Riddle v. Tex-fin Inc.
| Decision Date | 14 June 2010 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. H-08-3121. |
| Citation | 719 F.Supp.2d 742 |
| Parties | James W. RIDDLE, Plaintiff, v. TEX-FIN, INC. and T.A. Hall, Jr., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Mark Siurek, Warren Siurek LLP, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff.
Michael Charles Falick, Rothfelder and Falick, Houston, TX, for Defendants.
This is an FLSA case. James W. Riddle sued his former employer, Tex-Fin, Inc., and its president, alleging that he had not been paid at an overtime rate for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week. After a three-day trial, the jury answered the questions the court submitted and provided additional statements on the verdict form. The defendants moved to enter judgment. The plaintiff also moved to enter judgment or, alternatively, for a new trial. For the reasons explained below, the motions to enter judgment are denied and the motion for a new trial is granted.
Riddle was a maintenance worker at Tex-Fin's Houston pipe fabrication and manufacturing plant. (Docket Entry No. 1 at 2). He was paid a set amount based on an hourly basis wage for a forty-hour week. Riddle sued in October 2008, alleging willful violations of the FLSA and seeking actual and statutory damages for unpaid overtime, attorneys' fees and costs, and interest. (Docket Entry No. 1). 1 Tex-Fin counterclaimed for fraud and conversion, alleging that Riddle took company tools when he stopped working at Tex-Fin. (Docket Entry No. 7 at 3-4).
A jury trial was held in January 2010. (Docket Entry Nos. 23, 25, 28). Riddle testified that he had no records of the overtime work he claimed. Tex-Fin had records showing that Riddle worked forty hours every week, but the testimony was that these records were routinely filled out to show forty hours of work each week and were not based on any observations or report of how many hours he in fact worked.
Riddle testified that he followed a routine of being required to work eight hours of overtime every week, plus a Saturday every month, plus two Sundays every year, for the three years of his employment at Tex-Fin. Tex-Fin witnesses testified that Riddle did not follow such a routine and would generally leave when his shift ended.
The jury was charged and asked to answer the following questions:
Do you find that Mr. Riddle worked overtime hours while employed at Tex-Fin?
Answer “yes” or “no.” _______________________
If you have answered this question “yes,” proceed to the next question. If you have answered “no,” proceed to answer jury questions number 5 and 6.
Do you find that Tex-Fin had actual or constructive knowledge of Mr. Riddle working overtime hours while employed at Tex-Fin?
Answer “yes” or “no.” _______________________
If you have answered this question “yes,” proceed to the next question. If you have answered “no,” proceed to answer jury questions number 5 and 6.
How many overtime hours, if any, do you find that James Riddle is entitled to compensation for working? Answer “yes” or “no” to each of the following categories:
+--------------------------------------------------+
¦8 hours of overtime every week?¦Yes _____ No _____¦
+-------------------------------+------------------¦
¦1 Saturday every month? ¦Yes _____ No _____¦
+-------------------------------+------------------¦
¦2 Sundays every year? ¦Yes _____ No _____¦
+--------------------------------------------------+
If you have answered “yes” to jury questions numbers 1 and 2, then answer the following question. Otherwise proceed to answer jury questions number 5 and 6.
Do you find that the violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, if any, was willful, that is, that Tex-Fin knew the compensation paid to James Riddle violated the Fair Labor Standards Act or showed reckless disregard for whether the compensation complied with the Act?
Do you find that the defendants have proven by a preponderance of the evidence that James Riddle took tools belonging to Tex-Fin when he stopped working for the company?
Answer “yes” or “no.” _______________________
If you have answered this question “yes,” proceed to the next question. If you have answered “no,” do not answer question 6.
What sum of money, if any, do you find should be awarded to the defendants for the loss of the tools?
Answer in dollars and cents, if any: $ _______________________
(Docket Entry No. 32). The plaintiff did not object to the jury instructions or questions.
The jury questions were submitted in this fashion in part to avoid more complex instructions and questions requiring the jury to first determine whether the FLSA had been violated and whether that violation was willful, then to decide how many hours Riddle worked over a period under the statute of limitations applicable to the jury's willfulness finding, then to allocate the number of hours worked to the periods of each change in Riddle's hourly rate. The form of the jury questions that were submitted to the jury were intended to permit the court to perform such calculations, if needed, based on the jury's findings of fact. The parties did not object to the instructions or questions.
During deliberations, the jury sent three notes. The first note asked, “What documentation is required by the Federal Government to comply with the FLSA & are these rules something we can see?” (Docket Entry No. 29). The court consulted with counsel and with their consent responded, ( Id.). The second note asked, “Can the jury set the number of hours owed to Mr. Riddle or are we bound to the 3 options in question three?” (Docket Entry No. 30). The court responded, again with the agreement of all counsel, “Please answer the jury question that has been presented to you.” ( Id.). The third note informed the court that the jury had reached a unanimous decision. (Docket Entry No. 31).
The jury answered “yes” to question one, finding that Riddle worked overtime hours while employed at Tex-Fin. (Docket Entry No. 32 at 1). The jury answered “yes” to question two, finding that Tex-Fin had actual or constructive knowledge that Riddle worked overtime hours at Tex-Fin. ( Id. at 2). The jury answered “no” to all three subparts of question three, answering that Riddle did not work eight hours of overtime per week, one Saturday of overtime per month, or two Sundays of overtime per year. ( Id. at 3). However, the jury wrote dollar amounts next to each subpart, despite the absence of any question asking for this information. Next to subpart one, which asked about working eight hours per week, the jury wrote “$47,000.” Next to subpart two, which asked about working one Saturday per month, the jury wrote “$11,500.” Next to subpart three, which asked about working two Sundays per year, the jury wrote “$2,000.” ( Id.). The jury added a handwritten note stating: ( Id.). The jury answered “yes” to question four, finding that the FLSA violation was willful. ( Id. at 4). The jury answered “no” to question five, finding that Riddle did not take tools belonging to Tex-Fin when he stopped working for the company. ( Id. at 5). The jury answered “$0” to question six, finding that no money should be awarded to Tex-Fin for the tools. ( Id. at 6). The jury was polled and confirmed that their answers were unanimous. (Docket Entry No. 28).
The defendants moved to enter judgment based on the jury's “no” answers to the question three subparts, arguing that the jury returned a consistent, reconcilable verdict in its favor and that the handwritten statements added to the answers to question three were superfluous and irrelevant and should be disregarded. (Docket Entry No. 34 at 3-5). The defendants also argued that the plaintiff had failed to object to the charge and questions. ( Id. at 5-6).
Riddle also moved for entry of judgment, citing the jury's handwritten answers to question three as well as the “yes” answers to questions one and two. Riddle argued that the jury's dollar and number-of-hours notations to question three were not surplusage but instead their verdict. (Docket Entry No. 35 at 3-4). Riddle asked the court to enter judgment in the amount identified in the jury's handwritten comments. ( Id. at 6). In the alternative, Riddle argued that the court should grant a new trial because the answer to question three was inconsistent with the jury's answers to questions one, two, and four, and because the jury's comments cast doubt on their verdict. ( Id. at 7-12). The defendants responded, reiterating the arguments in their motion to enter a take-nothing judgment. (Docket Entry No. 36).
The arguments are analyzed below.
A district court may “require a jury to return only a special verdict in the form of a special written finding on each issue of fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 49(a)(1). If a jury returns a verdict that contains apparently inconsistent findings of fact, the court must attempt to reconcile the findings. Carr v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 312 F.3d 667, 670 (5th Cir.2002); see also Duk v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., 320 F.3d 1052, 1058-59 (9th Cir.2003). The answers should be reconciled “in light of the surrounding circumstances, including the instructions of the court.” United States v. $9,041,598.68, 163 F.3d 238, 249 (5th Cir.1998) (quoting Davis v. W. Cmty. Hosp., 755 F.2d 455, 465 (5th Cir.1985)), superseded by statute on other grounds, 18 U.S.C. § 983(j) (2000). The jury's answers are “irreconcilably inconsistent” if they are “logically incompatible, thereby indicating that the jury was confused or abused its power.” Johnson v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Better Bags, Inc. v. Redi Bag USA LLC
...("[S]ince [Defendant] did not object to the court's supplemental instruction, our review is for plain error."); Riddle v. Tex-Fin, Inc., 719 F. Supp. 2d 742 (S.D. Tex. 2010) (reviewing jury instructions for plain error on a motion for new trial because the movant failed to object at the tim......