Dana Mohammadi v. Augustine Nwabuisi, et al


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-50437 Affirmed] Judge: EHJ, Judge: JLW, Judge: EBC. Mandate pull date is 02/10/2017 [16-50437]

Download PDF
Case: 16-50437 Document: 00513843043 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/20/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-50437 Summary Calendar DANA D. MOHAMMADI, United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED January 20, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff - Appellee v. AUGUSTINE NWABUISI; ROSE NWABUISI; RESOURCE HEALTH SERVICES, INCORPORATED, doing business as Resource Home Health Services, Incorporated; RESOURCE CARE CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellants Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:12-CV-42 Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. WIENER, Circuit Judge.* The instant action is grounded in claims by Plaintiff-Appellee Dana D. Mohammadi (“Appellee”) for overtime pay under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §201 et seq. It is before this court for the second time: Appellee prevailed in her first appeal before a different panel Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 16-50437 Document: 00513843043 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/20/2017 No. 16-50437 of this court which held for her but remanded her case for the district court to determine whether Defendants-Appellants were “willful” in failing to pay Appellee overtime pursuant to the FSLA and therefore subject to a limitation period of three years rather than two. On remand, the district court considered exhibits and heard testimony on the question of willfulness, principal among which was the testimony of Defendant-Appellant Rose Nwabuisi, which the court found largely inconsistent, incredible, and in essence supportive of a conclusion of willfulness. It ruled that Appellee was entitled to liquidated damages for willful failure to pay overtime, in addition to unpaid wages and reasonable attorneys fees and costs. The district court also denied post-judgment sanctions and a new trial that Defendants-Appellants sought, and ultimately granted Appellee an additional sum of $59,237.50 as reasonable attorneys fees, over and above the $113,174.25 in such fees previously awarded, for a total of $172,411.75. This appeal followed. We have diligently reviewed the record on appeal, including the briefs of the parties and the detailed analyses by the district court in its Memorandum Opinion and Order and its subsequent Orders. As a result of our review and consideration of applicable law and the factual determinations of the district court on remand, we are satisfied that all of its orders are not only free of error but are correct and complete. We are likewise convinced that further rehashing of the facts and applicable law of this case on appeal from remand would be a waste of judicial resources and a prolongation of inevitable results. Consequently, for the reasons set forth in detail by the district court, as fully supported by the law cited, the rulings of that court on remand are, in all respects, AFFIRMED. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?