Bahdouchi v. FLA REO Inc et al

Filing 81

ORDER denying 68 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 9/22/2017. (JD)

Case 8:16-cv-02869-SCB-TGW Document 81 Filed 09/22/17 Page 1 of 4 PageID 532

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
RANIA BAHDOUCHI,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:16-cv-2869-T-24 TGW

FLA REO, INC. d/b/a Realty
Executives, d/b/a Sigler Properties,
GERALD P. SIGLER aka Jerry P.
Sigler, Jr., aka Jerry Sigler,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc.
No. 68). Defendants oppose the motion (Doc. No. 72), and Plaintiff has filed a reply brief (Doc.
No. 74). The Court held a hearing on the motion on September 22, 2017. Because genuine
issues of material fact exist, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion.
I. Background
The Court recites the following facts construed in the light most favorable to Defendants.
Plaintiff Rania Bahdouchi was good friends with Defendant Gerald Sigler, and both were in the
real estate business. In September of 2013, Plaintiff and Sigler came to an agreement, whereas
Plaintiff agreed to do the bookkeeping and billing for Sigler’s company, Defendant FLA REO,
Inc. (Doc. No. 68-1, p. 16–18). They also agreed that Plaintiff would be paid $20 per hour.
(Doc. No. 68-1, p. 32–33). However, according to Defendants (and disputed by Plaintiff), the
$20 per hour compensation amount was to be offset by Defendants waiving any amounts that

Case 8:16-cv-02869-SCB-TGW Document 81 Filed 09/22/17 Page 2 of 4 PageID 533

Plaintiff owed them for buyer referrals.1 (Doc. No. 68-1, p. 16–18, 32–33, 64, 70, 75–76). Also
according to Defendants (and disputed by Plaintiff), Plaintiff was able to use Defendants’ office,
FedEx, fax, and employees for her real estate business (although Plaintiff had her own office
elsewhere). (Doc. No. 68-1, p. 18, 45–46). Because of this arrangement, Defendants did not
have Plaintiff fill out a time card or otherwise keep track of her hours.2 (Doc. No. 68-1, p.
16–17, 19, 37–38, 56). However, by January of 2016, Defendants decided that they did not want
to continue with this arrangement and had Plaintiff fill out time cards documenting her work
hours so that she could be paid $20 per hour. (Doc. No. 68-1, p. 16–17, 19, 33, 37–39, 78).
According to representations made by counsel at the hearing, the parties dispute whether
Defendants ever paid Plaintiff $20 for any of the hours that she worked after September of 2013.
Likewise, the parties dispute whether Plaintiff paid Defendants for any of the buyer referrals that
she received after September of 2013.
On October 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants. In her amended complaint,
Plaintiff asserts three claims: (1) a Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) overtime claim, (2) a
Florida minimum wage claim, and (3) a Florida unpaid wages claim. (Doc. No. 23).
II. Motion for Summary Judgment
Plaintiff moved for summary judgment as to liability, asking the Court to find that she
was an employee and was not paid for her work. It is undisputed that Plaintiff did bookkeeping

1

Plaintiff previously paid Defendants a 35% buyer referral fee. (Doc. No. 68-1, p. 16–17,

33, 75).
2

Plaintiff, however, kept her own personal time records. (Doc. No. 8).
2

Case 8:16-cv-02869-SCB-TGW Document 81 Filed 09/22/17 Page 3 of 4 PageID 534

and billing for Defendants from September 2013 through March of 2016.3 (Doc. No. 68-1, p. 25,
39). However, Defendants now argue that Plaintiff was an independent contractor, and as such,
she is not entitled to the FLSA’s overtime protection or Florida’s minimum wage protection.
Plaintiff conceded at the hearing that if she is found to be an independent contractor, all three of
her claims will fail.
At the hearing, the parties addressed the issue of whether Plaintiff was an employee or an
independent contractor. Under the FLSA, the Court looks at the economic reality of the
relationship between the parties in order to determine whether their relationship demonstrates
that Plaintiff is dependent on Defendants such that she should be classified as an employee. See
Scantland v. Jeffry Knight, Inc., 721 F.3d 1308, 1311 (11th Cir. 2013). In making such a
determination, six factors are considered:
(1) the nature and degree of the alleged employer's control as to the
manner in which the work is to be performed;
(2) the alleged employee's opportunity for profit or loss depending
upon his managerial skill;
(3) the alleged employee's investment in equipment or materials
required for his task, or his employment of workers;
(4) whether the service rendered requires a special skill;
(5) the degree of permanency and duration of the working
relationship;
(6) the extent to which the service rendered is an integral part of the
alleged employer's business.
Id. at 1311–12.
At the hearing, the parties addressed these factors and the overriding consideration of

3

Plaintiff contends that she performed work for Defendants through September 23, 2016.
(Doc. No. 8).
3

Case 8:16-cv-02869-SCB-TGW Document 81 Filed 09/22/17 Page 4 of 4 PageID 535

economic dependence, and it is clear to the Court that these factors are both factually and legally
disputed. As previously noted, there is a factual dispute as to the terms of the parties’ verbal
agreement regarding their arrangement. As such, summary judgment is not appropriate.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
(1)

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 68) is DENIED.

(2)

Each party may file one motion in limine containing all of their arguments in a
single document not to exceed 25 pages by November 15, 2017. Responses
thereto must be filed by November 29, 2017.

(3)

The parties’ joint pretrial statement must be filed by December 8, 2017.

(4)

This case is set for trial on the Court’s January 2018 trial calendar.

DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, this 22nd day of September, 2017.

Copies to:
Counsel of Record

4