Carlton v. JHook Invs.
| Decision Date | 30 September 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:17-cv-00076 KGB |
| Parties | CASY CARLTON, JONATHAN JONES, and BOBBY HARRISON PLAINTIFFS v. JHOOK INVESTMENTS, INC., JEFF HOOKER, and IVY HALL, INC. DEFENDANTS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas |
Plaintiffs Casy Carlton, Jonathan Jones, and Bobby Harrison bring this action against defendants JHook Investments, Inc. ("JHook"), Jeff Hooker, and Ivy Hall, Inc. ("Ivy Hall"), under the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and the overtime provisions of the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act ("AMWA"), Arkansas Code Annotated § 11-4-201 et seq. (Dkt. No. 1). Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 17). Plaintiffs also filed a motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. No. 20). The Court denied both defendants' motion for summary judgment and plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. No. 40).
Plaintiffs then filed a motion for order to provide documents and incorporated brief (Dkt. No. 43). The Court held a hearing on this motion on February 1, 2019. For the reasons stated by the Court at that hearing, the Court grants plaintiffs' motion for order to provide documents Id.).
Separate plaintiff Mr. Jones has filed a motion to dismiss without prejudice (Dkt. No. 49). In this motion, Mr. Jones requests that the Court dismiss his claims without prejudice (Id.). The Court finds that Mr. Jones' motion to dismiss without prejudice accords with the terms of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). The Court therefore dismisses without prejudice Mr. Jones' claims against defendants. Accordingly, to the extent the Court in this Order refers to "plaintiffs," the Court is referring only to Mr. Carlton and Mr. Harrison.
This matter came before the Court for a bench trial. The parties were represented by counsel. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a), the Court makes the following findings and conclusions. The Court denies defendants' oral motion for a directed verdict under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c). The Court determines that plaintiffs have sustained their burden of proof and are entitled to damages, as set forth below.
1. A bench trial was held on this matter on February 4, 2019.
2. Plaintiffs filed proposed findings of fact (Dkt. No. 45). Defendants agreed with many of those proposed findings of fact, except to the extent set forth below (Dkt. No. 48). To the extent defendants did not object to plaintiffs' proposed findings of fact, such findings are adopted by the Court as its findings and cited below.
3. The following individuals testified at trial: Mr. Hooker, Mr. Carlton, Mr. Harrison, Tim Moody, Jim Heverly, Tony Martin, and Tammy Moody.
4. At trial, plaintiffs introduced six exhibits. Both sides agreed to rely upon these exhibits:
5. Plaintiffs also presented three new exhibits attached to their post-trial briefing. The first post-trial exhibit is a summary of Exhibit 3 that was introduced at trial (Dkt. No. 55-1). This post-trial exhibit is a spreadsheet that lists every day that Mr. Carlton worked for defendants and lists how much time per day, according to his commission sheets, Mr. Carlton worked after-hours (Id.). This exhibit also includes weekly totals of after-hours time worked by Mr. Carlton, as well as the amount of after-hours work he performed on his on-call and off-call weeks (Id.).
6. The second post-trial exhibit is a spreadsheet that calculates revised damages for Mr. Harrison, taking into account the new payroll records for Mr. Harrison that are included in Exhibit 5 (Dkt. No. 55-2). The third post-trial exhibit is a spreadsheet calculating after-hours worked by Mr. Harrison as reflected in Mr. Harrison's commission sheets introduced as Exhibit 4 at trial (Dkt. No. 55-3).
7. Separate defendant JHook is a for-profit corporation registered to conduct business in the State of Arkansas (Dkt. No. 45, ¶ 1). JHook operates a towing services company based in North Little Rock, Arkansas, under the business name of JHook Towing and Recovery (Id., ¶ 2).JHook also completes some recovery services and has a repair shop operating as a small mechanic garage for tractor trailers. JHook had a previous location in Lonoke before it was suspended by state police for improper staffing. From June 2015 until early 2017, JHook had 11 to 12 drivers out of approximately 13 to 20 total employees.
8. Separate defendant Mr. Hooker is an individual and resident of Arkansas (Id., ¶ 3). Mr. Hooker is an officer and director of JHook (Id., ¶ 4). Mr. Hooker testified that he is sole owner of JHook, though he conceded that his wife may be a co-owner. Mr. Hooker is an officer, director, and owner of Ivy Hall.
9. Separate defendant Ivy Hall is a for-profit corporation registered to conduct business in the State of Arkansas (Id., ¶ 5). Ivy Hall provides towing services in and around Jacksonville (Id., ¶ 6). Ivy Hall files a separate tax return than JHook, and has a separate federal tax I.D., payroll, bank account, phone number, fax machine, email address, and logo. From June 2015 into early 2017, Ivy Hall employed three to four employees.
10. JHook and Ivy Hall's revenue primarily consists of towing fees, sales of wrecked vehicles, and repairs of large trucks (Id., ¶ 7). Both JHook and Ivy Hall's primary revenue is derived from fees for tows for the general public, police departments, and car dealerships, and, for JHook only, big tows such as tractor-trailers. JHook and Ivy Hall obtain revenue each year from selling unclaimed vehicles to car dealerships and tractor repair.
11. Defendants contend that Ivy Hall is a separate towing wrecking company.
12. Defendants also called Mr. Moody, Mr. Heverly, Mr. Martin, and Ms. Moody to testify.
13. Mr. Moody is the general manager of JHook and Ivy Hall and has been for 11 to 12 years. Mr. Moody conducts initial interviews of prospective employees for the businesses, and Mr. Hooker will sometimes come in once the prospective employee is determined to be qualified.
14. Mr. Heverly is employed at JHook and has worked as a roll back driver for close to five years.
15. Mr. Martin is employed at Ivy Hall and has worked as a rollback driver for ten years.
16. Ms. Moody is employed at JHook and has worked as a dispatcher for six years.
17. Mr. Hooker testified that JHook and Ivy Hall infrequently borrow and loan employees to each other. When this occurs, according to Mr.Hooker, the employee is still paid by the company that employs him.
18. Mr. Hooker and Mr. Moody have set the method and manner of payment for JHook and Ivy Hall drivers. Mr. Hooker testified to having three methods to pay a driver: (1) an hourly rate; (2) an overtime rate; and (3) a commission. Rollback drivers are to be paid salary plus commission for every call they run. Drivers are self-reporting and turn in a weekly commission sheet in order to calculate their pay.
19. Mr. Carlton entered into an employer-employee relationship with JHook and Mr. Hooker in February 2016 (Id., ¶ 8). In February 2016, JHook and Mr. Hooker hired Mr. Carlton as a tow truck driver (Id., ¶ 9). Mr. Carlton worked for JHook and Mr. Hooker until February 2017 (Id.). Mr. Carlton performed towing services and other duties incidental to towing on JHook and Mr. Hooker's behalf (Id., ¶ 10). Mr. Carlton worked in three different locations: Jacksonville, North Little Rock, and Lonoke (Id., ¶ 11).
20. Mr. Carlton entered an employer-employee relationship with Ivy Hall and Mr. Hooker in February 2016. Mr. Carlton was dispatched out of JHook's Lonoke location during November 2016, and he was dispatched out of the North Little Rock location from December 2016 until February 2017 (Ex. 6).
21. While employed, Mr. Carlton drove a rollback truck, and his primary duties were performing towing services and other duties incidental to towing on behalf of JHook and Ivy Hall.
22. Plaintiffs assert that after JHook and Mr. Hooker hired Mr. Carlton as a tow truck driver, Ivy Hall regularly dispatched Mr. Carlton to perform towing services on its behalf (Dkt. No. 45, ¶ 12). Defendants deny this assertion and state that, if it occurred, it was infrequent (Dkt. No. 48, ¶ 2). At the hearing, testimony was presented that, while at Ivy Hall, Mr. Carlton would receive calls from JHook to perform towing services on JHook's behalf. While at JHook, Mr. Carlton would also receive calls from Ivy Hall to perform towing services on its behalf (Id.).
23. Mr. Carlton performed towing services for defendants solely within the State of Arkansas (Dkt. No. 45, ¶ 13). JHook assigned Mr. Carlton to drive a "rollback" truck (Id., ¶ 14).
24. JHook's rollback trucks were manufactured, either wholly or partially, in a location outside the State of Arkansas (Id., ¶ 15).
25. Mr. Carlton's rate of pay was $250.00 per week, plus commissions (Id., ¶ 16). The commission percentage he received was 25% of the total cost of the tow. Mr. Hooker testified...
To continue reading
Request your trial