Baez v. B&B of Fowler, Inc.
| Decision Date | 10 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | No: 8:21-cv-24-WFJ-AEP,: 8:21-cv-24-WFJ-AEP |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
| Parties | MISAEL BAEZ, Plaintiff, v. B&B OF FOWLER, INC., Defendant. |
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Misael Baez's Motion for Entry of Default Final Judgment against Defendant B&B of Fowler, Inc. Dkt. 21. Baez accuses B&B of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and Florida's Workers' Compensation Act ("FWCA"), Fla. Stat. § 440.205. B&B did not file a reply to Baez's motion. For the reasons explained below, the Court grants the motion.
Plaintiff Baez began working for B&B as a mechanic in July 2018, earning $13 an hour as his base wage. Dkt. 7 at 3; Dkt 21, Ex. A at 2. Although Baez worked at least ten hours of overtime every week during his employment there, B&B never paid him overtime wages. Dkt. 21, Ex. A at 2. B&B instead paid Baez his regular hourly rate for these overtime hours. Id.
On or about January 8, 2020, Baez was injured while at work when a tool fell and hit a box cutter, which then went into the air and cut Baez's eye. Dkt. 7 at 3. Baez's supervisor was present during the accident. Id. Baez notified B&B about the accident the same day it occurred. Id. He attempted to file a workers' compensation claim. Id. at 4.
Baez went to the hospital soon after to receive surgery on his eye. Id. at 3. While Baez was still in the hospital, Baez learned that B&B was firing him. Id. Baez claims this was done in retaliation for his attempt to claim workers' compensation for the accident. Id. at 4. Baez says the termination caused him "emotional distress, anxiety, humiliation, shame, embarrassment, and mental suffering." Dkt. 21, Ex. A at 3. It took Baez three months to recover from the surgery, during which he was physically incapable of working. Id. He remains unemployed to this day. Id.
Baez initiated this lawsuit on January 5, 2021, and then filed a Corrected Complaint on January 19, 2021. Dkts. 1, 7. Defendant B&B was served with a summons and a copy of the Corrected Complaint through its registered agent, Adam Bowman. Dkts. 11, 12. B&B failed to respond to the Corrected Complaint and has not yet participated in the case. Baez moved for clerk's default againstB&B on March 3, 2021, which the clerk entered on March 16, 2021. Dkts. 14, 16, 17, 18. After B&B failed yet again to participate in the case, Baez moved for default judgment on May 3, 2021. Dkt. 21.
Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth a two-step process for obtaining a default judgment. First, when a defendant fails to plead or otherwise defend a lawsuit, the clerk of court is authorized to enter a clerk's default. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Second, after entry of the clerk's default, the court may enter default judgment against the defendant so long as the defendant is not an infant or incompetent person. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). "The effect of a default judgment is that the defendant admits the plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations of fact, is concluded on those facts by the judgment, and is barred from contesting on appeal the facts thus established." Buchanan v. Bowman, 820 F.2d 359, 361 (11th Cir. 1987) (cleaned up).
When determining whether to grant default judgment, the court must determine whether there is a sufficient basis in the pleadings for the judgment entered. Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1370 n.41 (11th Cir. 1997) (). The showing required in this context "is similar to the factual showing necessary to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim." Graveling v.Castle Mortg. Co., 631 F. App'x 690, 698 (11th Cir. 2015) (cleaned up). "While a complaint . . . does not need detailed factual allegations," a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief "requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal citations omitted).
If the admitted facts are sufficient to establish liability, the Court must then ascertain the appropriate amount of damages and enter final judgment in that amount. See PetMed Express, Inc. v. MedPets.com, Inc., 336 F. Supp. 2d 1213, 1217 (S.D. Fla. 2004). Damages may be awarded only if the record adequately reflects the basis for the award. See Adolph Coors Co. v. Movement Against Racism and the Klan, 777 F.2d 1538, 1544 (11th Cir. 1985). This can be shown with submission of detailed affidavits establishing the facts necessary to support entitlement to the damages requested. Id. An evidentiary hearing on the appropriate amount of damages is not required by Rule 55, and it is within the Court's discretion to choose whether such a hearing should take place. See S.E.C. v. Smyth, 420 F.3d 1225, 1232 n.13 (11th Cir. 2005); Tara Prods., Inc. v. Hollywood Gadgets, Inc., 449 F. App'x 908, 911-12 (11th Cir. 2011).
With this guidance in mind, the Court will address both liability and damages in turn below.
The FLSA requires that employers pay their employees at least one and a half times the "regular rate" for any work in excess of 40 hours per week. See 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). When a covered employee is not paid the overtime wage, the FLSA provides a private cause of action against the employer for unpaid wages. See 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); Josendis v. Wall to Wall Residence Repairs, Inc., 662 F.3d 1292, 1298 (11th Cir. 2011). To state a claim for failure to pay minimum wage under the FLSA, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) he is employed by the defendant; (2) the defendant engaged in interstate commerce; and (3) the defendant failed to pay minimum wages. Freeman v. Key Largo Volunteer Fire & Rescue Dep't., Inc., 494 F. App'x 940, 942 (11th Cir. 2012).
Plaintiff Baez has satisfied the first prong. The FLSA defines an employee as "any individual employed by an employer," 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(1), and it defines an employer as "any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee," 29 U.S.C. § 203(d). Here, Plaintiff alleges Defendant B&B employed him as a mechanic from July 1, 2018, to January 8, 2020. This is enough to demonstrate the required employee-employer relationship. See Cabreja v. SC Maint., Inc., No. 8:19-cv-296-T-33CPT, 2019 WL 2931469, at*4 (M.D. Fla. June 19, 2019) ( that a similar allegation was sufficient to satisfy this prong for a final default judgment).
Baez also satisfies the second prong. A plaintiff employee must establish one of two types of coverage under the FLSA: (1) "enterprise coverage," which applies to the defendant employer; or (2) "individual coverage," which applies to the plaintiff employee. Id.; see also Martinez v. Palace, 414 F. App'x 243, 244-45 (11th Cir. 2011).1 An employer falls within the FLSA's enterprise coverage if it meets two requirements: (1) it has employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or has employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for commerce by any person; and (2) it has an annual gross volume of sales in excess of $500,000. See 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(A). Here, B&B employed mechanics who worked on cars—products that have undoubtedly been produced through and moved within interstate commerce. Plaintiff has also alleged B&B has an annual gross volume of sales in excess of $500,000. Dkt. 7 at 2. This is sufficient for this stage of litigation. See Ceant v. Aventura Limousine & Transp. Serv., Inc., 874 F. Supp. 2d 1373, 1378 (S.D. Fla. 2012) ().
Finally, the third prong is also satisfied. Once a plaintiff has established that an employment relationship and coverage exist, the remaining elements "to state a claim of a FLSA violation are quite straightforward." Sec'y of Labor v. Labbe, 319 F. App'x 761, 763 (11th Cir. 2008).2 An FLSA overtime plaintiff must plead sufficient facts, plausible on their face, to demonstrate he worked more than forty hours in at least one workweek and the defendant failed to pay the requisite premium for those overtime hours. Cabreja, 2019 WL 2931469, at *4. Here, Baez claims he worked more than 40 hours a week and Defendant B&B willfully failed to compensate him at the statutory rate of time and one-half. Dkt. 7 at 5. This is enough. Because Plaintiff has satisfied all three elements of his FLSA overtime claim, the Court enters judgment in his favor on this claim.
Baez also brings a claim under Fla. Stat. § 440.205 for B&B allegedly terminating him in retaliation for his attempt to file a claim for workers' compensation. Dkt. 7 at 4.
Section 440.205 states: "No employer shall discharge, threaten to discharge, intimidate, or coerce any employee by reason of such employee's valid claim for compensation or attempt to claim compensation under the Workers' Compensation Law." To state a claim under § 440.205, an employee must establish (1) the employee engaged in protected activity, (2) the employee was subjected to an adverse employment action, and (3) a causal relationship existed between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. Koren v. Sch. Bd. of Miami-Dade Cnty., 97 So. 3d 215, 219 (Fla. 2012).
Under the first prong, an employee can still establish a claim even if he did not file a formal claim for workers' compensation before termination of employment. Salus v. Island Hosp. Fla. Mgmt., Inc., 289 So.3d 926, 929-30 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). Instead, the employee need only take steps to begin the process of...
To continue reading
Request your trial