Cameron v. Nelson, Inc.

Filing 43

ORDER granting 39 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 3/28/2014.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

Willie Cameron,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
Nelson, Inc., a Tennessee
Profit Corporation, and Willie
Nelson, individually,
Defendants.

No. 12-2702

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

On August 13, 2012, Plaintiff Willie Cameron (“Cameron”)
filed this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”)
against

Defendant

Nelson,

Inc.,

seeking

unpaid

liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
No. 1.)
adding

(Compl., ECF

On July 9, 2013, Cameron filed an Amended Complaint
Willie

“Defendants”)

Nelson
to

the

(“Nelson”)
action

retaliation under the FLSA.
6.)

overtime,

(together
and

with

alleging

Nelson,
one

Inc.,

count

of

(Am. Compl., ECF No. 25 at 1, 5,

Before the Court is Cameron’s December 23, 2013 Motion for

Partial Summary Judgment (the “Motion”).

(Mot., ECF No. 39.)

Defendants have not responded and the time do so has passed.
For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED.

Cameron asks the Court to grant summary judgment that (1)
Nelson was Cameron’s employer within the meaning of the FLSA,
and (2) Defendants are a covered “Enterprise” under the FLSA.
(Mot. at 2.)

Because Defendants have not responded, Cameron’s

Statement of Undisputed Facts is accepted for purposes of the
Motion.

See L.R. 56.1(d).

Nelson, Inc. was incorporated in Tennessee in 2000.
Undisp. F., ECF No. at 3.)

(Stat.

Nelson is the sole owner of Nelson,

Inc., and controls its finances and operations.

(Id. at 2.)

Cameron worked as a heavy equipment operator for Nelson, Inc.
from August 2011 through January 2012.
by

the

hour

and

was

entitled

overtime hours worked.
Because

Cameron

to

(Id.)

overtime

Cameron was paid
compensation

for

(Id.)
asserts

claims

under

federal

law,

this

Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Summary judgment is proper if no reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the nonmoving party.

See Wasek v. Arrow Energy

Servs., 682 F.3d 463, 467 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)).
The FLSA defines “employer” to include “any person acting
directly

or

indirectly

in

the

relation to an employee . . . .”

interest

of

an

employer

in

29 U.S.C. § 203(d) (accord

Dole v. Elliot Travel Tours, Inc., 942 F.2d 962, 965 (6th Cir.
1991) (“[T]he FLSA require[s] the courts to define ‘employer’
2

more broadly than the term would be interpreted in traditional
common law applications.”))

Nelson owned and controlled Nelson,

Inc., acting directly in its interest in relation to Cameron.
Nelson qualifies as Cameron’s employer under the FLSA.
The

FLSA

defines

“Enterprise”

to

mean

“the

related

activities performed . . . by any person or persons for a common
business

purpose.”

29

U.S.C.

§

203(r)(1).

engaged in commerce” is subject to the FLSA.

An

“enterprise

Herman v. Fabri-

Centers of America, Inc., 308 F.3d 580, 583 (6th Cir. 2002).
Defendants

were

engaged

in

commerce

with

a

common

purpose,

qualifying as an Enterprise subject to the FLSA.
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is GRANTED.
So ordered this 31st day of March, 2014.

s/ Samuel H. Mays, Jr.______
SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3