 2016, Ladislav Conka (hereinafter "Appellant") filed an action against Ranger Security Services, Inc. and Patrick George Freeman for unpaid overtime wages, statutory liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Maryland Wage and Hour Law ("MWHL") and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law ("MWPCL"). A little bit more than a year later, the Circuit Court for Montgomery County entered judgment in favor of Appellant on his MWHL claim, awarding him $3,549 plus an equal amount in statutory liquidated damages and awarded him zero dollars in attorneys' fees under that claim. This was the full amount of Appellant's claim under the MWHL. However, the circuit court ruled in favor of Ranger Security Services, Inc. and Patrick George Foreman on Appellant's MWPCL claim.

Subsequently, Appellant filed post-trial motions asking the circuit court to amend its judgment and award for attorneys' fees. The circuit court denied Appellant's post-trial motions. It is from these denials that Appellant files this timely appeal. In doing so, Appellant brings the following questions for our review:¹

I. Did the circuit court err in denying Appellant's request for reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs associated with his successful MWHL claim?

II. Did the circuit court abuse its discretion when it denied Appellant's Post-Trial Motions for attorneys' fees and other costs after failing to notify the parties of the proper time to present evidence of attorneys' fees?

III. Did the circuit court err in denying Appellant's MWPCL claim based on the lack of evidence that Appellant demanded payment of his mandated overtime wages?

We hold that the circuit court (1) abused its discretion in denying Appellant's Post-Trial Motion for attorneys' fees and other costs, and (2) the circuit court erred in denying Appellant's MWPCL claim. Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court's denial of Appellant's Post-Trial Motions, vacate the circuit court's denial of Appellant's MWPCL claim, and remand this case in accordance with this opinion.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Patrick George Freeman owns all shares of Ranger Security Services, Inc. ("Ranger Security"). Ranger Security is a company that provides security to construction sites and buildings. Appellant was employed by Ranger Security as a security officer from June 2015 through April 2016. Appellant was hired to work 36 hours per week. During Appellant's employment at Ranger Security, he worked 591 hours of overtime for which he did not receive any compensation. On June 20, 2016, Appellant filed a complaint against Mr. Freeman and Ranger Security (collectively "Appellees") seeking damages for unpaid overtime pursuant to the Maryland Wage and Hour Law ("MWHL")² and the MarylandWage Payment and Collection Law ("MWPCL")³ Appellant requested attorneys' fees in both counts of his complaint.

On September 23, 2016, Appellant filed a Notice to Court Regarding Attorneys' Fees and the circuit court held a scheduling hearing. Subsequently, the circuit court entered a Scheduling Order, which did not mention the time for presentation of attorneys' fees evidence. Further, no subsequent order of the court addressed when, be it before or after trial, evidence of attorneys' fees should be presented. On April 13, 2017, the parties filed a Joint Pretrial Statement. In the Joint Pretrial Statement, Appellant asserted he was seeking attorneys' fees pursuant to the MWHL and the MWPCL "to be determined by the Court pursuant to the Lodestar method after [Appellant] files a post-trial petition for such an award." At trial, Appellant testified to matters relating to his attorneys' fees:

Q. Do you have lawyer [sic] in this case?

[Appellant]: Yes, over here.

Q. Do you pay him money? Did you pay him a fee?

[Appellant]: No.

Q. You didn't pay him a fee?

[Appellant]: No.

. . . .

Q. Do you know how your lawyer's getting paid for representing you?

[Appellant]: I don't know

Q. You don't know?

[Appellant]: I don't know. I have not [sic] idea. I hire a lawyer of, of, of course for my overtime hours, but I have not [sic] idea if I have asked him for fee, or, or, all I was asked to get my overtime hour to pay that's all.

Q. Okay. Do you know if your attorney's [sic] agreed to receive a percentage of any recovery here?

[Appellant]: No. By my understanding, every lawyer gets some, of course, recovery in percentage for by my knowledge, my intelligent, of course, a lawyer get paid, of course, get paid for fee or something like that, but I never ask him, or, or whatever your question was.

Q. Okay. Is your attorney charging any hourly rate for their work that there [sic] are doing for you?

[Appellant]: No. Zero. Not yet, nothing.

Q. So, do you have any idea about the amount of attorney's fees that have incurred to date?

[Appellant]: Yes, I have idea about. He told me his fee, yeah, after the court, let's say decided, so if, if I, if I have a case that I need to pay the attorney, then they ask me to pay him the fee, yeah.

Q. But you have no idea what that fee is?

[Appellant]: No.

....

Q. You think it's a contingency fee basis?

[Appellant]: I'm sorry?

Q. You think they're going to receive a percentage of your recovery?

[Appellant]: Yeah. Something like that, yeah.

In addressing Appellant's MWHL claim, the circuit court found that Appellees initially hired Appellant to work 36 hours per week. Further, the circuit court found thatAppellant had worked 591 hours of overtime, for which he did not receive the overtime rate of pay mandated under § 3-415 of the MWHL. On July 19, 2017, the circuit court entered judgment in favor of Appellant on his MWHL claim, awarding him $3,549 in compensatory damages and $3,549 in liquidated damages. Appellant's request for attorneys' fees for his MWHL claim was denied. At the conclusion of trial, Judge Boynton issued an oral ruling from the bench. In Judge Boynton's oral ruling he addressed the issue of Appellant's attorneys' fees:

Under the same section, the plaintiff is entitled to sue for reasonable attorney's fees. And so, in this case, the evidence on that is that there's no evidence [sic] been presented that there are any attorney's fees. The plaintiff indicated that he was not seeking attorney's fees, he did not ask his lawyer to seek attorney's fees, he wasn't aware of any agreement, he's never received an attorney's fees bill, and there's no evidence presented on that.

So, under the statute, the Court shall award attorney's fees, which I'll do, but I'll award the amount of zero dollars because there's no evidence presented that it exists.

In addressing Appellant's MWPCL claim, the circuit court found that Appellant did not present any evidence to establish that his wages were "withheld" within the meaning of the MWPCL. Accordingly, the circuit court rejected Appellant's MWPCL claim. In rejecting Appellant's MWPCL claim, the circuit court provided, in part:

In dealing with the claim under the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Act, at this point, based upon the testimony I've heard, there's a requirement that there be some showing that the employer withheld money after the termination, whether voluntary or not, of the employee.

And there is no evidence that's been submitted that any money was withheld, and to me that term implies that there was a request or a demand made by the employee for the payment of monies that he was owed that he had not been paid. . .. . . .

And I understand that under both of these, reaching an agreement to work for less than is required by Maryland law is not a valid defense. However, there also needs to be some proof that the [Appellant], who in his testimony indicated that he said he was aware of the fact that he was entitled to time and a half for overtime hours, never made a demand for that money while employed, and there's no evidence that he ever made a demand for that after he left employment, and, therefore, employer violated the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law by withholding money that was owed, and for which demand was made. So, I'll enter a judgment on behalf of [Appellee] on the claim regarding the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.

On July 26, 2017, Appellant filed a Motion to Amend Judgment and a Motion to Award Statutory Attorneys' Fees and Costs (collectively "Post-trial Motions"). Subsequently, Appellees filed an Opposition to Appellant's Post-trial Motions, and on August 18, 2017, Appellant filed a Reply to Appellees' Opposition to Appellant's Post-Trial Motions. On September 22, 2017, the court denied Appellant's Post-Trial Motions. Appellant timely appealed the circuit court's (1) denial of Appellant's attorneys' fees and other costs relating to the MWHL claim; (2) refusal to permit evidence of Appellant's attorneys' fees and other costs, submitted as a Post-Trial Motion, following his successful MWHL claim; and (3) Denial of Appellant's MWPCL claim.

DISCUSSION

I. Denial of Attorneys' Fees and Costs Following Successful MWHL Claim and Post-Trial Motions

A. Parties' Contentions

As an initial matter, Appellant argues that the circuit court erred by declining to award attorneys' fees to Appellant after he prevailed on his MWHL claim. Appellant relieson MD. CODE, LABOR & EMPLOY., § 3-427(d)(1) stating that "an employee who prevails on a claim under the MWHL is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys' fees." Essentially, Appellant contends that the circuit court's award of zero dollars is tantamount to a denial of mandatory attorneys' fees following a...