Key Points

  • Under the Washington Wage Recovery Act, chapter 60.90 RCW, class representatives may record a wage lien on behalf of class members who hold valid lien rights.
  • A recorded wage lien must meet the content requirements of RCW 60.90.030, including the name of the lien claimant, who is the employee who maintained the property.
  • Liens that named only the two class representatives, who never worked at the properties, and gave class counsel's contact information neither complied nor substantially complied with the statute.
  • The court tied the content requirement to the statute's summary procedures, including eight-month extinguishment and a 15-day show-cause process.
  • The court reversed the denial of the property owners' CR 12(b)(6) motion, directed dismissal of the supplemental complaint, and remanded.

A Washington appeals court ruled on Oct. 12 that the representatives of a certified class of workers may record liens against property to collect unpaid wages on behalf of absent class members. But it threw out the liens two former security guards had recorded against two apartment owners, because the liens did not name any guard who had worked at either property.

Judge Birk wrote the published opinion for Division One of the Washington Court of Appeals. The panel reversed a superior court's refusal to dismiss the claims against Portsmith Apartments LLC and Sunrise Lane Apartments LLC and directed that the class's supplemental complaint against the two owners be dismissed. The caption also lists Harco Insurance Company, with a bond number, among the petitioners.

The ruling turns on the Washington Wage Recovery Act, chapter 60.90 RCW, which gives certain unpaid employees a wage lien, a recorded claim against real property, on property they have maintained. The statute defines "maintain" to mean "to maintain, clean, manage, improve, protect, repair, monitor, or restore real property at the instance of the owner or tenant or of any person acting by the owner's or tenant's authority." The court held that class representatives may use that remedy for class members, but only through liens that identify the workers who maintained each property.

Andrew Radulescu and Justin Green worked as hourly security officers for West Coast Security, Green from fall 2018 to January 2019 and Radulescu from April to June 2021. They sued the company, a related corporation and Anthony Lombardi, alleging eight claims that included missed rest and meal periods, unpaid wages and willful refusal to pay wages. West Coast Security defaulted.

Without opposition, the trial court certified a class of the company's hourly guards who were based or lived in Washington and appointed Radulescu and Green as class representatives. It then entered a default judgment for $2,642,144.36. A paralegal's declaration had estimated "the average unpaid wages owed to each Class member per class week" from vendor payroll data.

With the trial court's authorization, the class then turned to properties the guards had protected. It recorded a lien for $18,819.49 against Sunrise Lane and one for $40,507.61 against Portsmith. Each lien listed Radulescu and Green as claimants "on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated," in care of class counsel. The parties agreed that Radulescu and Green had never worked at either property.

The owners moved to dismiss the supplemental complaint for failure to state a claim under CR 12(b)(6). The superior court denied the motion, reasoning that the two class representatives were the only persons who could record a lien for the class and that the notices substantially complied with a statute meant to be liberally construed. The Court of Appeals granted the owners discretionary review.

The owners first argued that the statute expressly lets a "class representative" bring an action to foreclose a wage lien but never mentions class representatives in the provision on recording one. In the owners' reading, that silence was deliberate. Judge Birk rejected the argument and wrote that "the statute as a whole does not suggest a legislative intent to deny class representatives the authority to record wage liens on behalf of class members having valid lien rights. It signals the opposite."

The statute's model lien form already contemplates a signer acting as the claimant's "representative," the court noted, and the foreclosure section defines that term to include a class representative. Judge Birk added that the owners "point to no logical reason why the legislature would intend that multiple lien claimants could foreclose their liens in a class proceeding, but only after the converging circumstance of each class member individually having recorded liens one-by-one beforehand."

The class lost on the second question. The statute requires a recorded lien to state "[t]he name, telephone number, and address of the lien claimant." The class argued that the representatives' names and class counsel's contact information satisfied that requirement. The court held that the liens neither complied nor substantially complied, because "the liens did not include any names of the class members who worked at each property."

The class had relied on a 1992 decision, Department of Labor & Industries v. Overnite Transportation Co., which reasoned that the department "stands in the shoes of the aggrieved employees" in an enforcement action. Judge Birk wrote that the precedent "only undercuts Plaintiffs' position," because guards filing their own liens would have to supply the required content. Representatives who, invoking that metaphor, "stand in the same shoes" as the guards "have the same obligation," he wrote.

The opinion added that the statute "does not make the class representative the claimant of the substantive right" and still requires the lien to tell the owner who is alleged to have maintained the property. The court tied that requirement to the statute's quick timetable. A wage lien is extinguished unless an action is brought within eight months of recording, and within that window an owner may move for an order directing the claimant to show cause, no later than 15 days from service of the motion, why the lien is not frivolous and made without reasonable cause or clearly excessive.

"Read together, the provisions evince a legislative intent for summary resolution of wage liens, and failure to comply with the content requirements impairs such resolution," Judge Birk wrote. Because the liens failed the content rules, the court held, they were not authorized under the statute.

The Court of Appeals reversed the denial of the motion to dismiss, directed the trial court to dismiss the supplemental complaint against the property owners, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.