Maldonado v. Stoneworks of Manatee, LLC
Filing
11
ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default Judgment 10 is GRANTED as to liability. Additionally, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to damages as to unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Within FOURTEEN (14) days, Plaintiff may file a supplemental memorandum and affidavits to establish the amount of damages to which he is entitled. Signed by Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell on 8/21/2017. (JJH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
JOSE MALDONADO,
Plaintiff,
v.
CASE NO.: 8:17-CV-00060-CEH-TBM
STONEWORKS OF MANATEE, LLC.
Defendant
________________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment Against
Stoneworks of Manatee, LLC (Doc. 10). The defaulted Defendant has not responded in the time
allowed. Because the affidavit before the Court lacks the requisite detail necessary to calculate
damages, the Court will grant the Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, in part.
I.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 9, 2017, Jose Maldonado (“Maldonado”) filed a complaint to recover unpaid
overtime compensation against Stoneworks of Manatee, LLC (“Stoneworks”) under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), (“FLSA”). Doc. 1. A summons was issued to Defendant
Stoneworks of Manatee, LLC through its registered agent Justino Rodriguez. Doc. 2. On January
16, 2017, the affidavit of service was filed with the court showing service was executed on Aileen
Rodriguez. Doc. 7. Stoneworks failed to plead or otherwise defend, and following a motion by
Jose Maldonado, a Clerk’s Default was issued against it on February 9, 2017. Doc. 9.
II.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
On or about August 1, 2015, until about September 30, 2016, Jose Maldonado worked at
Stoneworks as a stone fabricator and installer. Doc. 10-1 1 at ¶ 4. During this time, Plaintiff
regularly worked over forty hours a week. Id. at ¶ 10, Doc. 1 at ¶ 9. Defendant never paid
Maldonado overtime compensation for those hours worked over forty hours in willful violation of
the FLSA. Doc. 10-1 at ¶ 6, Doc. 1 at ¶ 25. Defendant meets the standards for enterprise coverage
under the FLSA because it has gross revenues of over $500,000 and works on or with goods that
have been moved in or produced for commerce. Doc. 1 at ¶ 5-6. This Court has subject matter
jurisdiction of this claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1337. Id. at ¶ 4.
III.
DISCUSSION
A.
Standard of Review
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow for a default judgment to be entered when “the
party against whom a judgment… is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure
is shown by affidavit or otherwise.” Thomas v. Bank of Am., N.A., 557 Fed. Appx. 873, 875 (11th
Cir. 2014) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 (a)). Allegations in a well-pleaded complaint are established
as fact on entry of a default judgment, as long as there is a stated claim that allows for relief and
jurisdiction is established. See GMAC Commercial Mortg. Corp. v. Maitland Hotel Assocs. 218 F.
Supp. 2d 1355, 1359 (M.D. Fla. 2002). A well-pleaded complaint contains more than an
“unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). There must be sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Id. (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
1
Affidavit of Jose Maldonado.
2
B.
Clerk’s Default
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a corporation is to be served pursuant
to: 1) the laws of the state where the district court is located or where service is made; or 2) the
methods of service provided in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Sanchez v. Grundy Pizza,
Inc., No. 616CV596ORL31GJK, 2017 WL 693348, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 2, 2017), report and
recommendation adopted, No. 616CV596ORL31GJK, 2017 WL 680066 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 21,
2017) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1)). Both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Florida
Statutes allow for a corporation to be served by serving the corporation’s registered agent. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 4(h)(1)(B); Fla Stat. §48.081(3)(a) (2016).
Here, the verified return of service indicates that on January 12, 2017, at 3:44 p.m. the
process server served Aileen Rodriguez who is fifteen (15) years of age or older as daughter/coresident of Justino Rodriguez at the address of 1427 23rd Ave E, Bradenton, FL 34208 within his
usual place of abode. Doc. 7. It appears that the address for the registered agent is a private
residence, and therefore, service on his daughter as a co-resident was proper. See Fla. Stat. §§
48.081(3)(a); §48.031(1)(a).
On February 8, 2017, more than twenty-one days after service, Plaintiff moved for a
Clerk’s Default. The Defendant neither responded nor appeared in this action, thus the Clerk
correctly entered the default on February 9, 2017. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a).
C.
FLSA Liability
Plaintiff initiated this suit against Stoneworks in Manatee County under a claim pursuant
to 29 U.S.C. § 216. The FLSA provides that “an action to recover the liability… may be maintained
against any employer … in any Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more
3
employees for and in behalf of himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated.” 29
U.S.C. § 216 (b).
To establish a prima facie case under the FLSA, the Plaintiff must show: 1) the Defendant
employed the Plaintiff, 2) the Defendant is an enterprise engaged in interstate commerce, 3)
Plaintiff worked more than forty hours a week, and 4) the Defendant did not pay overtime
compensation. Morgan v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., 551 F.3d 1233, 1277 n.68 (11th Cir. 2008).
1.
The Defendant employed Plaintiff
As defined by the statute, and subject to certain exceptions not at issue here, an “employee”
is “any individual employed by an employer.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(1). The statutory definition of
“employer” is also broad and it encompasses both the employer for whom the employee directly
works, as well as “any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation
to an employee[.]” Id. at § 203(d). Given the broad definition of “employer,” an employee “may
file suit directly against an employer that fails to pay him the statutory wage, or may make a
derivative claim against any person who (1) acts on behalf of that employer and (2) asserts control
over conditions of the employee's employment.” Josendis v. Wall to Wall Residence Repairs, Inc.,
662 F.3d 1292, 1298 (11th Cir. 2011).
The pleadings clearly set out that the Defendant employed Plaintiff as a stone fabricator
and installer. Doc. 1 at ¶ 1; see also Doc. 10-1 at ¶ 4. Plaintiff states that his normal wage was
$19.00 per hour, or $760.00 a week. Doc. 10-1 at ¶ 5. Taking these allegations and averments as
true, Plaintiff has demonstrated that he was employed by the Defendant. Accord Sanchez, 2017
WL 693348, at *4.
4
2.
Defendant is an enterprise covered by the FLSA
To be eligible for overtime wages under the FLSA, an employee must demonstrate that she
is covered by the FLSA. Josendis, 662 F.3d at 1298. An employee may show that she is covered
under the FLSA's overtime provision by demonstrating one of the following: 1) she was engaged
in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce (i.e., individual coverage); or 2) the
employer was engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce (i.e., enterprise
coverage). Id. at 1298–99; 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).
Plaintiff asserts enterprise coverage in this case. An enterprise is engaged in commerce or
in the production of goods for commerce if it meets the following requirements:
(i) has employees engaged in commerce or in the production of
goods for commerce, or that has employees handling, selling, or
otherwise working on goods or materials that have been moved in
or produced for commerce by any person; and
(ii) is an enterprise whose annual gross volume of sales made or
business done is not less than $500,000[.]
29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(A)(i)–(ii).
The Court cannot presume for enterprise coverage either that the employer was involved
in interstate commerce or that the employer grosses over $500,000 annually. Sandoval v. Fla.
Paradise Lawn Maint., Inc., 303 Fed. Appx. 802, 805 (11th Cir. 2008). However, if the complaint
alleges that the gross annual revenues of the employer were over $500,000 that is enough for a
court to make the determination on a motion for default judgment. See Sanchez, 2017 WL 693348,
at *4.
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant brought in goods moved or produced for commerce,
specifically stones, granite, tools and equipment, and various other items from outside of Florida.
Doc. 1 at ¶ 6. The Defendant is a stonework mill in the Manatee County area that produced
stonework for businesses and residences. Id. The Defendant further alleges that the annual gross
5
revenues exceed $500,000. Id. Taken as true, these allegations show that the Defendant is an
enterprise covered under the FLSA.
3.
Plaintiff worked over forty hours per week
Plaintiff alleges that he worked in excess of forty hours a week. Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 10, 21.
Plaintiff avers that he consistently worked seven hours of overtime every week. Doc. 10-1 at ¶ 6.
Taken as true, these allegations show that Plaintiff worked in excess of forty hours a week for the
Defendant.
4.
Plaintiff did not receive overtime pay
Plaintiff further alleges that he never received overtime pay for the time he worked in
excess of forty hours a week. Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 9, 11, 19, 21. Plaintiff was misclassified as a salaried
employee, and received neither minimum wage nor premium wage for hours worked in excess of
forty hours a week. Id.; Doc. 10-1 at ¶ 6. Taken as true, these allegations show that the Plaintiff
was never paid the premium for the time worked in excess of forty hours a week.
Accepting the aforementioned allegations and averments as true, Plaintiff has shown that
the Defendant violated the overtime provisions of the FLSA. Therefore, Plaintiff has established a
claim for relief that is plausible on its face.
D.
DAMAGES
Under the FLSA, the Plaintiff is entitled to the premium rate of one and a half times his
regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek. 29 U.S.C.
§207(a)(1). The plaintiff in an FLSA claim bears the burden of proving that he performed work
for which he was not compensated. Sanchez, 2017 WL 693348, at *5. An affidavit may be used to
establish a plaintiff’s damages. Id. (citing Adolph Coors Co. v. Movement Against Racism and the
Klan, 777 F.2d 1538, 1544 (11th Cir. 1985)). Further in FLSA claims, employees who prevail are
6
entitled to liquidated damages unless the employer makes an affirmative showing that it acted in
good faith. Ojeda-Sanchez v. Bland Farms, LLC, 499 Fed. Appx. 897, 902 (11th Cir. 2012) (citing
Dybach v. Fla. Dep’t of Corrections, 942 F.2d. 1562, 1566-1567 (11th Cir. 1991)). And in any
action brought by an employee to enforce sections 206 and 207 of the FLSA, the Court shall “in
addition to any judgment awarded to the plaintiff, allow … costs of the action.” 28 U.S.C. §216(b).
Plaintiff claims to have worked for the Defendant from August 1, 2015 until September
30, 2016 and averaged seven hours of overtime per week. Doc. 10-1 at ¶ 6. In his affidavit, Plaintiff
calculates his overtime wages as 143 weeks x 7 hours of overtime at a rate of $9.50 per hour for a
total of $9,509.50. Id. at ¶ 8. The pleadings do not support 143 weeks of work. Based on the
Court’s calculations, the time lapse between the start and end of his employment is 61 weeks.
Although Plaintiff has established that he is entitled to damages, given the discrepancy in
his damages calculation in the affidavit, Plaintiff has not established the amount to which he is
entitled. “Damages may be awarded only if the record adequately reflects the basis for [an] award
via ‘a hearing or a demonstration by detailed affidavits establishing the necessary facts.’ ” Adolph
Coors Co., 777 F.2d at 1544 (quoting United Artists Corp. v. Freeman, 605 F.2d 854, 857 (5th
Cir. 1979)). Plaintiff has not met this standard. Plaintiff also claims reasonable attorney’s fees and
costs. Doc. 1 at 4; Doc. 10-1 at ¶ 9. Having found that Plaintiff has demonstrated liability and
entitlement to damages, although not the specific amount, the Court concludes that he is also
entitled to costs and attorney’s fees.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff has established that Defendant Stoneworks willfully violated the FLSA overtime
provisions. Plaintiff is thus entitled to an award of unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. But the Court lacks the necessary facts to award damages
7
on this record. Because the Court cannot ascertain the amount of damages on the current pleadings,
the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion as to liability and find entitlement to damages, including
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Within
fourteen (14) days, Plaintiff may file a supplemental memorandum and affidavits to establish the
amount of damages.
Accordingly it is
ORDERED as follows:
1.
Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default Judgment (Doc. 10) is GRANTED as to
liability. Additionally, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to damages as to
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and
costs.
2.
Within FOURTEEN (14) days, Plaintiff may file a supplemental memorandum
and affidavits to establish the amount of damages to which he is entitled.
DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on August 21, 2017.
Copies to:
Counsel of Record and Unrepresented Parties, if any
8
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?