Case ID: f-appx_537/html/0908-01.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

Kelly PHILLIPS, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant, Luisa Ginsberg, Cristina Paret, Yahilin Chirino, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. M.I. QUALITY LAWN MAINTENANCE, INC., Mitchell’s Lawn Maintenance Corp., Adriana J. Igelko, as guardian for Mitchell Igelko, Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellees, Mitchell Igelko, Defendant-Counter Claimant.
    No. 12-14346.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Oct. 18, 2013.
    Daniel T. Feld, The Law Office of Eddy O. Marban, Coral Gables, FL, Karl David Kelly, Jamie H. Zidell, J.H. Zidell, PA, Miami Beach, FL, for Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant.
    Daniel Alberto Espinosa, Robin Felicity Hazel, Espinosa Jomarron, Miami, FL, for Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellees.
    Before TJOFLAT and WILSON, Circuit Judges, and COOGLER, District Judge.
    
      
       Honorable L. Scott Coogler, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama, sitting by designation. corresponding argument. We therefore deem it waived. See Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004).
    
   PER CURIAM:

This appeal arises from Appellants’ complaint alleging violations of the minimum wage, overtime, and retaliation provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219. On March 30, 2011, the district court granted the Appellees’ motion for partial summary judgment on the minimum wage and retaliation claims, and this appeal followed. After carefully reviewing both parties’ briefs, and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the partial grant of summary judgment entered against the Appellants for the reasons set forth in the well-reasoned order entered by the district court on March 30, 2011.

AFFIRMED. 
      
      . After the order granting partial summary judgment, a jury returned a verdict for Appellees on Appellant's overtime claims. Although Appellants' Notice of Appeal purports to challenge that verdict, their brief makes no