ACOSTA v. CENTRAL LAUNDRY INC. et al

Filing 70

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 64 IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 7/26/19. 7/29/19 ENTERED & E-MAILED.(fdc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION

v.
CENTRAL LAUNDRY, INC., GEORGE
RENGEPES AND JAMES RENGEPES,
Defendants.

NO. 18-190

ORDER
AND NOW this 26th day of July, 2019, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 64), Defendants’ Response in Opposition (ECF No. 65), and
Plaintiff’s Reply (ECF No. 66), IT IS ORDERED as follows.
Summary judgment is GRANTED to Plaintiff as follows:
1. Defendants James and George Rengepes were “covered employees” under the
FLSA from July 1, 2017 to August 28, 2018, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d);
2. Defendant Central Laundry, Inc. was a “covered enterprise” under the FLSA
from July 1, 2017 to March 20, 2018, id. at § 203(s)(1);
3. Defendants are liable for violations of the minimum wage provisions of the
FLSA, id. at § 206(a);
4. Defendants are liable for violations of the overtime provisions of the FLSA,
id. at § 207(a)(1);
5. Defendants are liable for violations of the recordkeeping provisions of the
FLSA, id. at § 211(c);
6. Defendants James and George Rengepes are liable for $133,335 in minimum
wage and overtime back wages, and Defendant Central Laundry is liable for
$86,667.75 in minimum wage and overtime back wages, id. at § 216(c);
7. Defendants James and George Rengepes are liable for $133,335 in liquidated
damages, and Defendant Central Laundry is liable for $86,667.75 in
liquidated damages, id. at § 216(b);

8. Defendants are permanently enjoined from further violations of the minimum
wage provisions, id. at § 206(a), overtime provisions, id. at § 207(a)(1), and
recordkeeping provisions, id. at § 211(c), of the FLSA.
Summary judgment is DENIED as follows:
1. Whether Defendant Central Laundry was a “covered enterprise” from March
20, 2018 to August 28, 2018, id. at § 203(s)(1);
2. Whether Defendants violated the child labor provisions of the FLSA, id. at
§ 212(c);
3. Whether Defendants violated the anti-retaliation provisions of the FLSA, id. at
§ 215(a)(3); and
4. Whether Defendants are liable to former employee Adam Nickels for
$57,967.50 in front pay.

July 29, 2019

BY THE COURT:

/s/Wendy Beetlestone, J.
_______________________________
WENDY BEETLESTONE, J.

2