Chao v. Hotel Oasis, Inc.

Filing 920070628

Opinion

var gAgent = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase()
var gWindows = ( (gAgent.indexOf( "win" ) != -1 ) || ( gAgent.indexOf( "16bit" ) != -1 ) )
var gIE = ( gAgent.indexOf( "msie" ) != -1 )
var bInlineFloats = ( gWindows && gIE && ( parseInt( navigator.appVersion ) >= 4 ) )
var floatwnd = 0

var WPFootnote1 = 'Oasis had been investigated twice before, and violations of\
minimum wage and overtime laws had been found on both occasions. \
Oasis agreed both times to pay the back wages and comply in the\
future.\
'

var WPFootnote2 = 'The minutes for that conference stated that Defendants "withdraw\
the ADV defense." The minutes were amended on April 22, 1996, to\
reflect that Defendants "waive[d] the ADV defense though the third\
quarter of 1995."\
'

var WPFootnote3 = 'Defendants\' reasoning is gleaned from a May 15, 2002 order in\
which the district court indicated that prior to June 1997,\
Defendants had relied solely on Sala\'s lack of authorization as\
grounds for setting aside the stipulation.\
'

var WPFootnote4 = 'Federal Rule of Evidence 1006 provides in full: "The contents\
of voluminous writings, recordings, or photographs which cannot\
conveniently be examined in court may be presented in the form of\
a chart, summary, or calculation. The originals, or duplicates,\
shall be made available for examination or copying, or both, by\
other parties at reasonable time and place. The court may order\
that they be produced in court."\
'

var WPFootnote5 = 'The motion had been granted during a pre-trial conference on\
June 11, 1997, after hearing the parties\' positions on the issue. \
The parties were aware of the court\'s decision but the order had\
not been entered into the docket. The issue of Lugo\'s liability\
was rehashed on several occasions throughout the course of\
litigation, as noted in the court\'s November 11, 2005 Amended\
Opinion and Order, denying Defendants\' final motion for\
reconsideration.\
'

var WPFootnote6 = 'Defendants argued that the district court misplaced the burden\
of proof on the ADV issue, by requiring Defendants to prove a lack\
of coverage. Defendants, however, stipulated that Oasis\'s ADV met\
the statutory threshold, and the district court affirmed the\
stipulation, which relieved the Secretary of her burden to prove\
FLSA coverage. See, e.g., Eng\'g Contractors Ass\'n of S. Fla., Inc.\
v. Metro. Dade County, 122 F.3d 895, 905 (11th Cir. 1997) (citing\
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(3)). The burden was then properly on\
Defendants to show good cause for setting aside the stipulation. \
See Cabán Hernández v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., -- F.3d --, No. 06-1968, 2007 WL 1248414, at *3 (1st Cir. 2007) ("The appellants have\
shown nothing that would constitute good cause or otherwise justify\
relief from the stipulation.").\
'

var WPFootnote7 = 'Defendants complain that they did not get a hearing on the Rule\
1006 evidence, as promised by the court. Defendants did not,\
however, oppose the Secretary\'s motion to preclude them from\
offering any evidence contrary to the stipulation, which rendered\
the Rule 1006 evidence unnecessary. Moreover, Defendants then\
agreed to file a joint proffer of evidence in lieu of a hearing.\
'

var WPFootnote8 = 'Note, however, that Local Rule 16(j)(2) does specifically\
require stipulations extending discovery deadlines to be in\
writing. The closest rule otherwise on point is Local Rule 11,\
which requires that all documents submitted to the court be signed\
by an attorney or pro se litigant.\
'

var WPFootnote9 = 'Neither party discusses Lugo\'s ownership interest in Oasis. In\
this case, however, Lugo\'s personal responsibility outweighs any\
ownership considerations. See Agnew, 712 F.2d at 1511 (citing\
Sabine Irrigation Co., 695 F.2d at 194-95, for the proposition that\
a corporate officer may be held liable even if he has no ownership\
interest).\
'

var WPFootnote10 = 'Some circuits have held that a finding of willfulness precludes\
a district court\'s decision not to award liquidated damages, see,\
e.g., Brinkman v. Dep\'t of Corr., 21 F.3d 370, 372-73 (10th Cir.\
1994), but we need not go so far, see Jarrett v. ERC Props., Inc.,\
211 F.3d 1078, 1084 (8th Cir. 2000).\
'

function WPShow( WPid, WPtext )
{
if( bInlineFloats )
eval( "document.all." + WPid + ".style.visibility = 'visible'" );
else
{
if( floatwnd == 0 || floatwnd.closed )
floatwnd = window.open( "", "comment", "toolbars=0,width=600,height=200,resizable=1,scrollbars=1,dependent=1" );
floatwnd.document.open( "text/html", "replace" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( " p { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:1px; } \r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( WPtext );
floatwnd.document.write( 'Close');
floatwnd.document.write( "