Arnold v. Eisman & Russo, Inc.
| Decision Date | 01 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | NO. 3:19-cv-769-J-34PDB,3:19-cv-769-J-34PDB |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
| Parties | FREDREGUS ARNOLD, Plaintiff, v. EISMAN & RUSSO, INC., Defendant. |
In this case under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219, the parties move under Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. U.S. by & through U.S. Dep't of Labor, 679 F.2d 1350, 1354 (11th Cir. 1982), for approval of a settlement under which defendant Eisman & Russo, Inc. ("E&R"), agrees to the entry of a final judgment for plaintiff Fredregus Arnold for $2000 in back wages and for attorney's fees and costs as determined by the Court. Doc. 24. Arnold seeks an award of $7600 in attorney's fees and $440 in costs. Doc. 26. E&R opposes the fee amount, contesting the rate and the hours and suggesting $2000 is reasonable. Doc. 30.
E&R is an engineering and construction company. Doc. 1 ¶ 3; Doc. 11 ¶ 3. Arnold worked for E&R for less than six months from December 2018 to May 2019. Doc. 10 at 3; Doc. 14 at 3.
Arnold filed the complaint in June 2019—the month after his employment ended. Doc. 1. He brings one claim for unpaid overtime wages, contending E&R failed to pay him at an overtime rate for overtime hours he worked. Doc. 1 ¶¶ 19, 22-30. He seeks a declaration that E&R willfully violated the FLSA, overtime pay, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, expenses, and post-judgment interest. Doc. 1 at 5-6.
In August 2019, E&R answered the complaint. Doc. 11. E&R acknowledges Arnold brings a FLSA claim and admits allegations about jurisdiction, venue, the parties, and its maintenance of wage and hour records. Doc. 11 ¶¶ 1-11, 14, 25.
E&R states it is without knowledge of the following allegations and therefore denies them: it hired Arnold as a laborer around November 2018; it paid him an hourly rate of $15, increased to $25, and then decreased to $20; his employment ended on about May 17, 2019; he satisfied all conditions precedent to suing; he retained Bober & Bober, P.A., to represent him in the lawsuit; he agreed to pay the firm a reasonable fee for services; he intends to obtain wage and hour records; and he will seek leave to amend the complaint if warranted. Doc. 11 ¶¶ 16-18, 21, 25.
E&R denies the following allegations: Arnold was "directly essential" to the business; he was supposed to work normal work weeks for which he would receive—and was entitled to receive—"time and one-half" for overtime work; he worked overtime for which E&R did not pay him overtime wages; E&R failed to apprise him of his rights; E&R knowingly and willfully failed to pay him under the FLSA; E&R knowingly and willfully had a policy of not paying him overtime wages due; and he is entitled to liquidated damages and reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Doc. 11 ¶¶ 12, 13, 15, 20, 23, 24, 26-30.
E&R does not admit, deny, or state it is without knowledge of the allegation that Arnold "was not paid time-and-one-half his regular hourly rate of pay for all his hours in excess of forty in each week," Doc. 1 ¶ 19, instead answering, "To the extent that [he] was entitled to over-time, E&R properly compensated" him. Doc. 11 ¶ 19.
E&R adds a "general denial," stating it "denies each and every allegation, and all possible inferences and legal conclusions from each and every allegation that is not expressly admitted in this Answer." Doc. 11 at 4.
E&R raises five defenses: (1) it acted in good faith conformance with and reliance on Department of Labor regulations, rulings, orders, and interpretations; (2) it did not willfully violate or recklessly disregard the FLSA; (3) it acted in good faith and had reasonable grounds for believing it was complying with the FLSA; (4) Arnold's claim may be barred by estoppel if he fraudulently misrepresented how many hours he worked or failed to let E&R know about the extent of any overtime he worked; and (5) his claim is de minimis. Doc. 11 at 4-5.
In August 2019, Arnold answered the Court's interrogatories. Doc. 10. He represents the following facts. He worked as a field monitor and field supervisor monitoring debris removal. Doc. 10 at 3. He "was told" his regularly scheduled work period would be seven days a week, twelve hours a day. Doc. 10 at 3. His regular hourly rate of pay changed from $14 to $15 to $20 to $24. Doc. 10 at 3. His regular hours and overtime hours fluctuated. Doc. 10 at 3. For three weekly pay periods, E&R paid him a regular rate instead of an overtime rate for overtime hours worked, which should have been $22.50 when his rate was $15, and $36 when his rate was $24. Doc. 10 at 3. E&R owes him $1600 in wages, exclusive of liquidated damages. Doc. 10 at 3. He verbally complained to E&R while employed, and E&R responded it did not have to pay him for the overtime hours he had worked. Doc. 10 at 4. He has no records of the hours he worked. Doc. 10 at 4.
In October 2019, the Court conducted a phone conference to discuss the failure to follow the track notice and scheduling order.1 Docs. 12, 15. The Court extended thedeadline for E&R to file a verified summary of all hours Arnold worked and provide the supporting paperwork. Doc. 17.
During the phone conference, Arnold's counsel moved to conduct the settlement conference by telephone.2 Doc. 17 at 1. Because counsel provided no compelling reason for the Court to undertake the unusual action requested, the Court denied the motion but without prejudice to filing another motion if circumstances changed. Doc. 17 at 1. To give the parties more time to try to informally resolve the dispute without travel, the Court extended the deadline to conduct the in-person settlement conference to December 10, 2019. Doc. 17 at 2.
On October 15, 2019, E&R filed a verified summary of hours worked and wages paid. Doc. 14. The summary shows the following information. Arnold worked on two jobs while employed by E&R (the "Mexico Beach" job and the "DEP" job) for a total of twenty-one weeks. Doc. 14 at 3. For the first ten weeks, he worked as a "Monitor" at a regular hourly rate of pay of $14 and an overtime hourly rate of pay of $21. Doc. 14 at 3. For the next seven weeks, he continued to work as a "Monitor," but his regular hourly rate of pay increased to $15 and his overtime hourly rate of pay increased to $22.50. Doc. 14 at 3. For two days during the fifteenth week of employment, he worked as a "Temporary Supervisor" at a regular hourly rate of pay of $24. Doc. 14 at 3. During his last three weeks of employment, he worked as a "Supervisor" at a regular hourly rate of pay of $20. Doc. 14 at 3.
For the eighteen weeks Arnold worked solely as a "Monitor," he worked a total of 317.75 overtime hours and was paid overtime wages for those hours. Doc. 14 at 3.For the week he worked for two days as a "Temporary Supervisor" and the remaining days as a "Monitor," he worked a total of 47.25 hours as a "Monitor" and 26.5 hours as a "Temporary Supervisor" and was paid overtime wages for 13 hours when he worked as a "Monitor." Doc. 14 at 3. For the three weeks he worked as a "Supervisor," he worked 25 hours one week, 83 hours one week, and 63.75 hours one week, and was paid for all hours worked at the regular hourly rate. Doc. 14 at 3.
Three weeks after receiving the verified summary and supporting paystubs, in November 2019, Arnold moved for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.3 Doc. 18. Focusing on the weeks he had worked as a "Temporary Supervisor" and "Supervisor," he contended that the summary and paystubs show E&R paid him incorrectly. Doc. 18. He argued E&R could not have made a good-faith reasonable inquiry into the facts before answering the complaint and denying liability. Doc. 18 at 2-5.
E&R opposed the Rule 11 motion. Doc. 21. E&R observed Arnold had not made clear on which section of Rule 11 he relied, and E&R argued: a general denial of liability is not a Rule 11 violation; nothing in the verified summary or pay stubs definitively establishes E&R's liability—including whether Arnold was exempt fromovertime requirements as a supervisor—;4 and whether E&R acted in good faith is a fact-intensive inquiry that cannot be answered by merely considering the verified summary. Doc. 21 at 2-3.
In December 2019, the parties moved for an extension of time to conduct the in-person settlement conference. Doc. 22. The Court granted the motion. Doc. 23.
In January 2020, the parties filed the current motion for approval of a settlement. Doc. 24. They explain E&R agrees Arnold's counsel is entitled to attorney's fees and costs in an amount to be determined by the Court. Doc. 24 at 1. They ask the Court to approve the settlement and then allow Arnold's counsel to move for fees and costs. Doc. 24 at 3.
To avoid delay that would occur from two reports and recommendations and two objection-and-response periods, the Court directed Arnold to file any motion for attorney's fees and costs by February 28, 2020. Doc. 25 at 4. Arnold filed the current motion for attorney's fees and costs, Doc. 26, and E&R filed the current response in opposition, Doc. 30.
The Court denied the motion for sanctions without prejudice to renewing the motion if the settlement is not approved. Doc. 32.
The parties explain there is no written settlement agreement but have agreed to these terms: E&R agrees to entry of a final judgment against it and for Arnold for$2000 for unpaid wages, and E&R agrees Arnold's counsel is entitled to attorney's fees and any costs under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) in an amount to be determined by the Court. Doc. 24 at 1.
The parties state the settlement is a fair and reasonable compromise of disputed issues negotiated through an adversarial process. Doc. 24 at 2. They explain that while E&R maintains it owes Arnold nothing, it will pay him $2000 for wages. Doc. 24 at 2. They observe he alleges he was...
To continue reading
Request your trial