Melgar Morataya v. Nancy's Kitchen of Silver Spring, Inc. et al
Filing
56
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 7/17/2015. (kw2s, Deputy Clerk)
IN TIlE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND
SOllthem Dh'i.~ioll
*
.IESSICA MARLENE
MORATAYA,
,'.
MELGAR
*
*
Plaintiff,
Case No.: (;.IH-I3-01888
*
NANCY'S KITCHEN
SPRING, INC., et a/,
OF SILVER
*
*
Defendants.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM
This is a wage violation
against her former employer.
Kitchen")
U.S.c.
~ 20
*
Defendant
J 1'1self"
Nancy's
the Maryland
Judgment.
the Court found Ihat Defendants
*
Kitchen of Silver Spring. Inc. ("Nancy's
violations
of the Fair Labor Standards
Wage and Iiour Law C'MWIII.").
Act
Md. Codc.
Wage Payment and Collection
Md. Code. LE ~ 3-501 1'1self. Pending bef()re the Court is Plaintiffs
Motion fbr Parlial Summary
U.S.c.
*
*
OI'INION
Lab. & Empl. Article ("LE") ~ 3-401 1'1self .. and the Maryland
Law ("MWPCL").
*
case brought by Plaintiff Jessica Marlene Melgar Morataya
and its owner. Roy Barreto. for purportcd
C'FLSA ").29
*
*
See lOCI' No. 52. In ruling on Plaintilrs
Second
previous motion.
were not entitled to a tip credit under the FLSA. specilically
~ 203(m). to offset against their minimum
wage and overtime obligations.
See
29
Eel' No.
44.
Plaintilrs
issue. PlainlilTnow
Second Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment
asks thc Court to lind that Delcndants'
only fail to qualify as a tip credit. but also cannot otherwise
seeks to further sharpen the
weekly cash payments
satisfy Delcndants'
to PlaintilTnot
FI.SA
obligations.
payments
I
See ECF No. 52 at I. Defendants.
on the other hand. assert that the weekly cash
they gave to Plaintiff should lilctor into I'laintilrs
hourly wagc calculations
becausc
they were not tips. See ECF No. 53 at I. A hearing was held on Junc 16. 2015. See Loc. R. 105.6
(Md.). For the reasons outlined
is GRANTED.
I.
below. Plaintiffs
in part. and DENIED.
Sccond Motion for Partial Summary Judgmcnt
in part.
BACKGROUND
Nancy's
Kitchen is a restaurant
located at 3808 Intcrnational
See ECF No. 39-2. PlaintilTalieges
Maryland.
Drivc. Silvcr Spring.
that shc began working !()r Nancy's
Kitchen
around 2007. See ECF No. 39- II at ~ 2. She lirst worked as a busser. c1caring tables. and bcgan
working as a server around 2010 or 201 I. See ECF No. 53-3 at 22-26.
individuals
worked as servers lor Nancy's
Only two or thrce
Kitchen during the relevant time pcriod. See ECF No.
53-2 at 12.
In the course of discovery
!()r this case. I'lainti ITwas deposed.
she was a server. she was never permitted
She testi Iicd that. whilc
to keep the tips she received
from customers.
See ECF
No. 41-4 at 6. Instead. she was required to take tips to Mr. Barreto. the owner of Nancy's
Kitchen. or put them in a designated
bag. which was called the "kitty'" See iii. I'laintilTtestilied
that Mr. Barreto decided how the tips from the kitty were divided. See iii. at 8.
Mr. Barreto was also deposed.
In slight contrast to I'laintilI
he stated that I'laintiIT\\'as
to keep her tips ifshe worked alone because ..that's her tip. she keeps it." See ECF No.
permitted
53-2 at 4. But if Plaintiff was not alone. she was required to put her tips in the kitty. See ECF No.
39-7 at
J
7 & 20. Mr. Barreto explained
in separate envelopes.
that everyone
See ECF No. 53-2 at 3. Specilically.
PlaintilTalso requests that the Court determine
should be compensated. See ECF No. 52 at 2.
I
who worked together then received money
he said ... [tJhe people who are
the months Plaintilrworked
2
and I()r which she
working as a team, they get [an envelopel,
including the credit card, whatever
This daily amount was paid weekly in cash. Srr ECF No. 53-3 at 22-26.
that he gave tip money to Plaintiff: John Fernandes
is put in:' Srr id
Mr. Barreto indicated
(another server), and possibly a busser. Srr
ECF No. 39-7 at 20. Mr. Barreto also said that tips paid by credit card all go "to thc bank and
then I make the envelopes
based on whatever
moncy I colleet."
lOCI' No. 53-2 at 6.
When Mr. Barreto was again asked to clarify how he treated the tips put into the kitty,
Mr. Barreto said. ,.[tlhose are being given as tip credit." Sre lOCI' No. 42-1 at 15. This, aecording
to Mr. Barreto, is ,,[ tlhe timc they work, plus the tip for thc whole day, it gets shared:'
!d lie
also said he used the money from the kitty, in part. to purchase goods used at the restaurant.
ECF No. 53-2 at 19. At another point in the deposition.
the kitty were distributed
make the envelopes
to employees:
and gave employees
amount of tips given to the employees,
amount each day regardless
explained
that"[ilt
See
he once again agreed that the tips from
he said he kept the money Irom the kitty to the side to
the tip credit2 See id at 12-16. When asked about the
Mr. Barreto testilied
of the amount of tips in the kitty.
isjust a fixed amount. They've
that he paid the employees
a fixed
"iee lOCI' No. 53-2 at 7. iVlr. Ilarreto
been told, because I told her earlier. business
In fact, Mr. Barreto talked about the money Ii'om the tip kitty often during his deposition and
was consistent that the money from the kitty was used, in part. to pay employees a ,.tip credit."
When asked what he did with the tips, Mr. Barreto said "'i]t is a kitty, so I make - - I give them
envelopes every week .. :' See ECF No. 39-7 at 20. Again, when asked if he gave the servers an
envelope with cash containing the tips, Mr. Barreto responded .., !lhe tip credit. the money which
collects:' See lOCI' No. 53-2 at 6. At another point. Mr. Barreto explained that the cash placed in
the kitty was not treated as revenue but placed to the side to pay the employees ..tip credit." See
ECF No. 39-7 at 21-22. He also said that he collects all money fi.,r the day as re\'enue and then
makes the tip credit distribution. See id at 21. In addition, in answering interrogatories.
Defendants stated that the tips were treated as revenue and, in lieu of tips, the servers were gi\'en
a set amount per day. See ECF No. 39-2. Despite the repeated reference to tips during discovery,
Mr. Barreto provided the Court with an allidavit attached to Defendants' opposition to PlaintiJrs
first motion for partial summary judgment. where he explained that the daily pay rale did not
come from tips but IrOill the restaurant's general operating account. Ser ECF No. 41-3.
2
can be slow or busy. There could be. - ifit"s slow. I take the bullet: if it's busy. it"s okay. Imix
it up. howcvcr
I can make them happy to \\-ark there." See id at 19.
According
to Mr. Barreto. the daily payments
would have received
her wage to $65 a day on the wcekends.
purporting
how PlaintilTwas
to show Plaintitrs
ECF No. 53-3 at 22-26. The spreadshcet
accountant.
to
concern about whether she was rcceiving enough tip money and Mr.
Further explaining
spreadsheet
the amount Plainti IT
ifshe had kept all of her tips. See ECF No. 53.2 at 21. According
Plaintiff: she expressed
Barreto inereased
equalcd or exceeded
Agnelo Gonsalvcs.
See ECF No. 41-4 at 13.
paid. Defendants
have provided the Court with a
hours and pay /i'om December
20]0 to July 2013. See
appears to havc becn created by thc restaurant's
See ECF No. 39.15 at 6. The spreadshcet
also appears to IHI\'e
bcen crcatcd alicr the filet and not eontcmporancouslyJ
See ECF No. 39.15 at 6-7. In 2010.
when Plaintiff was working as a busser. thc spreadsheet
indicates that she was paid $7.25 per
hour. See ECF No. 53-2 at 22-26. In March 2011. when she became a server. PlaintilTbegan
receiving
$4.00 per hour. See hi. In July 2013. her hourly wage was increased to $4.15 per hour.
See id The spreadsheet
notes what portion of I'laintifl's
portion was paid by check. See id The spreadsheet
payments"
and indicates
See id The spreadsheet
hourly wage was paid in cash and \\'hat
also contains a column entitled "other cash
that Plaintiff received between $540 and $660 in cash every two weeks.
also shows the amount of tips PlaintitTreported
for each pay period. See
id
Plaintiffs
employmcnt
with Defendants
cnded on July 12.2013. See ECF No. 53-2 .
stated that he used Plaintiffs W-2 documents. Plaintiffs veritied complaint. and Mr.
statements rcgarding how paymcnts werc made to create the spreadshects. See ECF
. Gonsalves
1
Barreto's
No. 39-15 at 6-7.
4
II.
STANDARD
OF REVIEW
Summary judgment
is proper when there is no genuine issue as to any material
the movant is entitled to judgment
lact and
as a mailer of law. Meson \'. GA 7X Tech. Sen's. Corp.. 507
F3d 803. 806 (4th Cir. 2(07): see a/so Fed. R. Civ. 1'. 56(a). A genuine issue of material
exists when ..the evidence
party:'
is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict lor the nonmoving
Anderson \'. Liber1y Lobby. Inc.. 477 U.S. 242.248
burden of demonstrating
fact
(1986). The moving party bears the
that no genuine dispute exists with regard to material
Plil/ial/l
laets.
In\'. Co. \'. Cal/leo Props .. 810 F.2d 1282. 1286 (4th Cir. 1987). Notably. the moving party can
demonstrate
that there is no genuine issue of material fl\et by establishing
absence of evidence
in support of the nonmoving
admissible
evidence
to support the nonmoving
party to identify specific facts showing
A 1/1. Ins. Co .. 241 F.R.D. 534,535
Celli/ex Corp. \'. Calrel/, 477
party's case:'
U.S. 317, 325 (1986). If the party seeking summary judgment
demonstrates
evidentiary
materials
for the party opposing
III.
presented
that there is no
party's case, the burden shins to the nonmoving
that there is a genuine issue for trial. Lorraine \'. Markel
(D. Md. 20(7).
However.
or."nne
the "mere existence
alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise
motion for summary judgment."
that "there is an
properly supported
A nt/ason. 477 U.S. at 247-48 (cmphasis
in original).
The
must show facts Irom which the Illct linder could reasonably
summary judgment.
find
Id. at 250-51.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff alleges. in part. violation of the FLSA' s minimum
requirements.
wage
See ECF NO.4. In this second motion for partial summary judgment.
argucs that there is no genuine dispute over the wage Defendants
Defendants
and overtime
paid PlaintilTand.
violated the FLSA as a mailer of law. See ECF No. 52-I. Delcndants
5
Plaintiff
as a result.
argue that there
is a genuine dispute over Plaintiffs wage. and relatedly. over whether Defendants \'io!ated the
FLSA's minimum and overtime wage requirements. See ECl' No. 53 at I. Thus. the Court must
look at three issues. First. whether the tip credit provision of the l'LSA is applicablc to this casc:
second. whether Defendants' payment arrangcment with PlaintilTviolatcd the tip credit
provision. and. as a result. the l'LSA's minimum wage rcquiremcnt: and third. whcther Plaintiff
is owed the difference between the required minimum wage and the hourly wage she \\'as paid.
A. The applicability
Under 29 U.S.C.
of 29 U.S.c. ~ 203(m)
* 206. an employer must pay its employees at least $7.25 an hour.
However. an employer is permitted to receive a ..tip credit" f()r a tipped employee. which is
defined as any employee engaged in an occupation in which she customarily and regularly
receives more than $30 a month in tips. See 29 U.S.c.
* 203(t). Under * 203(m). a tipped
employee may be paid as low as $2.13 per hour as long as the hourly cash wage and the tips the
employee receives equate to at least the prevailing minimum wage. See 29 U.S.C.
* 203(m).
In
essence. for l'LSA purposes. thc employer is given a credit lor the differencc bctwcen thc
minimum wage and the hourly wage it was paying if the employer complies with thc provisions
* 203(m). Specifically. * 203(m) requires that the employee be informed of this provision and
that the employee retain all tips received. See 29 U.s.C. * 203(m): see "/.1'0 29 C.l'.R. * 513.59.
of
In this case. the Court has already rulcdthat Defendants are not entitled to rcceive a tip credit.
See ECl' No. 44. Defendants now assert that
* 203(m) simply docs not apply and thaI the cash
payments. while not a tip credit. still count toward the calculation of Plaintiirs minimum wagc.
See ECF No. 53-1 at 2-4. According to Delendants. if the cash payments arc included. thcy paid
PlaintilTmore than minimum wage. See ill. at 4-5. They elaim that Plaintiffs "direct wage" was
divided into two parts-an
hourly wage and a daily wage. See ill. at 4. Defendants insist that the
6
daily wage was not meant to be a redistribution
of tips but rather a second method of payment.
See id.
Without assuming
belies Defendants'
Plaintiffs
that Defendants'
argument
argument
on lactual grounds.
anything
employees.
employee
tips and then redistributed
in the record contradicts
Delendants'
was not meant to be tip money. The spreadsheets
was paid an hourly rate 01'$7.25 (minimum
which was later increased
wage consistent
repeatedly
and in
some of those tips to the
that the daily amount paid
by Defendants
indicates
tending to support Delendants'
Indeed. Delendants
her hourly wage was decreased
who is being partially compensated
show that Plaintiff
below minimum
by tips. Further.
that she believed that the "daily rate" she received was based on
her tips. ECF No. 41-4 at 11-13. Conversely.
Plaintiff
submitted
argument
to $4.15. alier she became a server. ECF No. 53-2 at 22-26. Thus.
with an employee
testimony
compensate
indicates.
wage) when she was not a server and $4.00 per hour.
when Plaintiff became a "tipped employee:'
purpose.
testimony
See in/;'o at 2--4.
Other evidence
Plaintiffs
that the daily wage paid to Plaintiff
other than tips. Rather. Mr. Barreto's
a variety of ways. that he collected
with the law. the evidence
Indeed. !\Ir. BaiTeto never stated before
lirst motion for partial summary judgment
represented
is consistcnt
argument
there is not a scintilla of evidence in the record
that the daily amount paid to PlaintilTwas
Illr any other
lail to explain the number of hours that the daily wage was to
lor working. Thus. Defendants
have Itliled to produce evidence that would
create a dispute of lact that this daily rate was anything other than a way to redistribute
tips. Defendants
cannot tip toe around the FLSA's
7
requirements
fllr tipped employees
employee
by creating
an atter-the-fact
elaborate
pay systcm that includes both hourly and daily wagcs.
typc of pay system would bc pennittcd
a qucstion
if actually uscd by an cmploycr
Whcthcr this
to pay minimum
wagc is
fiJI' anothcr day.
B. Defendants' payment system
Understanding
that Plaintiff was paid Icss than $7.25 per hour and was paid an additional
Ilat sum as tips. 29 U.S.c.
pennits an employcr
~ 203(m) is applicable
to pay a tipped employcc
hour. plus tips (the cmployers
203(m). This statutory
pcrmit employees
to this casc. As discusscd
a lower hourly ratc. but not Icss than 52.13 per
receivc a tip crcdit Il)r up to 55.12 per hour). S~~ U.s.c.
29
provision
comes with requircmcnts.
inll)[Incd that thcir hourly wagc is bcing decrcascd.
"cven ifthc employec
reccivcd
tips at least equivalcnt
Sih-er I'alac~ R~sl.. IlIc .. 246 r.supp.
IlIc .. 28 F.3d 40 1.404
(3d Cir.1(94)
liability for full minimum
must
must bc
~ 203(m): s~~ also 29 C.F.R. ~
and rctaining all tips) must bc satislicd
to thc minimum
2d 220. 229 (S.D.N.Y.
(revcrsing
and thc cmployccs
S~~ 29 U.S.c.
of ~ 203(m) (knowledgc
~
Undcr ~ 203(m). thc cmployers
to retain all tips receivcd by thc cmployccs.
513.59. Thc two requircmcnts
abovc. ~ 203(m)
wagc." Chullg \'.
N~\l'
2002) (citing R~ich \'. Ch~::.Roh~1'f.
district court's equitable
reduction
of cmployer's
wagc whcrc notice of intcnt to takc tip crcdit was not givcn): ami
~ Dcfendants arguc that Mr. Barrcto did providc an affidavit attach cd to its opposition to
Plaintilrs
lirstmotion
for partial summary judgmcnt indicating that thc daily ratc did not comc
from the tip kitty and hc bascd thc daily rate on duration. quality. and value of service. S~~
IOcr
No. 53-1 at 3. Howcver. thesc statcmcnts Ilatly contradict his dcposition tcstimony that thc tip
moncy from the kitty was dividcd among thc employces to providc thcm with a "tip crcdit".
without any explanation 1'01' hc contradiction. Thus. this completc contradiction of prcvious
t
testimony cannot bc uscd to crcatc a disputc of fact in thc lacc of a summary judgmcnt motion.
Zi/llll1~r/llall \'. Nal'llrlis I'harll1. Corp .. 387 F.R.D. 357. 361 (D. Md. 2012) ("Undcr thc
sham affidavit doctrine. 'a party cannot create a gcnuine issuc of lact sufficicnt to surviVl:
summary judgmcnt simply by contradicting his or hcr own prcvious sworn statemcnt (by. say.
filing a later affidavit thatllatly contradicts that party's earlier sworn deposition) without
cxplaining the contradiction or attempting to rcsolvc the disparity .... ) (citing (J~\'~/al1" I'oli(\'
\'.
Mgll1l .• ~l's. Corp .. 526 U.S. 795.806 (1999)).
s~~
8
Marlill \'. Tallgo's Restal/rallt. IlIc.. 969 r:.2d 1319. 1323 (I st Cir.1992) ("It may at tirst seem
odd to award baek pay against an employer
...
where the employee
retained base wages and tips that together amply satisty the minimum
Congress
has in seetion [20]3(m) expressly
courts have entorced
Employers
arrangement"
has aetually reeeived and
wage requirements.
required notice as a condition
Yet
of the tip credit and thc
that requirement.")).
may allow their employees
and still meet the requirements
..to share tips through a tip pooling or tip splitting
of * 203(m). as long as the tip pool only includes
Giollji'iddo \'. Jasoll Zillk. U.e. 769 F.Supp.2d 880. 893 (D. Md. 20 J I ); see
tipped employees.
a/so 29 C.F.R. * 531.54. In other words. if the employees
dccide to practice tip pooling. the
employees must retain all the tips; the employer may not keep any of the tips5 Clio/lji'h/do. 769
r:.Supp. 2d at 893-94
(citing Chullg. 246 F.Supp.2d
at 230: Morgall\'. SpeakElI.\Y. LLe. 625
F.Supp.2d
632. 652 (N.D. Ill. 2007): Ayres \'. 127 Reslal/ralll Cli/jl.. 12 F.Supp.2d
(S.D.N.Y.
1998); Dm'is \'. B & S. IlIc.. 38 F.Supp.2d
llere. Defendants
within the parameters
have essentially
admitted
707. 714 (N.D. Ind. 1998»).
that their tip sharing arrangement
solidifies
Naney's
Kitehen ever decided or agreed to participate
203(m).
the same conclusion.
ever explained
In addition.
There is no evidence
to the employees
Mr. Barreto admitted
The
Code.
FLSA
result
5
in the record that the employees
of
in a tip pool. Further. there is no evidence
that their wage would be decreased
that he did not simply redistribute
pooled. but used the tips to buy items lor the restaurant
employees.
did not lit
of * 203(m). See ECr: No. 41-1 at 4-5. I.est there be any doubt. other
evidence
that Defendants
305. 308-09
under *
the tips that were
and possibly to pay non-tipped
See ECF No. 39-7 at 20 & ECF No. 53-2 at 19. In fact. it is clear that Det'cndants did
MWHL contains a tip credit provision similar to the one contained in the FLSA. See Md.
LE* 3-419. See GiOl?ji'iddo. 769 F. Supp. at 895 ("'In light of the congruent nature of the
and the MWHL ... this Court must conclude that the MWIIL was also violatcd as a
of Mr. Zink's participation in thc cmployee tip pooL").
9
not simply redistribute
the tips evenly because the amount the employees
always the same regardless
of how many tips were actually received. See lOCI' No. 53-2 at 21.
Other courts have lound arrangements
the FLSA. In SorellSen \'. CHTCorp..
III. Mar. 10.20(4).
the employer
Under this arrangement.
the employer
similar to the one in this case to be in violation of
Nos. 03 C 1609.03
paid its employees
C 7362. 2004 WI. 442638 at * 1 (N.D.
$3.09 per hour plus a \lat "per diem" rate.
the servers were required to tum over their tips to their employer
used the tips to pay a \lat rate to the servers and the non-tipped
and other lood preparers).
activities.
employees
and
(cooks
See id. The employer also used some of the tips to fund charitable
See id. There. the court said. albcit in dicta. that Plaintiffs'
and the Court was "not persuaded
compensation
rcceived per day was
by Dcfendants'
package that amounted
bcliefthat
remedy lied in the FI.SA
the allegcdly
'gcncrous
to roughly $70.000 on an annualized
basis establishes
that
they were paid fairly for their work as a mallcr of law .... Id at * 7. See also f)onO\'l/Il \'. '1il\'em'
Talent and I'lacements. Inc.. 84-1'-40 I. 1986 WL 32746. at *4 (D. Colo. 1986) (finding that "an
agreement
whereby
the minimum
the employer
would own the tips received and could usc those tips to satisl~'
wage" was not valid under the Act): Wright
F.Supp 1216, 1217 (D. Colo. 1986) (Iinding agreement
defendant
reimbursed
contravention
I'.
U-Lel-Us Skycap Sen'ices. Inc.. 648
where plaintiffs turned in all tips and
them just up to the amount that would equal minimum
of29 U.S.c.
S 203(m».
I Iere. Defendants
collected
Plaintiffs
wage was in blatant
tips and reimbursed
PlaintifT a set amount without regard to how many tips were actually collected by Plainti ITand
See lOCI' No. 53-2 at 21. Thus. Defendants'
her co-workers.
requirements
of
S 203(m)
and the weekly cash payments
wage requirements.
\0
payment system did not mect the
cannot be used to offset the minimum
C. Plaintiffs
As Defendants
Defendants
received.
remedy
did not follow the requirements
owe her the difference
of
*
203(m). Plaintiff argues that
between the full minimum
wage and the hourly \mge shc
See ECF No. 52-I at 1-2. Plaintiff is correct.
The Fourth Circuit has found that employcrs
count tips in determining
the employec's
(4th Cir. 1977). In Richard. the employer
who violatc
damages.
Richard
permitted
employees
I'.
*
203(m) arc not permitted
to
Marriott Corp .. 549 F.2d 303. 306
to kcep all their tips but did not
pay them any hourly wage unless their tips failed to provide thcm with minimum
wage. /<1.at
304. The Fourth Circuit found that this violated thc FLSA. becausc the cmployer
failed to pay
the employees
applicable
an hourly wage of at least $2.13. and found damages
minimum
were 100 percent of the
wage. !d. at 306. The Fourth Circuit said:
What the Congress has said. in effect. to restaurant employers is
that. if you precisely follow the language of [* 20)3(m) and fully
infi.mn your employees of it. you may obtain a 50 percent credit
from the receipt of tips toward your obligation to pay the minimum
wage. The corollary
seems obvious and unavoidable:
iI' the
employer does not follow the command of the statute. he gets no
credit. It is nonsense to argue. as docs I the employerJ.
that
compliancc
with the statute results in one-half credit. but that
defiance of the statute results in '100 pcrccnt credit. We think the
conclusion is compelled that the measure of damages for cach of
[the employer's] employees is payment of the applicable minimum
wage in fi.ill.
/<1.at 305: see a/so lv/ars/w//
employees
I'.
Genri//. /nc .. 495 F.Supp. 744. 753 (D. Md. 19S0) (Iinding
were owed full minimum
wage even though they had becn pcrmittcd
tips and also paid at least $2.13 an hour bccause the employcr
employcr
was paying them pal11y in tips as rcquired by
Plaintiff an hourly wage below minimum
manner that did not comply with
*
*
to kccp their
did not provide not icc that thc
203(m»). Ilcrc. Defendants
gavc
wage and thcn gave her a set amount of tips in a
203(m). Thus. Defendants
II
cannot count what thcy l1
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?