Case ID: f-appx_464/html/0649-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hilda L. SOLIS, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BEST MIRACLE CORPORATION, A California Corporation; Thuy Thi Le, Individually and as Managing Agent of the Corporate Defendant; Toan Van Nguyen, Individually and as Managing Agent of the Corporate Defendant, Defendants-Appellants.
    No. 10-56146.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 5, 2011.
    
    Filed Dec. 30, 2011.
    Boris Orlov, U.S. Department of Labor Office of the Solicitor, Los Angeles, CA, Dean Romhilt, Paul L. Frieden, Counsel, U.S. Department of Labor Office of the Solicitor, Washington, DC, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Allen B. Felahy, Oscar Ramirez, Esquire, Zack Isaac Domb, Esquire, Felahy Law Group, Long Beach, CA, for Defendants-Appellants.
    Before: D.W. NELSON, GOULD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Best Miracle Corporation, Thuy Thi Le (“Le”), and Toan Van Nguyen (collectively, “Best Miracle”) appeal the district court’s judgment concluding that they willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Specifically, they argue the district court abused its discretion during the bench trial by admitting an exhibit as an adoptive admission by Le.

We need not decide whether the district court erred. Even if the admission of the exhibit was erroneous, it would be harmless error. The record contains overwhelming independent evidence that Best Miracle willfully violated the FLSA. Therefore, it is more probable than not that the district court would have reached the same verdict even if the exhibit had been excluded. See Obrey v. Johnson, 400 F.3d 691, 701 (9th Cir.2005).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.