Case ID: f-appx_674/html/0967-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Kenneth KLEIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FLORANADA WAREHOUSE AND STORAGE, INC., a Florida profit corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 16-11342 Non-Argument Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Filed (January 26, 2017)
    Richard Celler, Richard Celler Legal, PA, Davie, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Robin I. Bresky, Michele Karlin Feinzig, Law Offices of Robin Bresky, Boca Raton, FL, Kimberly Anne Gilmour, Kimberly A. Gilmour, PA, Davie, FL, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Klein is a former émployee of Floranada Warehouse and Storage (Flora-nada). He brought suit against Floranada seeking damages for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Klein alleged that Floranada failed to pay him overtime pay at time-and-a-half for hours he worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week, as required by 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). A jury decided in favor of Floranada, finding that Klein was properly paid and was not due any overtime compensation (beyond the commissions or non-discretionary bonus payments for which Klein was partially granted summary judgment). On appeal, Klein challenges the district court’s denial of his motion for a directed verdict and his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

We have reviewed and considered the briefs and the record, and we have drawn all reasonable inferences in favor of Flora-nada, the nonmoving party. See Cleveland v. Home Shopping Network, Inc., 369 F.3d 1189, 1192-93 (11th Cir. 2004). There was more than sufficient evidence tó support the jury’s verdict. In reaching that conclusion, we find no merit to Klein’s argument that his pay structure emanated from a vain attempt to establish a Belo agreement. Therefore, we conclude that the motions for directed verdict and motion for judgment notwithstanding the jury’s verdict were properly denied. The decisions of the district court are

AFFIRMED. 
      
      . Walling v. A.H. Belo Corp., 316 U.S. 624, 62 S.Ct. 1223, 86 L.Ed. 1716 (1942).