Martin v. Spring Break 83 Prods., L.L.C.

Decision Date24 July 2012
Docket NumberNo. 11–30671.,11–30671.
PartiesJohn T. MARTIN, an individual; Johnathon R. Martin, an individual; Bradley D. Keyes, an individual; Marty Boger, an individual, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. SPRING BREAK '83 PRODUCTIONS, L.L.C., a California Limited Liability Company; Spring Break '83 Distribution, L.L.C., a California Limited Liability Company; Big Sky Motion Pictures, L.L.C., a California Limited Liability Company; Spring Break '83 Louisiana, L.L.C., a Louisiana Limited Liability Company; George Bours, an individual; Mars Callahan, an individual; Randy Chortkoff, an individual; John Heremansen, an individual, Defendants–Third Party Plaintiffs–Appellees. Unidentified Parties, Does 1 through 10, Defendants–Appellees, v. International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Local 478; International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Local 798; International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States, Its Territories and Canada, Third Party Defendants–Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Michael Lion Tracy, Law Offices of Michael Tracy, Irvine, CA, Alan Fisher Kansas, Gretna, LA, for PlaintiffsAppellants.

Joseph Francis Lavigne, Thomas P. Hubert, David K. Theard, Jones Walker, New Orleans, LA, Paul Franklin Mayersohn, Surpin & Mayersohn, Los Angeles, CA, for DefendantsThird Party PlaintiffsAppellees.

Christina Leigh Carroll, Robein, Urann, Spencer, Picard & Cangemi, A.P.L.C., Metairie, LA, for Third Party DefendantsAppellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and OWEN and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge:

Appellants John T. Martin (J.T. Martin), Johnathon R. Martin (J.R. Martin), Bradley D. Keyes (Keyes), and Marty Boger (Boger) appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment on their Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) claims in favor of Appellees Spring Break '83 Louisiana, L.L.C. (Spring Break Louisiana), Mars Callahan (Callahan), George Bours (Bours), John Heremansen (Heremansen), and Randy Chortkoff (Chortkoff). We AFFIRM the district court's judgment, concluding that individual Appellees Callahan, Bours, Heremansen, and Chortkoff are not employers under the FLSA and that Appellants released any FLSA claims against Louisiana Spring Break by accepting settlement payments for those claims.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

Appellants J.T. Martin, J.R. Martin, Keyes, and Boger were employed as grips—lighting and rigging technicians in the filmmaking and video production industries—with Spring Break Louisiana for the filming of Spring Break '83 (the “movie”). Filming took place between October 6, 2007 and December 22, 2007 in and around Hammond, Louisiana. Throughout this filming period, Appellants were members of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Local 478 (the Union). In October 2007, the Union entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (the “CBA”), with Spring Break Louisiana. Under the CBA, Spring Break Louisiana recognized “the Union as exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit.” In addition, the CBA outlined the procedure for Union members to follow when filing grievances against Spring Break Louisiana.

Toward the end of production of the movie, a number of parties to the CBA, including Appellants, filed a grievance against Spring Break Louisiana alleging that they had not been paid wages for work they performed. The Union sent a representative to investigate the merits of the claims. After his investigation, the representative concluded that it would be impossible to determine whether or not Appellants worked on the days they alleged they had worked. The Union and Spring Break Louisiana entered into a Settlement Agreement pertaining to the disputed hours allegedly worked by Appellants.

Before the Settlement Agreement was signed by Union representatives on November3, 2009, Appellants filed a lawsuit on June 16, 2009 in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles against Spring Break Productions '83, L.L.C.; Big Sky Motion Pictures, L.L.C.; Spring Break Louisiana; George Bours; John Heremansen; Mars Callahan; and Randy Chortkoff.1 Appellees then removed the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, which subsequently transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

In a 20–page Order and Reasons, the district court granted Appellees' motion for summary judgment on June 24, 2011. Appellants appeal that order, contending that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellees because: (1) Callahan, Bours, Heremansen, and Chortkoff were employers under the FLSA and (2) Appellants' claims under the FLSA were not released by the Settlement Agreement.2

STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court reviews summary judgment de novo, using the same standards as the district court.” Haggard v. Bank of Ozarks Inc., 668 F.3d 196, 199 (5th Cir.2012). Summary judgment is only proper where there is no “genuine dispute as to any material fact.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we review the facts drawing all inferences most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Reid v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 784 F.2d 577, 578 (5th Cir.1986). Moreover, we “refrain from making credibility determination or from weighing the evidence.” Deville v. Marcantel, 567 F.3d 156, 163–64 (5th Cir.2009). “If the record, taken as a whole, could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, then there is no genuine issue for trial and summary judgment is proper.” Weber v. Roadway Exp., Inc., 199 F.3d 270, 272 (5th Cir.2000) (citations omitted).

DISCUSSION
1. Classification of Callahan, Bours, Heremansen, and Chortkoff as employers under the FLSA

Appellants contend that the district court erred by finding that Callahan, Bours, Heremansen, and Chortkoff were not employers under the FLSA. 3 The districtcourt concluded that the evidence, even when viewed in the light most favorable to the Appellants, did “not suggest that Plaintiffs depended upon the individual Defendants or that any of these Defendants could independently exercise control over the work situation.” We conclude that the district court did not err.

We apply an “economic reality” test to determine whether an individual or entity is an employer for the purposes of the FLSA. Gray v. Powers, 673 F.3d 352, 354–55 (5th Cir.2012) (citing to Goldberg v. Whitaker House Co-op., Inc., 366 U.S. 28, 81 S.Ct. 933, 6 L.Ed.2d 100 (1961), to affirm summary judgment holding that appellee was not an employer under FLSA). 4 “To determine whether an individual or entity is an employer, the court considers whether the alleged employer: (1) possessed the power to hire and fire employees; (2) supervised or controlled employee work schedules or conditions of employment; (3) determined the rate or method of payment; and (4) maintained employee records.’ Gray, 673 F.3d at 355 (quoting Williams v. Henagan, 595 F.3d 610, 615 (5th Cir.2010)). “The dominant theme in the case law is that those who have operating control over employees within companies may be individually liable for FLSA violations committed by the companies.” Id. at 357. We examine the economic reality test factors, viewing all evidence in the light most favorable to Appellants, for each of the four individual Appellees. Notably, the sole source of evidence for Appellants' argument that Callahan, Bours, Heremansen, and Chortkoff are employers under the FLSA is the declaration of J.T. Martin (Martin Declaration).

A) Callahan

Relevant to the first economic reality test factor, the Martin Declaration alleges that Callahan had the ability to hire and fire employees and that Appellant Martin had personally witnessed Callahan terminate employees while working on the set. Therefore, Appellants provided evidence that this first factor should weigh in favor of finding Callahan to be an employer. However, the Martin Declaration contains no evidence that the other three economic reality test factors weigh in favor of finding Callahan to be Appellants' employer. In fact, Appellants presented nothing to rebut Callahan's sworn declaration in which he states he was not Appellants' direct supervisor, he did not hire the Appellants nor change their pay, he did not maintain documentation of the Appellants' employment, and he did not exercise substantial control over the terms and conditions of the Appellants' work.

Specifically as to the second economic reality test factor, the Martin Declaration tersely states that Callahan, “would issue instructions to myself as well as other employees.” However, considering the evidence that Joy Czerwonky, the Line Producer, was the supervisor of all departments of the production, including the direct supervision of the Appellants, this single assertion fails to show that Callahan had control over work schedules or employment conditions. See Weber, 199 F.3d at 272 (5th Cir.2000) (“If the record, taken as a whole, could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, then there is no genuine issue for trial and summary judgment is proper.”); cf. Reich v. Circle C. Invs., Inc., 998 F.2d 324, 327–28 (5th Cir.1993) (using economic reality analysis to hold that dancers at a club are employees where alleged employer set dancers' weekly work schedules, fined dancers for absences and tardiness, and controlled dancers' dress, time spent in dressing room, music choice, restroom usage, and behavior at the club when not dancing).

Specifically as to the third economic reality test factor, Appellants assert in the Martin Declaration that in response to a complaint about late pay checks, Callahan stated that he “would make sure that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
229 cases
  • Williams v. Movage, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 6 Diciembre 2019
    ...Circuit, on the other hand, has held that the bona fide dispute exception is valid under the FLSA. Martin v. Spring Break '83 Productions, L.L.C., 688 F.3d 247, 257 (5th Cir. 2012). But the circuit has confined that exception to circumstances where there has been sufficient "factual develop......
  • Alawar v. Trican Well Serv., L.P.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
    • 28 Agosto 2019
    ...plaintiffs executed precisely such a waiver to support its position.For its part, Trican points the Court to Martin v. Spring Break '83 Prods., LLC , 688 F.3d 247 (5th Cir. 2012) for the proposition that, in the Fifth Circuit, Courts must "uphold a release in cases where an employee is agre......
  • Mei Xing Yu v. Hasaki Rest., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 6 Diciembre 2019
    ...Circuit, on the other hand, has held that the bona fide dispute exception is valid under the FLSA. Martin v. Spring Break '83 Productions, L.L.C. , 688 F.3d 247, 257 (5th Cir. 2012). But the circuit has confined that exception to circumstances where there has been sufficient "factual develo......
  • Gaughan v. Rubenstein
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 11 Julio 2017
    ...court approval. Out-of-circuit cases reflect different outcomes.On the one hand, the Fifth Circuit held, in Martin v. Spring Break '83 Prods., LLC , 688 F.3d 247 (5th Cir. 2012), that a preclusive FLSA settlement agreement executed before any court action was commenced was binding, and effe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 firm's commentaries
7 books & journal articles
  • Wages, Hours, and Overtime
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 1 - 2017 Part III. Employee compensation, safety and benefits
    • 9 Agosto 2017
    ...operations of the business and, thus, was not an “employer” for FLSA purposes), followed in Martin v. Spring Break ’83 Prods., LLC, 688 F.3d 247, 250-53 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 795 (2012). To determine individual or supervisory liability, courts consider whether the individual ......
  • Wages, Hours, and Overtime
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 1 - 2016 Part III. Employee Compensation, Safety and Benefits
    • 27 Julio 2016
    ...in the day-today operations of the business was not an “employer” for FLSA purposes), followed in Martin v. Spring Break ’83 Prods., LLC, 688 F.3d 247, 250-53 (5th Cir.), cert. 133 S. Ct. 795 (2012). To make this determination courts consider whether the individual in question: • possessed ......
  • Wages, hours, and overtime
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas Employment Law. Volume 1 Part III. Employee compensation, safety and benefits
    • 5 Mayo 2018
    ...operations of the business and, thus, was not an “employer” for FLSA purposes), followed in Martin v. Spring Break ’83 Prods., LLC, 688 F.3d 247, 250-53 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 795 (2012). To determine individual or supervisory liability, courts consider whether the individual ......
  • Wages, Hours, and Overtime
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 1 - 2014 Part III. Employee compensation, safety and benefits
    • 16 Agosto 2014
    ...in the day-to-day operations of the business was not an “employer” for FLSA purposes), followed in Martin v. Spring Break ’83 Prods., LLC, 688 F.3d 247, 250-53 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 795 (2012). To make this determination courts consider whether the individual in question: • p......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT