Thompson et al v. 1725 Northside Drive, Inc. et al

Filing 109

ORDER denying Defendant's 89 Motion for Summary Judgment. The parties are ORDERED to file a proposed consolidated pretrial order within thirty days. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 9/28/2015. (cem)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
BRITTANY M. THOMPSON, et
al.,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiffs,
v.
1715 NORTHSIDE DRIVE, INC.,
Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NOS.
1:14-CV-390-RWS

ORDER
This case is before the Court on Defendant 1715 Northside Drive’s Motion
for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 89].
I.

Factual Background
Plaintiffs are former exotic dancers at Diamond Club. Defendant 1715

Northside Drive owns and operates Diamond Club, an adult entertainment venue.
Defendant has never paid any wage to an exotic dancer. On February 10, 2014,
Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendant (and others, who have since been dismissed
from this action), alleging violations of Sections 206 and 207 of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (“FLSA”). On July 10, 2014, Defendant answered and asserted
counterclaims against Plaintiffs for breach of contract and unjust enrichment [Doc.

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

No. 43].
II.

Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 requires that summary judgment be

granted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P.
56(a). “The moving party bears ‘the initial responsibility of informing the . . .
court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of
material fact.’ ” Hickson Corp. v. N. Crossarm Co., 357 F.3d 1256, 1259 (11th
Cir. 2004) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (internal
quotations omitted)). Where the moving party makes such a showing, the burden
shifts to the non-movant, who must go beyond the pleadings and present
affirmative evidence to show that a genuine issue of material fact does exist.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 257 (1986).
The applicable substantive law identifies which facts are material. Id. at
248. A fact is not material if a dispute over that fact will not affect the outcome
of the suit under the governing law. Id. An issue is genuine when the evidence
2

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Id.
at 249-50.
In resolving a motion for summary judgment, the Court must view all
evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Patton v. Triad Guar. Ins. Corp., 277 F.3d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir.
2002).

But, the court is bound only to draw those inferences which are

reasonable. “Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of
fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue for trial.” Allen
v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 121 F.3d 642, 646 (11th Cir. 1997) (quoting Matsushita
Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)). “If the
evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment
may be granted.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50 (internal citations omitted); see
also Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586 (once the moving party has met its burden under
Rule 56(a), the nonmoving party “must do more than simply show there is some
metaphysical doubt as to the material facts”).
III.

Analysis
On March 9, 2015, Defendant 1715 Northside Drive filed its Motion for

Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 89], claiming that it is wholly exempt from liability
3

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

in this case pursuant to the good faith exception contained in 29 U.S.C. §§ 259(a)
and 260. Defendant relies upon Fact Sheet 13, a publication of the United States
Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division regarding the employment
relationship under the FLSA [Doc. No. 89-1, pp. 1-3].
The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that Defendant is not entitled to summary
judgment. Defendant has failed to present any evidence concerning its reliance
on Fact Sheet 13. For example, no evidence has been presented that Defendant
was even aware of Fact Sheet 13 when deciding not to pay its exotic dancers.
Furthermore, Fact Sheet 13 is dated May 2014, three months after this action was
filed [Doc. No. 89-1, p. 1]. For these reasons, Defendant is not entitled to
summary judgment on its good faith defense.
IV.

Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

[Doc. No. 89] is DENIED. The parties are ORDERED to file a proposed
consolidated pretrial order within thirty days.
SO ORDERED, this 28th day of September, 2015.

________________________________
RICHARD W. STORY
United States District Judge
4

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)