Franklin v. Compass Advisors, LLC

Background

The court had previously issued orders resolving the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment in a dispute over payments allegedly owed to Craig Franklin by Stephen Waters and the other defendants identified in the opinion. Franklin sought reconsideration of two rulings in the October 30, 2019 order.

A motion for reconsideration asks a court to revisit an earlier ruling. The court explained that this is an extraordinary remedy generally available only for an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error or manifest injustice.

New York Labor Law

The court denied reconsideration of Franklin’s New York Labor Law claims. The earlier order had noted that Franklin’s complaint and summary-judgment briefing did not identify which New York Labor Law provisions supported his claims. In his reconsideration motion, he referred to Section 193, but the court explained that Section 193 concerns deductions from wages rather than failure to pay wages. In reply, he invoked Sections 191 and 198-c, but the court stated that those provisions did not apply to a person working in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity who earned more than $900 per week.

The opinion states that Franklin had worked as a Vice President and later as a Director, earned a base salary of $155,000 per year, and had responsibilities including growing the defendants’ asset-management business, managing investor outreach, and developing investment strategies. The court also noted that Franklin had not addressed his executive status in his summary-judgment briefing or in his opening reconsideration brief. The court therefore treated his arguments as either improper attempts to relitigate issues already decided or arguments that had been waived.

CIP Letter Agreement Interest

The court granted reconsideration concerning interest on the CIP Letter Agreement. The agreement provided for payment “upon collection.” The court concluded that interest should run from the date of each payment to the defendants. It listed interest calculations for the following amounts and periods:

- $170,000 from February 11, 2014, through November 17, 2015; - $23,947.92 from May 12, 2014, through November 17, 2015; - $23,776.04 from August 11, 2014, through November 17, 2015; - $23,604.17 from November 7, 2014, through November 17, 2015; - $23,432.29 from February 9, 2015, through November 17, 2015; - $23,260.42 from May 8, 2015, through November 17, 2015; - $23,088.54 from August 10, 2015, through November 17, 2015; and - $55,351.09 from November 17, 2015, until paid in full.

The court denied reconsideration of Franklin’s claim for additional tax payments allegedly owed under the agreement. It stated that the issue had already been fully considered at oral argument and that Franklin had not identified a change in law, new evidence, or clear error warranting reconsideration.

Disposition

Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein ordered that Franklin’s motion for reconsideration was granted in part and denied in part. The motion was denied as to the New York Labor Law claims and the taxes allegedly due on the CIP Letter Agreement, and granted as to interest on that agreement as described in the opinion. The clerk was directed to terminate the open motion.