holding that, for the purposes of appealability, “[a] final judgment or order is one that conclusively determines all pending claims of all the parties to the litigation, leaving nothing for the court to do but execute its decision”
How later courts described this case
- holding that, for the purposes of appealability, “[a] final judgment or order is one that conclusively determines all pending claims of all the parties to the litigation, leaving nothing for the court to do but execute its decision”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:20-cv-33-MOC
SHAILESH JAHAGIRDAR, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
Vs. ) AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT
) AND ORDER
)
)
THE COMPUTER HAUS, INC., et al., )
)
Defendants. )
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Judgment.
(Doc. No. 352). In response to Plaintiff’s motion, the Court issues this Amended Final Judgment.
I. BACKGROUND, FINDINGS OF FACT, AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. Plaintiffs’ Claims
In this action, Plaintiffs sued Defendants for unpaid wages, among other things. Plaintiffs
brought various claims, including claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and various
states’ wage and hour laws. Named Plaintiff Jahagirdar brought additional individual claims
separate and apart from the class claims. Before trial began in this matter, the Court announced
that it would sever and stay Jahagirdar’s individual claims pending resolution of the class claims.
See (Doc. No. 354 at 2) (Transcript of hearing held on February 16, 2023)).
Through variation iterations of the Complaint, Plaintiffs named numerous Defendants
and have alleged that various Defendants are liable under alter ego theories. Plaintiffs also
accused various Defendants of fraudulent money transfers to avoid paying damages.
1
On Defendants’ motion, the Court bifurcated the trial into two phases. In Phase One, the
jury made determinations regarding the “employer liability” issues, meaning liability for the
Employer Defendants under federal law, or any applicable state laws, for wage and hour issues.
In Phase Two, the Court held a bench trial to adjudicate the “alter ego liability” issues.
B. Trial and Jury Verdict under Phase One
Phase One of the trial began on February 21, 2023. Plaintiffs Shailesh Jahagirdar, Allen
Allen, Jordan Blais, Connor Johnson, Rakia Green, Andrew Free, and Kamri Norris appeared by
their attorney of record, L. Michelle Gessner of GessnerLaw, PLLC. Defendants The Computer
Haus NC, Inc.; Troy Curran; Ocean Tech, Inc.; Zephyr Investments, Inc.; TS Leasing, LLC;
Green Vault, Inc.; Curran Ranch; Northern Passage; Salish Sea, LLC; and Curran Holdings, LLC
appeared through their attorney of record, Nathan Adam White of Tylor English Duma.
Defendants Mark Curran and Curran Brothers, LLC appeared through their attorney Benjamin
Paul Fryer of Ford & Harrison LLP.
After Plaintiffs presented their evidence and rested, Defendants moved for a directed
verdict. The Court granted the directed verdict of Mark Curran and Curran Brothers, LLC and
denied the directed verdict as to the remaining Defendants.
On March 1, 2023, the jury determined that Defendant Troy Curran, as an employer,
violated the FLSA, and additionally found that Plaintiffs in North Carolina, South Carolina,
Washington, and Oregon who worked from February 1, 2020, to March 15, 2020, were not paid
on time. Lastly, the jury found that the Plaintiffs from Oregon were not compensated for meal
breaks. (Id.). The jury awarded Plaintiffs back pay totaling $409,803.35. The jury verdict (Doc.
No. 327) is approved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 49 and is incorporated into this Amended Final
Judgment.
2
C. Bench Trial under Phase Two on Successor Liability, Partnership Liability,
and Alter Ego
After the jury rendered its verdict, the Court commenced a bench trial for Phase Two on
the issues of successor liability, partnership liability, alter ego and Count XXVII of Plaintiffs’
Complaint. In an October 20, 2023 Order titled “Final Judgment,” on October 20, 2023, the
Court held that Plaintiffs proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the following
relationships exist:
DEFENDANT #1 RELATIONSHIP DEFENDANT #2
Ocean Tech, Inc. Successor-in-Interest The Computer Haus, Inc.
Zephyr Investments, Inc. Alter Ego Troy Curran
TS Leasing, LLC Alter Ego Troy Curran
Green Vault, Inc. Alter Ego Troy Curran
Curran Ranch Alter Ego Troy Curran
Northern Passage, Inc. Alter Ego Troy Curran
Salish Sea, LLC Alter Ego Troy Curran
Curran Holdings, LLC Alter Ego Troy Curran
Ocean Dance Alter Ego Troy Curran
Ocean Tech, Inc. Alter Ego Troy Curran
Amber Curran Partner Troy Curran
Brandy Curran Partner Troy Curran
The Court further found that Defendants The Computer Haus NC, Inc.; Troy Curran;
Ocean Tech, Inc.; Zephyr Investments, Inc.; TS Leasing, LLC; Green Vault, Inc.; Curran Ranch;
Northern Passage; Salish Sea, LLC; and Curran Holdings, LLC (collectively “Defendant
3
Judgment Debtors”) are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs for the judgment.
As to Count XXVII, the Court found that the Defendant Judgment Debtors fraudulently
conveyed the following assets between and among themselves after this action was filed:
Apple Contract
Building located at 2551 Roeder Avenue, Bellingham WA
3635 Haxton Way, Bellingham WA or proceeds therefrom
Proceeds from ComputerHaus’ PPP loan
Typhoon Marine Vessel
Cash transferred to Grand Cayman to register Typhoon
Cash transferred out of CityMac/Ocean Tech bank accounts
The Court’s findings on Phase Two (Doc. No. 336) are incorporated into this
Amended Final Judgment.
D. Court’s Subsequent Order on Liquidated Damages Amounts
Following the jury verdict and the Court’s determination on alter ego liability, Plaintiffs
requested this Court determine the appropriate liquidated damages, penalties, and interest to be
awarded to plaintiffs according to the Phase One jury verdict. On July 14, 2023, the Court
entered an Order setting out the liquidated damages, penalties, and interest to be awarded to
plaintiffs. (Doc. No. 335). The Order dated July 14, 2023, states that “[l]iquidated damages,
penalties, and interest shall be awarded, in accordance with this Order, by the Court in its final
order on this matter.” (Id. at 10). That Order is incorporated into this Final Amended
Judgment as summarized below:
a. North Carolina Class
4
The North Carolina Class is entitled to liquidated damages in the amount
equal to the total unpaid wages owed, $139,515.99, and when added with the jury
award of $139,515.99, the total damages for the North Carolina Class is
$279,031.98. The North Carolina Class is entitled to $0 in liquidated damages for
unpaid final wages. N.C. GEN. STAT. § 95-25.22(a1). The liquidated damages are
not subject to interest.
b. South Carolina Class
The South Carolina Class is entitled to liquidated damages in the amount
of $27,242.78. Total damages for the South Carolina Class are $40,864.17
($13,621.39 jury award + $27,242.78 in liquidated damages). The South Carolina
class is entitled to $0 in liquidated damages for unpaid final wages. Interest will
be awarded on Plaintiff’s treble damages.
c. Washington Class
The Washington Class is entitled to liquidated damages for unpaid wages
in an amount equal to the amount the jury found to be due for both wages and
commissions, which is $185,207.26 ($107,355.54 wages + $77,851.72
commissions). The liquidated damages are $185,207.26, and when added to the
jury award of $185,207.26, the total damages for the Washington Class are
$370,414.52. The Washington class is not entitled to liquidated or treble damages
for unpaid final wages. Under WASH. REV. CODE ANN. § 19.52.020 (West),
Plaintiffs are also entitled to pre- and post-judgment interest at a rate that does not
exceed:
“the higher of: (a) Twelve percent per annum; or (b) four percentage points above
the equivalent coupon issue yield (as published by the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System) of the average bill rate for twenty-six week treasury bills
as determined at the first bill market auction conducted during the calendar month
immediately preceding the later of (i) the establishment of the interest rate by
written agreement of the parties to the contract, or (ii) any adjustment in the
interest rate in the case of a written agreement permitting an adjustment in the
interest rate.”
Accordingly, this Court will award interest calculated at a rate of four (4)
percentage points above the equivalent coupon issue yield, as stipulated by the
statute.
d. Colorado Class
The Colorado Class is entitled to liquidated damages in an amount equal
to one hundred twenty-five (125) percent of the amount the jury found to be due
for both wages and commissions, which is $8,735.68 (125% of $6988.55).
Additionally, because Plaintiffs showed that Defendants’ failure to pay was
5
willful, the penalty “shall increase by fifty percent.” COLO. REV. STAT. ANN. § 8-
4-109(3)(c) (2015). Therefore, the liquidated damages are $13,103.52 (150% of
$8,735.68), and when added to the jury award of $6988.55, the total damages for
the Colorado Class are $20,092.07. Plaintiffs are also entitled to pre- and post-
judgment interest at a rate of 8% per annum from the date the wages first became
due.
e. Oregon Class
The Oregon Class is entitled to liquidated damages in an amount equal to
the amount the jury found to be due for both wages and commissions, which is
$64,470.16 ($41,783.20 wages + $22,686.96 commissions). Accordingly, the
liquidated damages are $64,470.16, and when added to the jury award of
$64,470.16, the total damages for the Oregon Class are $128,940.32.
Because the jury awarded $0 in damages for failing to timely pay final
wages to Oregon class members and $0 in damages for failing to provide Oregon
class members with meal breaks, this Court will not award penalties. Lastly,
pursuant to OR. REV. STAT. ANN. § 82.010 (West), Plaintiffs seek pre- and post-
judgment interest at a rate of 9% per annum from the date the wages first became
due. Interest is granted, but prejudgment interest will be offset from the liquidated
damages.
(Doc. No. 335).
E. The Parties’ Post-Judgment Motions and Plaintiffs’ Pending Motion
As noted, the Order titled “Final Judgment” was entered on October 20, 2023. On
November 2, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Attorney Fees. (Doc.
No. 337). On November 3, 2023, the magistrate judge granted the motion for extension of time,
granting Plaintiffs until November 21, 2023, to file a motion for attorney fees. (Text Order dated
November 3, 2023). Plaintiff did not file the motion for attorney fees by the extended deadline.
On November 17, 2023, Defendants filed a Motion to Reconsider Final Judgment and
Request for More Definite Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (the “Motion For
Reconsideration”). (Doc. No. 338). Defendants argued that the Order of October 20, 2023, was
not a final judgment because it did not contain findings of facts and conclusions of law under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(a) and because the separate claims brought by Plaintiff Jahagirdar had not
6
been disposed of. Plaintiffs opposed Defendants’ motion, arguing that the Final Judgment was
“appropriate” and enforceable as a final judgment. (Doc No. 340 at 2). Plaintiffs argued that, as
to the Court’s severance of Jahagirdar’s individual claims, “[s]evering claims under Rule 21
results in separate actions, each giving rise to separate final judgments from which separate
appeals may be taken.” (Doc. No. 340 at 3).
On December 6, 2023, the Court entered an Order denying Defendants’ Motion for
Reconsideration. (Doc. No. 342). On January 5, 2024, Defendants filed their Notice of Appeal to
the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Doc. No. 344). The action is now on appeal before the
Fourth Circuit. See (4th Cir. No. 24-1046). On January 23, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a “Motion to
Register Judgment, Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1963,” in which Plaintiffs represented that the Court
had entered a final judgment for purposes of triggering the right to appeal. See (Doc. No. 349).
E. Plaintiffs’ Pending Motion for “Final Judgment”
Now, in an about-face, and despite Plaintiffs’ multiple contentions that the Court has in
fact entered a final judgment, Plaintiffs contend the “Final Judgment” entered by the Court on
October 20, 2023, is not a final judgment for purposes of Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Plaintiffs argue, therefore, that their deadline to file a motion for attorney fees has not
been triggered.1 Defendants vigorously oppose the motion, arguing that Plaintiff’s motion is
merely an attempt to try and re-set the deadline for filing a motion for attorney’s fees.
The U.S. Supreme Court held in 1883 that an order is “final” for purposes of appellate review
if it terminates the litigation between the parties on the merits of the case and leaves nothing to
be done but to enforce what has been determined. See St. Louis Iron Mountain and Southern
1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(2)(B)(i) requires that a motion for attorneys’ fees be filed no later than
fourteen (14) days after entry of judgment.
7
Railway Co. v. Southern Express Co., 108 U.S. 24, 28–29 (1883); accord Petrello v. White, 533
F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2008) (holding that, for the purposes of appealability, “[a] final judgment
or order is one that conclusively determines all pending claims of all the parties to the litigation,
leaving nothing for the court to do but execute its decision”).
This case was particularly complex, with issues of trial severance, bifurcation, liquidated
damages, and issues of successor and alter ego liability. The trial was conducted in two phases.
The Court was required to enter several Orders on these various matters. The Court intended for
the Order entered on October 20, 2023, and titled “Final Judgment” to constitute the Final
Judgment in this matter for purposes of Rules 54 and 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
When entering this Order, it was the Court’s understanding that it had resolved all pending
claims of all the parties to the litigation, leaving nothing for the court to do but execute its
decision.
Regardless, it is now clear that the Court’s October 20, 2023 order created some confusion as
to whether a final judgment has been entered in this matter. Thus, the Court will allow Plaintiff
to file its motion for attorney fees within 14 days of entry of this Order. The Court notes that
Defendant has already filed a Notice of Appeal with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. This
final Order is not intended to trigger any new filing deadlines by the parties with the exception of
Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees.
ORDER
This order constitutes the Final Judgment in this matter for purposes of Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 54 and 58.
Plaintiffs’ counsel may file their motion for attorney fees within 14 days of entry of this
Order.
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_
eee bet
Max O. Cogburn if
United States District Judge Foal gle ot