Skip to main content


Aita v. NCB Mgmt. Servs., 2023 Pa. Super. LEXIS 201 (May 15, 2023) (Pellegrini, J.). NCB Management Services, Inc. (NCB) and Marcelo Aita (Aita) cross-appeal from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County (trial court) denying NCB’s motion for summary judgment and granting Aita’s cross-motion for summary judgment, which awarded Aita $60,000 in liquidated damages under the Wage Payment and Collection Law (WPCL) for failure to timely pay his compensation when due. We affirm. The pertinent facts are undisputed. Aita brought a suit against NCB for breach of contract and for liquidated damages for failing to timely pay wages pursuant to the WPCL. From June 9, 2008, until July 18, 2017, Aita was employed by NCB as its Chief Executive Officer. On December 29, 2014, the parties entered into a Private Sale Bonus Agreement (Agreement). The Agreement provided that Aita would be provided bonuses, including a retention bonus of $60,000 per month beginning on the first regular payroll date of January 2015 and continuing for 17 months thereafter, totaling $1,080,000 (Retention Bonus), provided that he remain with and provided services to NCB during each month preceding each installment payment. NCB timely paid Aita the monthly Retention Bonus installments pursuant to the terms of the Agreement from January 2015 to July 2015, totaling $360,000. However, NCB failed to timely pay the remaining Retention Bonus installments totaling $720,000 from August 2015 to July 2016 pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. In July 2017, NCB paid Aita all but one of the Retention Bonus installments due under the Agreement in one lump sum totaling $660,000 plus six percent interest due thereon. In October 2017, NCB paid Aita the final Retention Bonus installment of $60,000.00 plus six percent interest due thereon. On February 13, 2019, Aita filed a complaint against NCB for breach of employment contract and a violation of the WPCL seeking compensatory damages, liquidated damages and attorney’s fees. NCB responded by filing preliminary objections. The trial court sustained NCB’s objection as to the breach of contract and dismissed it with prejudice because Aita had been paid all that he was owed under the Agreement. The trial court overruled NCB’s objection with respect to Aita’s WPCL claim. NCB then filed a motion for summary judgment contending that because all of Aita’s wages were paid before the filing of the suit, Aita could not maintain his action because, under the WPCL, wages had to be “payable” at the time of the filing of the suit. Aita responded and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment seeking $180,000, which is the 25 percent imposed under the WPCL as liquated damages of the untimely paid $720,000. After argument, the trial court disagreed with NCB’s interpretation of the WPCL and denied its motion for summary judgment. It also held that partial payments made that came after the statute had expired did not extend the statute of limitations under the “acknowledgement doctrine” and allows the statute of limitations to be tolled or its bar removed by a partial payment. Given all of this, the trial court correctly held that a claim for liquidated damages can be maintained separate and apart from whether there is still outstanding any claim for unpaid wages.