Elmquist v. Flo-Pie Inc et al
Filing
130
ORDER denying 115 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by the Honorable R. Bryan Harwell on 11/2/2016. (hcic, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER ELMQUIST, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly
situated,
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
FLO-PIE, INC. d/b/a MELLOW
)
MUSHROOM; D-SHROOM, INC. d/b/a )
MELLOW MUSHROOM; JOHN DOE, )
individually; and MATT DUKE,
)
individually,
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
Civil Action No.:4:14-CV-3548-RBH
ORDER
This matter is before the Court for review of Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider, Alter
and/or Amend [ECF #115]. All parties have had the opportunity to extensively brief the issues
raised in the motions, and this Court has thoroughly considered all the filings in this case.1
Factual Background and Procedural History
On September 4, 2014, Plaintiff Christopher Elmquist (hereinafter, “Mr. Elmquist” or
“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of similarly situated employees, filed an action alleging
several causes of action against Defendants based on violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA). [ECF #1]. The crux of Plaintiffs’ allegations are that Defendants’ tip pool is invalid
because the Defendants redistributed the tip pool to employees who are not “regularly and
customarily tipped employees,” in violation of the FLSA. Defendants dispute these claims and
1
Under Local Civil Rule 7.09 (D.S.C.), “hearings on motions may be ordered by the Court in its discretion.
Unless so ordered, motions may be determined without a hearing.” Upon review of the briefs, the Court finds
that a hearing is not necessary.
argue that the specific positions in question, busser/dishwashers and cooks/chefs, are “tipped
employees,” as defined by the FLSA, because these employees receive more than $30.00 per
month in tips. Furthermore, the cook/chefs receive tips directly from non-guest customers for
catering services. These allegations were supported by affidavits of several individuals, all of
which were attached to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. [ECF #65].
Moreover,
Defendants argue that the dishwashers at Mellow Mushroom do not simply wash dishes; rather,
they also work as bussers, and often spend some portion of their time interacting with customers,
performing bussing tasks, running food to tables, collecting dishes, and restocking plates and
silverware. [ECF #65].
On November 11, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF #65],
alleging that Plaintiffs failed to make out a prima facie case under the FLSA. Plaintiffs opposed
this motion on December 18, 2015. [ECF #81]. On January 1, 2016, after reviewing Plaintiffs’
response brief, Defendants filed a Motion to Strike Affidavits, the affidavits being those attached
to Plaintiffs’ response brief in opposition to summary judgment. [ECF #82]. Plaintiffs opposed
this Motion on January 22, 2016. [ECF #89]. The Court held a hearing on several outstanding
motions in this case on April 22, 2016, including the Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion
to Strike Affidavits, and issued its Order on May 4, 2016. [ECF #111].
This Court first granted the motion seeking to strike Plaintiffs’ affidavits supporting his
response to the summary judgment motion. However, Plaintiff was allowed to substitute properly
notarized affidavits in the place of the improperly notarized affidavits. This Court then granted in
part, and denied in part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Specifically, after allowing
2
Plaintiffs to substitute affidavits, this Court found a genuine issue of material fact as to whether
Defendants’ tip pool violated the FLSA. [ECF #111]. Second, Defendants argued that Plaintiffs’
claims were limited to a two-year statute of limitations because there was no evidence that
Defendants “willfully violated the FLSA” when Defendants required Plaintiffs to contribute to the
tip pool. The Court denied this summary judgment ground because it found that the newly
submitted affidavits created a genuine issue of material fact as to this argument. [ECF #111].
Finally, this Court granted Defendants’ summary judgment motion with respect to the fact that
Plaintiffs are not entitled to liquidated damages for recovery of the tips paid into the alleged
invalid tip pool.
In their Motion for Reconsideration, Defendants argue that the positions of cooks/chefs and
bussers/dishwashers are eligible to participate in the tip pool under the FLSA as a matter of law.
First, the Defendants argue that even considering Plaintiffs’ affidavits, it is undisputed that
cooks/chefs receive tips in excess of $30 per month for catering services. [ECF #115-1, pp. 1-2].
In response, Plaintiffs argue that the regulations do not support this argument because these
individuals work “dual jobs” and because the affidavits including this testimony are not based
upon personal knowledge. [ECF #119, p. 4]. Second, Defendants argue that bussers/dishwashers
should not be disqualified from participating in the tip pool as “customarily and regularly tipped”
employees because the actual duties performed by these individuals include direct interaction with
customers. [ECF #115-1, p. 4]. In response to this argument, Plaintiffs argue that they have
submitted affidavit testimony from numerous employees who have testified that these are two
different positions with two different job duties, and furthermore, that the customer interaction is
3
minimal, thereby creating a genuine issue of material fact as to Defendants’ claims. [ECF #119,
pp. 5-6].
Standard of Review
Motions for Reconsideration under Rule 59 are not to be made lightly. The reconsideration
of a previous order is “an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality
and conservation of judicial resources.” 12 JAMES WM . MOORE
ET AL .,
MOORE ’S FEDERAL
PRACTICE ¶ 59.30[4] (3d ed.). The Fourth Circuit has held such a motion should be granted for
only three reasons: (1) to follow an intervening change in controlling law; (2) on account of new
evidence; or (3) “to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.” Collison v.
International Chemical Workers Union, 34 F.3d 233, 235 (4th Cir. 1994) (emphasis added). Rule
59 motions “may not be used to make arguments that could have been made before the judgment
was entered.” Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701, 708 (4th Cir. 2002). Nor are they opportunities to
rehash issues already ruled upon because a litigant is displeased with the result. See Tran v. Tran,
166 F. Supp. 2d 793, 798 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). Having reviewed the Motion, Response, and Reply,
the Court concludes that the denial of summary judgment on the grounds discussed in the motion
was appropriate.
Discussion
In its text order on May 4, 2016, this Court determined that there existed a genuine issue
of material facts as to whether Defendants’ “back of the house” employees (i.e. cooks/chefs and
dishwasher/bussers) should be considered “tipped employees” under the FLSA. In their Motion,
Defendants do not point to a change in the law, new evidence, or a clear error of law that would
4
alter this finding. Defendants argue that even with the inclusion of Plaintiffs’ affidavits, Plaintiffs
have failed to dispute the fact that cooks/chefs and bussers/dishwashers receive more than $30 per
month in tips. [ECF #115-1, p. 1]. However, the statute defines “tipped employee” as any
employee who “customarily and regularly” receives more than $30 a month in tips. 29 U.S.C. §
203(t). The affidavits submitted by Defendants simply state that the direct tips from “catering
services” average well over $30.00 per month, “when” the cooks/chefs prepare food for offpremises functions. [ECF #65-2 through 6-31]. The affidavits are unclear as to whether this is
a regular monthly occurrence. The individuals who have attested to this information are silent as
to how often or how frequent, whether every month, that they receive these tips (i.e. whether it
is a “customary and regular” occurrence), thereby creating a genuine issue of material fact as to
whether the cooks/chefs do, in fact, meet the FLSA definition of “tipped employee.” Furthermore,
Plaintiffs raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether cooks/chefs who receive tips from
off-premises catering events, but who primarily work in the back of the store, are considered as
having “dual jobs.” Accordingly, this Court finds that Defendants have not established that there
was a change in the law, new evidence presented, or a clear error of law in the previous order
such that this Court should grant its Motion for Reconsideration with respect to whether
cooks/chefs should be considered tipped employees.
Defendants also argue that this Court should have found that the bussers/dishwashers are
tipped employees as defined under the FLSA, in part, because they regularly interact with
customers. Again, even assuming the analysis should focus around the actual duties performed
by these employees, Plaintiffs’ affidavits and declarations create a genuine issue of material fact
5
as to whether these “back of the house” employees regularly interacted with customers such that
they might legally be able to participate in the Defendants’ tip pool. Defendants have not pointed
to a change in the law, brought forth new evidence, or attempted to correct a legal error in the
previous order such that this Court should grant its Motion for Reconsideration with respect to
whether bussers/dishwashers should be considered tipped employees.
Conclusion
The Court has thoroughly reviewed the entire record, including the motion, response and
reply. For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider, Alter and/or Amend [ECF
#115] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Florence, South Carolina
November 2, 2016
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
6
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?