PEREZ v. CENTRAL LAUNDRY INC. et al

Filing 111

ORDER THAT JUDGMENT BE ENTERED IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA, SECRETARY OF LABOR, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, AGAINST DEFENDANTS CENTRAL LAUNDRY INC., GEORGE RENGEPES, AND JIMMY RENGEPES IN THE AMOUNT OF $239,269.65 FOR BACK WAGES DUE TO THEIR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLSAS MINIMUM WAGE AND OVERTIME REQUIREMENTS, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206, 207(A)(1), IN THE MANNER SET FORTH IN THE ACCOMPANYING MEMORANDUM OPINION; JUDGMENT BE ENTERED IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA, SECRETARY OF LABOR, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, AGAINST DEFENDANTS CENTRAL LAUNDRY INC., GEORGE RENGEPES, AND JIMMY RENGEPES, IN THE AMOUNT OF $239,269.65 AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES UNDER 29 U.S.C. § 216(B); AND DEFENDANTS CENTRAL LAUNDR Y INC., GEORGE RENGEPES, AND JIMMY RENGEPES ARE ENJOINED, PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE FLSA, FROM: A. FAILING TO PAY THEIR EMPLOYEES THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF MINIMUM WAGE UNDER 29 U.S.C. § 206(A); B. FAILING TO PAY THEIR EMPLOYEES THE APPROPRI ATE AMOUNT OF OVERTIME COMPENSATION AT ONE AND ONE HALF OF THEIR REGULAR RATES OF PAY FOR ALL OVERTIME HOURS WORKED IN EXCESS OF 40 HOURS PER WEEK UNDER 29 U.S.C. § 207(A); AND FAILING TO MAKE, KEEP, AND PRESERVE COMPLETE AND ACCURATE RECORDS O F THEIR EMPLOYEES AND OF THE WAGES, HOURS, AND OTHER CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT THAT THEY MAINTAIN UNDER 29 U.S.C. § 211(C) AND THE REGULATIONS ISSUED AND FOUND AT 29 C.F.R. PART 516. PLAINTIFF IS NOT REQUIRED TO GIVE SECURITY PURSUANT TO RULE 65(C) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO CLOSE THIS CASE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 4/10/18. 4/10/18 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (va, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA, SECRETARY OF LABOR, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-1502 CENTRAL LAUNDRY INC., GEORGE RENGEPES and JIMMY RENGEPES, Defendants. ORDER AND NOW, this 10th day of April, 2018, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (ECF No. 98); Defendants’ Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (ECF No. 107); and Plaintiff’s Response Thereto (ECF No. 109); and following a bench trial on the issue of remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff, R. Alexander Acosta, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, against Defendants Central Laundry Inc., George Rengepes, and Jimmy Rengepes in the amount of $239,269.65 for back wages due to their violations of the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime requirements, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206, 207(a)(1), in the manner set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion; 2. Judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff, R. Alexander Acosta, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, against Defendants Central Laundry Inc., George Rengepes, and Jimmy Rengepes, in the amount of $239,269.65 as liquidated damages under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); and 3. Defendants Central Laundry Inc., George Rengepes, and Jimmy Rengepes are ENJOINED, pursuant to Section 17 of the FLSA, from: a. Failing to pay their employees the appropriate amount of minimum wage under 29 U.S.C. § 206(a); b. Failing to pay their employees the appropriate amount of overtime compensation at one and one half of their regular rates of pay for all overtime hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week under 29 U.S.C. § 207(a); and c. Failing to make, keep, and preserve complete and accurate records of their employees and of the wages, hours, and other conditions of employment that they maintain under 29 U.S.C. § 211(c) and the Regulations issued and found at 29 C.F.R. Part 516. Plaintiff is not required to give security pursuant to Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case. BY THE COURT: /s/Wendy Beetlestone, J. _______________________________ WENDY BEETLESTONE, J. 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?