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.

Borderud v. Riverside Motorcars, LLC

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

January 25, 2019

MARK BORDERUD, Plaintiff,
v.
RIVERSIDE MOTORCARS, LLC, JOSEPH SALINARDI, & CHRISTIAN SALINARDI, Defendants.

          RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS

          VICTOR A. BOLDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This case concerns commissions and expenses allegedly owed to car salesman Mark Borderud (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Borderud”) by his former employer Riverside Motorcars, LLC, (“Riverside”), Christian Salinardi (“Mr. Salinardi”), the alleged owner of Riverside, and Joseph Salinardi, the alleged General Manager of Riverside. Compl., ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 3-7, 11-15. Mr. Borderud has sued under the Connecticut Wage Act, Conn. Gen Stat. 31-68, et seq. Compl. ¶ 1.

         Mr. Salinardi has moved to dismiss Mr. Borderud's claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Rule 12(b)(1) Mot. to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, ECF No. 11.

         For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Mr. Salinardi's motion to dismiss, ECF No. 11.

         I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         A. Factual Allegations

         Mark Borderud sold cars for Riverside in Naugatuck, Connecticut. Compl. ¶¶ 3, 11; Rule 12(b)(1) Mot. to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction at 2. His employment contract with Defendants allegedly stipulated “a certain amount of commission on each vehicle sold” as well as reimbursement for “certain expenses.” Compl. ¶ 11. Mr. Borderud alleges that “Defendants failed and neglected to pay [him] all commissions that were due for his sales.” Id. ¶ 13. Mr. Borderud claims that Defendants owe him $47, 750 in unpaid commissions, $426 in unpaid expense reimbursements, and statutory damages totaling “twice the full amount of such wages, along with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.” Id. ¶¶ 14-15, 20.

         B. Procedural Background

         On August 6, 2018, Plaintiff filed the present Complaint. Compl., ECF No. 1.

         On August 29, 2018, Mr. Salinardi filed his pro se motion to dismiss. Rule 12(b)(1) Mot. to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, ECF No. 11.

         On September 5, 2018, Plaintiff opposed the motion to dismiss. Opp. to Def. Christian Salinardi's 12(b)(1) Mot. to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, ECF No. 12.

         On January 11, 2019, Defendants filed their combined Answer and affirmative defenses. Def. Joseph Salinardi, Christian Salinardi and Riverside Motorcars Answer and Affirmative Defenses, ECF No. 28.[1]

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         In actions between and among the citizens of different states, “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction . . . where the matter in controversy exceeds the ...


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.