ACOSTA v. MOSLUOGLU, INC. et al

Filing 48

ORDERED AS FOLLOWS THAT PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY BRIEF (ECF NO. 45) IS GRANTED; DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 44) IS DENIED IN FULL; PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 40) IS DENIED IN PART AND GRANTE D IN PART. PLAINTIFFS MOTION IS DENIED AS TO THE ISSUES OF BACK WAGES, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, WHETHER DEFENDANT ENGIN GUNAYDIN IS AN EMPLOYER UNDER THE FLSA, AND WHETHER DEFENDANTS VIOLATIONS WERE WILLFUL. PLAINTIFFS MOTION IS GRANTED IN RELATION TO 2 ESTABLISHING MINIMUM WAGE, OVERTIME, AND RECORDKEEPING VIOLATIONS. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 4/27/21. 4/28/21 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(jaa, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PATRICK PIZZELLA, v. Plaintiff EMPIRE DINER, et al., Defendants : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-4663 ORDER AND NOW, this 27th day of April, 2021, after considering Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 40) and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 44) and all responses thereto and related filings, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Reply Brief (ECF No. 45) is GRANTED; 2. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 44) is DENIED in full; 3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 40) is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED as to the issues of back wages, liquidated damages, injunctive relief, whether Defendant Engin Gunaydin is an employer under the FLSA, and whether Defendants’ violations were willful. Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED in relation to establishing minimum wage, overtime, and recordkeeping violations. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. __________________________ EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, 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?