Acosta v. Care at Home, LLC et al
ORDER: As per the attached order, Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 116 ) is hereby DENIED. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Alvin W. Thompson on 2/16/2021. (Burks, L.)
Case 3:18-cv-00711-AWT Document 125 Filed 02/16/21 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
-------------------------------EUGENE SCALIA, SECRETARY OF
LABOR, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
CARE AT HOME, LLC, DANIEL KARP, :
and SUZANNE KARP,
Civil No. 3:18-cv-711(AWT)
ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendants’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No.
116) is hereby DENIED.
A motion for summary judgment may not be granted unless the
court determines that there is no genuine issue of material fact
to be tried and that the facts as to which there is no such issue
warrant judgment for the moving party as a matter of law.
Civ. P. 56(a); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23
(1986); Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs., 22 F.3d 1219, 1223
(2d Cir. 1994). When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the
court may not try issues of fact, but must leave those issues to
See, e.g., Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 255 (1986); Donahue v. Windsor Locks Bd. of Fire Comm’rs, 834
F.2d 54, 58 (2d Cir. 1987). Thus, the trial court’s task is
“carefully limited to discerning whether there are any genuine
Case 3:18-cv-00711-AWT Document 125 Filed 02/16/21 Page 2 of 3
issues of material fact to be tried, not to deciding them. Its
duty, in short, is confined . . . to issue-finding; it does not
reviewing the evidence on a motion for summary judgment, the court
must “assess the record in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and . . . draw all reasonable inferences in its favor.”
Weinstock v. Columbia Univ., 224 F.3d 33, 41 (2d Cir. 2000)
(quoting Delaware & Hudson Ry. Co. v. Consol. Rail Corp., 902 F.2d
174, 177 (2d Cir. 1990)).
The defendants move for summary judgment on the issue of
whether liquidated damages should be assessed for the deduction
the defendants took from employees’ wages for meals and lodging
between January and October of 2016. The defendants’ motion is
being denied because, as set forth in detail in the plaintiff’s
opposition, genuine issues of material fact exist, inter alia, as
to whether the defendants in fact relied on the State Guidance in
determining the amounts of the meal and lodging deductions they
took; as to whether the defendants’ claimed reliance on such
guidance was objectively reasonable; as to whether the defendants
in fact were given any information on meal and lodging deductions
at the homecare industry meeting in January 2016; as to whether
representative of the Connecticut Department of Labor, and if so
what information was provided to him; and as to whether the
Case 3:18-cv-00711-AWT Document 125 Filed 02/16/21 Page 3 of 3
It is so ordered.
Dated this 16th day of February 2021, at Hartford,
Alvin W. Thompson
United States District Judge
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?