Cheryl Rodriguez v. Sourthern Dunes Golf, LLC ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
    this Memorandum Decision shall not be
    regarded as precedent or cited before
    any court except for the purpose of                                         Jun 30 2014, 10:08 am
    establishing the defense of res judicata,
    collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:                             ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
    RONALD E. WELDY                                     WILLIAM T. ROSENBAUM
    Weldy & Associates                                  Rosenbaum Law, P.C.
    Indianapolis, Indiana                               Indianapolis, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    CHERYL RODRIGUEZ,                                   )
    )
    Appellant-Plaintiff,                         )
    )
    vs.                                  )      No. 49A02-1307-PL-639
    )
    SOUTHERN DUNES GOLF, LLC,                           )
    )
    Appellee-Defendant.                          )
    APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
    The Honorable Patrick L. McCarty, Judge
    Cause No. 49D03-0704-PL-17019
    June 30, 2014
    MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    MAY, Judge
    Cheryl Rodriguez appeals a judgment for Southern Dunes Golf, LLC (Southern
    Dunes). As Southern Dunes was not Rodriguez’s employer1 at the time she earned the
    commissions she wishes to collect, we affirm.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    On June 1, 2004, Rodriguez began her employment with Southern Dunes as a Banquet
    Manager. She was paid $12.00 per hour. In November 2004, Rodriguez was promoted to
    Special Events Coordinator. As Special Events Coordinator, Rodriguez was paid $505 per
    week in salary and was entitled to 12.5% of the gratuity charge on food and beverage sales of
    the events she booked and planned. Until October 15, 2005, Southern Dunes paid Rodriguez.
    On October 16, 2005, Najem Catering took over Southern Dunes’ food and beverage
    catering and received all the income and gratuities for events that took place after that date.
    Prior to this transition, Rodriguez and her supervisor, Brian Garrett, met with Mr. Najem to
    discuss the transition from Southern Dunes to Najem Catering. Najem Catering increased
    Rodriguez’s salary to $550 per week and her gratuity remained the same. Between October
    15, 2005, and November 1, 2005, when her employment was terminated, Najem Catering
    paid Rodriguez.
    Rodriguez booked a variety of events while working at the Southern Dunes.
    Sometimes these events were scheduled a year or two in advance. When Najem terminated
    Rodriguez, many of the events she booked had not yet taken place. Rodriguez filed a claim
    asserting Southern Dunes owed her $3,574.12 in sales commissions from the events she
    1
    Because we so hold, we need not address whether Southern Dunes and Najem Catering are joint employers.
    2
    booked that occurred after her termination. The trial court entered judgment in favor of
    Southern Dunes after concluding Southern Dunes could not be responsible for Rodriguez’s
    unpaid sales commissions.
    DISCUSSION AND DECISION
    The trial court sua sponte made findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the
    identity of Rodriguez’s employer at the time of her termination. In this situation,
    the specific findings control our review and the judgment only as to the issues
    those specific findings cover. Where there are no specific findings, a general
    judgment standard applies and we may affirm on any legal theory supported by
    the evidence adduced at trial.
    We apply the following two-tier standard of review to sua sponte
    findings and conclusions: whether the evidence supports the findings, and
    whether the findings support the judgment. Findings and conclusions will be
    set aside only if they are clearly erroneous, that is, when the record contains no
    facts or inferences supporting them. A judgment is clearly erroneous when a
    review of the record leaves us with a firm conviction that a mistake has been
    made. We consider only the evidence favorable to the judgment and all
    reasonable inferences flowing therefrom, and we will neither reweigh the
    evidence nor assess witness credibility.
    Trust No. 6011, Lake County Trust Co. v. Heil’s Haven Condominiums Homeowners Ass’n,
    
    967 N.E.2d 6
    , 14 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied.
    When an employer separates an employee from payroll, “the unpaid wages or
    compensation of such employee shall become due and payable at regular payday for pay
    period in which separation occurred.” Ind. Code § 22-2-9-2. As Southern Dunes was not
    Rodriguez’s employer at the time of her termination, it is not the appropriate party for
    Rodriguez to pursue.
    The trial court found:
    3
    24. Najem Catering assumed all responsibility for food and beverage catering
    through the Southern Dunes Banquet Hall from October 16, 2005 until April 9,
    2007.
    25. At some point prior to October 15, 2005, Brian Garrett and Cheryl
    Rodriguez met with Mr. Najem to discuss the transition of food and beverage
    responsibility from Southern Dunes Golf, LLC to Najem Catering.
    26. . . . Cheryl Rodriguez understood that Najem Catering was responsible for
    food and beverage service for all events, and Ms. Rodriguez directed the host
    or event sponsor to make their payment for food and beverage services to
    Najem Catering.
    27. Ms. Rodriguez also received her paychecks from Najem Catering
    beginning in October, 2005.
    ...
    29. From and after October 16, 2005, Najem Catering received all revenue
    from food and beverage sales for Banquet Hall events and received all
    gratuities for such events.
    (App. at 8-9.) The trial court concluded Najem Catering was Rodriguez’s employer from
    October 16, 2005, until her time of termination. (Id. at 9.)
    In a civil action, a claimant need prove by only a preponderance of the evidence that
    the defendant committed the act alleged. French-Tex Cleaners, Inc. v. Cafaro Co., 
    893 N.E.2d 1156
    , 1166 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). Rodriguez presented into evidence her employment
    letter for becoming a Banquet Manager, (Pl.’s Ex. 1), invoices of the events she booked,
    (Pl.’s Ex. 3), a calculation of her unpaid commissions (Pl.’s Ex. 4), a letter from the Indiana
    Department of Labor indicating the Department of Labor gave her permission to pursue the
    claim, (Pl.’s Ex. 5), and an earnings statement from Southern Dunes from November 2004.
    (Pl.’s Ex. 7.) All that evidence was related to events before Najem Catering took over
    operations. Southern Dunes presented into evidence pay stubs Najem Catering issued to
    Rodriguez after it took over operations. (Def.’s Ex. A.) These pay stubs indicate Najem
    Catering paid Rodriguez both her salary and her commission.(Id.) Rodriguez testified that at
    4
    the meeting Mr. Najem had with the employees he said that “we would be working for him
    now—or with him now[,]” (Tr. at 38), which indicates she knew there was a transition in
    employers. Rodriguez’s arguments to the contrary are invitations for us to reweigh the
    evidence, which we cannot do. See Trust No. 6011, Lake County Trust 
    Co., 967 N.E.2d at 14
    (stating evidence cannot be reweighed on appeal).
    Rodriguez argues her claim, as to commissions due for events booked before the
    employer transition, is against Southern Dunes because she earned her sales commissions
    upon booking an event. However, the trial court found the “gratuity was charged on the food
    and beverage total, and not on the rental fee for the banquet facility.” (App. at 7.) The
    charge on food and beverages was not made until the event occurred because, according to
    testimony, changes were sometimes made less than ten days before the event occurred. (Tr.
    at 35.) The invoices that Rodriguez presented support finding the gratuity was charged only
    to the total of the food and beverage order. (Pl.’s Ex. 3.) Therefore, Rodriguez did not earn
    any sales commission until after the events took place, which was after the transition to
    Najem Catering.
    This evidence supports the trial court’s findings, and the findings support the
    conclusion Najem Catering was Rodriguez’s employer at the time of her termination.
    Therefore, the trial court did not err in finding Southern Dunes was not responsible for the
    sales commissions Rodriguez wishes to collect. Accordingly, we affirm.
    Affirmed.
    VAIDIK, C.J., and RILEY, J., concur.
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 49A02-1307-PL-639

Filed Date: 6/30/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021