Utah Supreme Court

Can LLC managers be held personally liable for unpaid wages? Heaps v. Nuriche, LLC Explained

2015 UT 26
No. 20130132
January 30, 2015
Affirmed

Summary

Former employees of Nuriche, LLC sued the company’s managers for unpaid wages under the Utah Payment of Wages Act. The district court granted summary judgment for the managers, ruling that while they qualified as employers under the statute, they were not personally liable for unpaid wages.

Analysis

Background and Facts

Ron Heaps and Phillip Sykes founded Nuriche, LLC in 2008 with other individuals, including David Heaps, Lavorn Sparks, Norm Clyde, Brad Holiday, and David Parker, who served as managers. After their termination in 2011, the employees sued under the Utah Payment of Wages Act (UPWA) claiming they were owed $150,000 in annual salaries and benefits. The managers sought summary judgment, arguing they could not be held personally liable for unpaid wages.

Key Legal Issues

The Supreme Court addressed whether the UPWA imposes personal liability on LLC managers for unpaid wages. The UPWA defines “employer” to include “every person, firm, partnership, association, corporation” and “any agent or officer of any of the above-mentioned classes, employing any person in this state.” The employees argued this definition encompassed the managers as agents or officers of Nuriche.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court applied principles of statutory interpretation, focusing on the plain language of the UPWA. The critical phrase “employing any person in this state” modifies the entire definition, limiting liability to those who actually employ workers. Since the employees conceded they were employed by Nuriche—not by the managers individually—the managers did not qualify as “employers” under the statute. The Court reinforced this conclusion by noting that when the Legislature intends to impose personal liability on corporate officers, it does so expressly, citing examples from other Utah statutes.

Practice Implications

This decision preserves traditional corporate law principles of limited liability while clarifying the scope of the UPWA. Practitioners should note that wage claims must target the employing entity unless specific statutory language creates personal liability for officers or managers. The Court rejected alternative interpretations that would have imposed liability based on decision-making authority or control over wage payments, emphasizing that such policy determinations belong to the Legislature rather than the courts.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

Heaps v. Nuriche, LLC

Citation

2015 UT 26

Court

Utah Supreme Court

Case Number

No. 20130132

Date Decided

January 30, 2015

Outcome

Affirmed

Holding

LLC managers are not personally liable for unpaid wages under the Utah Payment of Wages Act because they did not personally employ the workers and the statute requires the defendant to be one who employs.

Standard of Review

Correctness for statutory interpretation questions

Practice Tip

When pursuing wage claims against business entities, focus liability theories on the entity itself rather than individual managers unless the statute expressly imposes personal liability on officers or agents.

Need Appellate Counsel?

Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Related Court Opinions

    • Utah Supreme Court

    Scott v. Benson

    April 20, 2023

    A district court may apply section 608 of the Utah Uniform Parentage Act to disregard genetic test results even after finding fraud or material mistake of fact in a voluntary declaration of paternity because section 308 requires that VDP challenges be conducted in the same manner as parentage adjudications under Part 6.
    • Child Custody and Parent-Time
    • |
    • Evidence and Admissibility
    • |
    • Statutory Interpretation
    Read More
    • Utah Court of Appeals

    Rain International v. Drockton

    July 1, 2021

    An attorney fees award imposed as a discovery sanction does not constitute a ‘claim for relief’ under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) and therefore cannot be properly certified as final and appealable.
    • Appellate Procedure
    • |
    • Attorney Fees
    • |
    • Discovery
    • |
    • Jurisdiction
    Read More
About these Decision Summaries

Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.