Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00159/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00159-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Fair Labor Standards

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Albert Walter Kouba, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Renzenberger, Incorporated; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 10-159 TUC FRZ (GEE)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 Pending before the court is the defendant’s second motion for summary judgment, filed

on March 28, 2012. (Doc. 181) 

The defendant, Renzenberger, provides crew transportation for the railroad. The

plaintiff, Albert Walter Kouba, worked for Renzenberger as a driver. In his complaint, Kouba

brings claims for unpaid wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and for

sexual harassment in violation of Title VII (42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a)(1)). In the instant motion,

Renzenberger moves for summary judgment on Kouba’s claim for overtime wages.

Renzenberger argues it is entitled to summary judgment because it tendered to Kouba the

maximum amount of damages that Kouba could collect on this claim. 

The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Bowman for all pretrial matters pursuant to

Local Civil Rule 72.2. Rules of Practice of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

The overtime claim is now moot. The motion therefore should be denied.

Case 4:10-cv-00159-FRZ-LAB Document 216 Filed 07/06/12 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 2 -

Factual and Procedural Background

The defendant, Renzenberger, provides crew transportation for the railroad. The

plaintiff, Albert Walter Kouba, worked as a driver for Renzenberger from September 2008 to

September 2009. (Doc. 92, p. 2) 

In his complaint, Kouba claims he was not paid overtime in 2008, he was not paid for

pre-trip inspections, and he should have been paid “on-call” time when he was in the first or

second position on the trip board. (Doc. 92, p. 3) Kouba further claims he was sexually

harassed by his supervisor, Jackie Myers. Id.

On February 18, 2011, Renzenberger filed its first motion for summary judgment.

Renzenberger moved for judgment on the merits on all claims except the overtime claim. On

the overtime claim, Renzenberger argued it was entitled to summary judgment only on the issue

of damages arguing Kouba could not prove he was entitled to more than $1,197 plus

prejudgment interest. (Doc. 92, pp. 6-7, 16-17) On February 6, 2012, the court granted

Renzenberger’s motion except as to the on-call claim. (Docs. 146, 156) The court agreed that

Kouba’s damages on the overtime claim were limited to $1,197 plus prejudgment interest. Id.

The court remanded the on-call claim and the overtime claim for trial on the merits. Id.

On February 22, 2012, Renzenberger tendered to Kouba one check for $399,

representing his overtime wages, and one check for $1,273.87 representing statutory damages

and interest. (Doc. 182, ¶ 7) 

On March 28, 2012, Renzenberger filed its second motion for summary judgment (Doc.

181) Renzenberger argues it is entitled to summary judgment on the overtime claim because

it tendered to Kouba the maximum amount of damages that Kouba could collect. Id.

In his response to the motion, Kouba acknowledged receiving the two checks from

Renzenberger. (Doc. 207, pp. 2-3) He cashed the larger one (for $1,273.87) because he

believed it represented an admission of wrongdoing by Renzenberger. Id. He did not cash the

smaller check (for $399) because he did not want to “waive his right for a jury to decide the

facts.” (Doc. 207, p. 4) 

Case 4:10-cv-00159-FRZ-LAB Document 216 Filed 07/06/12 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 3 -

In its reply, Renzenberger reports that Kouba returned his $399.00 check asking that it

be reissued without any withholdings for state or federal income tax. (Doc. 204-1, pp. 2-3)

Renzenberger voided the original check and issued a second check without withholdings as

requested. Id.

DISCUSSION

Based on the parties’ representations, the court concludes Kouba’s overtime claim is now

moot. In other words, Kouba no longer has standing to raise his claim and this court is without

jurisdiction to consider it. See Augustine v. U.S., 704 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1983) (The

court is under a continuing duty to determine its jurisdiction even if the parties fail to raise the

issue themselves.); Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).

A party seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts must, as a threshold

matter, establish “standing” under Article III of the United States Constitution. Schmier v. U.S.

Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit, 279 F.3d 817, 820-21 (9th Cir. 2002). “The ‘core’ or

‘bedrock’ elements of standing” are “a (1) legally recognized injury, (2) caused by the named

defendant that is (3) capable of legal or equitable redress.” Id. If a party lacks standing, he

may not bring his suit in federal court. Id.

Mootness is a related term sometimes defined as “the doctrine of standing set in a time

frame.” U. S. Parole Commission v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 397 (1980). “A case becomes

moot when interim relief or events have deprived the court of the ability to redress the party’s

injuries.” American Cas. Co. of Reading, Pennsylvania v. Baker, 22 F.3d 880, 896 (9th Cir.

1994). When a case becomes moot, the party loses standing, the court loses jurisdiction, and

the matter must be dismissed. Doe v. Madison School Dist. No. 321, 177 F.3d 789, 797-98 (9th

Cir. 1999). The court will not render advisory opinions. Dream Palace v. County of Maricopa,

384 F.3d 990, 999 (9th Cir. 2004). 

In this case, Renzenberger tendered payment for the maximum amount of damages that

Kouba could receive. Even if Kouba won at trial, the court would be unable to award him

Case 4:10-cv-00159-FRZ-LAB Document 216 Filed 07/06/12 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 4 -

anything more than he has already been offered. His claim is no longer “capable of legal or

equitable redress.” Schmier, 279 F.3d at 821. His claim therefore is moot. See, e.g., Carter

v. Veterans Admin., 780 F.2d 1479, 1481 (9th Cir. 1986) (FOIA action was moot when the

defendant voluntarily mailed the requested documents to the plaintiff.); Griffith v. Sullivan,

987 F.2d 25, 27 (1st Cir. 1993) (Appeal was moot after the defendant paid the plaintiff all the

monetary damages he was entitled to recover.); Evans v. General Mechanical Corp., 2012 WL

1450107, 1 (M.D.Fla. 2012) (“FLSA claims are frequently mooted where an

employer/defendant tenders ‘full payment.’”).

Kouba argues his rejection of Renzenberger’s offer preserves his “right” to a trial on the

merits. He is incorrect. The court has no jurisdiction over a claim that can no longer be

redressed. See Alliance to End Repression v. City of Chicago, 820 F.2d 873, 878 (7th Cir. 1987)

(“Our conclusion that this case is not justiciable answers a question . . . whether a plaintiff who

is offered all the relief he demands may refuse the offer and go to trial. The answer is no.”);

Zimmerman v. Bell, 800 F.2d 386, 390 (4th Cir. 1986) (“Horowitz’ personal stake in the outcome

had disappeared, and federal courts do not sit simply to bestow vindication in a vacuum.”).

Kouba’s overtime claim must be dismissed as moot. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).

Renzenberger’s motion for summary judgment should be denied accordingly. Renzenberger’s

motion for summary judgment asks the court to make a ruling on the merits, which is something

this court lacks the jurisdiction to do. See O’Donnell v. Wien Air Alaska, Inc., 551 F.2d 1141,

1145 (9th Cir. 1977) (“It is therefore error to rule on a summary judgment motion or any other

matter going to the merits where a court determines that it lacks jurisdiction over the subject

matter.”).

RECOMMENDATION:

The Magistrate Judge recommends the District Court, after its independent review of the

record, enter an order 

DISMISSING Kouba’s overtime claim as moot and

Case 4:10-cv-00159-FRZ-LAB Document 216 Filed 07/06/12 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 5 -

DENYING Renzenberger’s second motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 181) 

Kouba’s on-call claim remains for trial.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636 (b)(1), any party may serve and file written objections within

14 days of being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. If objections are not

timely filed, they may be deemed waived. 

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Report and Recommendation to the parties

or their counsel. 

DATED this 5th day of July, 2012.

Case 4:10-cv-00159-FRZ-LAB Document 216 Filed 07/06/12 Page 5 of 5