Jimenez et al v. Reeder Medical Testing, LLC et al
Filing
12
*ORDER REQUIRING CLARIFIED DAMAGES AFFIDAVIT regarding 10 Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Final Judgment. Plaintiff Jimenez has ten days from today's date to file a supplemental affidavit as described in the body of the order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 12/8/2011. (dkc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 11-61817-CIV-GRAHAM/GOODMAN
CLAUDIA JIMENEZ and
JOYCE DWYER, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
REEDER MEDICAL TESTING, LLC, a
Florida limited liability company,
ROBERT REEDER, INDIVIDUALLY, and
FRANCIS REEDER, individually,
Defendants.
_______________________________________/
ORDER REQUIRING CLARIFIED DAMAGES AFFIDAVIT
THIS CAUSE is before the Undersigned on the District Court’s Order of
Reference of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Final Judgment and Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Entry of Default Final Judgment. [ECF Nos. 10; 11].
In the default judgment motion, Plaintiff Jimenez states that she is “seeking
liquidated damages in the amount of approximately $1,218.00 ((28 hours x $7.25) x 7
weeks)) [sic].” [ECF No. 10-2, ¶ 8]. The FLSA is clear that liquidated damages should
equal the amount of unpaid minimum wages.
29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
Based on her
affidavit, it appears that Jimenez claims she worked eight hours per day for twenty days
without pay. Therefore, liquidated damages should amount to the same as her unpaid
minimum wages during that period – $160.00 (20 days x 8 hours per day x $7.25 per
hour = $1160; $1160 - $1000.00 in previous payment = $160.00).
Jimenez is ORDERED to submit a supplemental affidavit WITHIN 10 DAYS
clarifying her damages. In the clarification, Jimenez must specifically state the number
of hours she contends she worked without pay during that twenty day period and explain
1
if paragraph eight of her affidavit is merely a scrivener’s error or, if not, clarify the origin
of the components of the equation she used to calculate liquidated damages.
Jimenez also states in her affidavit that she is “seeking an additional amount for
retaliation in the amount of $40,000.00 ((salary of $400 per day x 5 days per week) x 20
weeks).” [ECF No. 10-2, ¶ 9]. However, Jimenez stated earlier in the same affidavit that
she “usually only works three (3) days per week for a total of 24 hours each work week.”
[Id. at ¶ 4]. Given that retaliation damages are intended to put an employee “in the place
she would have been absent the employer’s misconduct,” Snapp v. Unlimited Concepts,
Inc., 208 F.3d 928, 934 (11th Cir. 2000), it unclear why Jimenez is entitled to damages
for five days per week, instead of only the three days per week she presumably would
have worked if she were not terminated. Moreover, this statement of damages conflicts
with Jimenez’ earlier Statement of Claim, in which she says she is “seeking her post-pay
for the time that she is out of work, in an amount of $1,200.00 per week, due to the
retaliation of Defendants.” [ECF No. 5, p. 2].
Therefore, Jimenez is also ORDERED to include in the same supplemental
affidavit a clarification containing the estimated number of days per week she would
have worked during the relevant twenty weeks if she were not terminated.
DONE AND ORDERED, in Chambers, in Miami, Florida, this 8th day of
December, 2011.
Copies furnished to:
The Honorable Donald Graham
All counsel of record
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?