Garcia v. Warehouse 305 LLC

• Jurisdiction: United States,Federal
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
• Writing for the Court: BETH BLOOM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
• Docket Number: 23-cv-21685-BLOOM/Torres
• Decision Date: 02 May 2024
• Parties: PORFIRIO GARCIA, Plaintiff, v. WAREHOUSE 305 LLC, et al., Defendants.
• topic: Civil Rights,Employment Law

1

PORFIRIO GARCIA, Plaintiff, v. WAREHOUSE 305 LLC, et al., Defendants.

No. 23-cv-21685-BLOOM/Torres

United States District Court, S.D. Florida

May 2, 2024

OMNIBUS ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

BETH BLOOM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon two separate motions (1) Plaintiff Porfirio Garcia's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No. [51] (“Plaintiff's Motion”), and (2) Defendants Renato Viola (“Viola”), Umberto Mascagni (“Mascagni”), Warehouse 305 LLC (“Warehouse”), Wynwood 305 LLC (“Wynwood”), and Brickell 305 LLC's (“Brickell”) Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No [55] (“Defendants' Motion”). Defendants filed a Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion, ECF No [60], to which Plaintiff filed a Reply, ECF No. [63]. Plaintiff also filed a Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion, ECF No. [57], to which Defendants filed a Reply, ECF No. [59]. The Court has reviewed the Motions, all supporting and opposing submissions,^[1]the record in this case, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Motion is denied, and Plaintiff's Motion is denied.

I. BACKGROUND

This is an action for uncompensated wages arising from Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff for overtime work pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Plaintiff originally filed this action in state court and thereafter filed an Amended Complaint in state court prior to removal. ECF No. [1-1]. Defendants Brickell and Wynwood removed this action to this Court on May 4, 2023, based upon diversity of citizenship. See generally ECF No. [1].

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges Defendants failed “to properly pay him at the rate of time and one-half for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per workweek as provided in the FLSA.” ECF No. [1-1] ¶ 17. Plaintiff accordingly asserts FLSA claims for unpaid overtime wages against Warehouse, Brickell, and Wynwood (Count I) and Viola and Mascagni (Count II).

Plaintiff's Motion argues the undisputed evidence establishes that Plaintiff is not exempt from the FLSA's overtime provisions, and Defendants failed to maintain time records for Plaintiff. Defendants respond that Plaintiff is exempt from the FLSA's overtime provisions because of the executive exemption.

Defendants' Motion contends the undisputed evidence establishes Plaintiff did not work overtime, and Defendants neither knew nor should have known Plaintiff worked overtime. Defendants also argue they are entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiff's deposition testimony establishes Plaintiff does not have viable overtime claims, and that Plaintiff testified he is not seeking damages for unpaid overtime. Plaintiff responds that the evidence supports the reasonable inference that Plaintiff worked unpaid overtime, and Defendants either knew or should have known Plaintiff worked unpaid overtime. Plaintiff also argues his deposition testimony did not waive his overtime claims nor his entitlement to damages for uncompensated overtime.

A. MATERIAL FACTS

Based on the Parties' briefings and the evidence in the record, the following facts are not genuinely in dispute unless otherwise noted.

i. Employment History

Defendants Viola and Mascagni own a chain of pizzerias known as “Mister O1”, including Warehouse, Wynwood, and Brickell.^[2]PSMF ¶ 1; OPSMF ¶ 1; DSMF ¶ 3; ODSMF ¶ 3. In 2017, Plaintiff began working “as a dishwasher and cleaner on a[n] hourly basis at a Miami Beach restaurant owned by” Viola and Mascagni. DSMF ¶ 4; ODSMF ¶ 4. Plaintiff then began working at Wynwood on October 2, 2017 until September 12, 2021. DSMF ¶ 4; ODSMF ¶ 4. Plaintiff eventually started working in Wynwood's dough production department, but it is unclear when he began doing so. Plaintiff became a salaried employee when he began working in Wynwood's dough production department, but it is also unclear when Plaintiff transitioned from an hourly to a salaried employee. Plaintiff's payroll records reflect that he was a salaried employee in April 2019. See ECF No. [52-1] at 86.^[3]The payroll records indicate Plaintiff's weekly pay rate ranged from $450.00 to $1,300.00 during the period of April 2019 - September 2021. See generally ECF No. [52-1] at 23-86.

Plaintiff began working in the dough production department at Warehouse on September 13, 2021. DSMF ¶ 4; ODSMF ¶ 4. Plaintiff performed the “same exact job” at Wynwood and Warehouse. PSMF ¶ 4; OPSMF ¶ 4. On September 3, 2021, Plaintiff and Viola signed an offer letter memorializing the terms of Plaintiff's employment at Warehouse. ECF No. [7-1] (“Offer Letter”). The Offer Letter provides Plaintiff's position “will be Quality Control Specialist reporting to the Warehouse Manager, Maximo Serra.” Id. at 1. The Offer Letter also provides that Plaintiff's “salary, as an exempt employee, will be $1,200.00 per week which will be paid in accordance with the company's pay schedule, subject to any legally permissible deductions.” Id. at 1. Plaintiff testified that he was a salaried employee and paid $1,200.00 per week while employed at Warehouse, ECF No. [50-1] at 9, but his payroll records indicate he was occasionally paid less.^[4]See generally ECF No. [52-1] at 1-22. The Parties dispute whether Plaintiff was ever employed by Defendant Brickell.^[5]

ii. Plaintiff's Role

The nature of Plaintiff's role at Wynwood and Warehouse is also disputed. Viola testified that Plaintiff was “not [a] pizza maker. He was a manager executive in charge of the quality of the dough and in charge to supervi[se] the staff that was making the dough.” ECF No. [54-2] at 32.

Viola explained “Plaintiff was in charge of the most important department of the companies, namely, dough production. [Plaintiff's] job was the most important job, still today in this company, keep consistent the dough.” ECF No. [54-2] at 71. Viola also testified that he would step in to supervise the employees producing the dough if Plaintiff was unavailable because “it's always important [to] hav[e] a supervisor to be consistent.” Id. at 57. For that reason, Viola testified Defendants “don't allow the employee to do the dough without a supervisor.” Id. Viola acknowledged dough production is physical work, but testified that Plaintiff's primary role was supervisory in nature:

Q. So, to a certain extent, he worked with his hands, right? Actually creating the mix?

A. No. Everything by hand. Now we have everything. We have gun with the temperature, you know, thermometer. We have everything now that is software.

Q. I see. So then you add the flour, the yeast, the oil, the salt, and it's ready to mix?

A. This is the job of Mr. Garcia's staff. They going to do the - the manual job. He need just to supervi[se] and not be distract[ed].

ECF No. [54-2] at 45.

Plaintiff described his role in the dough production department as follows:

Q. And when you say you were doing the whole production in that place, what did that involve?

A. Well, it was the person - I was the person there that was supposed to have the obligation to do the whole production. But I was not supposed to have the obligation of fixing the mistake of people that were not capable of doing their job.

ECF No. [50-1] at 26. Plaintiff testified that this was an important role:

Q. Okay. But as to you, did you think you were an important part of the company?

MR. DAMMOUS: Object to form.

THE WITNESS: Well, talking about the workforce, yes, I was an important person because I was doing the whole production. If there is no production, there is no business. Because why? Because I was supplying all the locations, I was supplying all his locations.

Id. at 45.

Regarding the relationship between himself and the other workers who prepared pizza dough, Plaintiff testified:

THE WITNESS: I had - yes, I was in charge of the whole production, but Mr. Renato [Viola] here, he decided to hire a company, and that company was bringing people to work, and I was - that they didn't know how to do certain things, and I was telling them in a good manner, things that they were not supposed to do, for example, don't toss the dough in that way, because that was something that Mr. Renato [Viola] didn't want [sic] to happen. But they were not doing it.

ECF No. [50-1] at 27. However, Plaintiff subsequently testified he did not consider himself their supervisor:

Q. And did you consider yourself as their supervisor?

MR. DAMMOUS: Object to form.

THE WITNESS: Well, I was not considering myself a supervisor. It was just a relationship between co-workers. That's what I considered that to be. I was not considering myself a supervisor.

ECF No. [50-1] at 28.

Plaintiff's relationship with Maximo Serra (“Serra”)-who, according to Plaintiff's Offer Letter, ECF No. [7-1], is Warehouse's “Manager”-is similarly unclear. Plaintiff described their working relationship as follows:

Q. Okay. And so did you consider yourself to be a co-worker or did you consider Maximo to be your boss or supervisor?

MR. DAMMOUS: Object to form.

THE WITNESS: Well, as I said before, we respect each other's social life.

Q. Okay. Social life usually means things outside of work. Is that your understanding?

A. Yes, that is correct.

Q. So I am directing it at in the workplace, when you were working.

A. Well, at work, each one of us had our own responsibility. For him was to order supplies and for me was production.

Q. And did you think he could tell you what to do and instruct you to do things?

MR. DAMMOUS: Object to form.

THE WITNESS: In a co-worker relationship, yes.

BY MR. ELDER:

Q. Could you instruct him and tell him to do things?

A. In the life of production, I had more knowledge than him.

Q. So did you sometimes instruct him on things?

A. A hundred percent ...

Id. at 30-31.

Plaintiff later...