Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-15-12129/USCOURTS-ca11-15-12129-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 

---

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

__________________________

No. 15-12129

Non-Argument Calendar

__________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-24413-FAM

JORGE GUTIERREZ,

CYNTHIA RECONDO,

and other similarly situated individuals,

MANFRED ARAUJO,

RICARDO QUINONES,

YOANNY RODRIGUEZ,

JOHN C. AHEARN,

JIMMY VAZQUEZ, 

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

ERNESTO NUEVO, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

versus

CABLE EQUIPMENT SERVICES, INC.,

CHARLES F. APPLEDOORN, individually,

Defendants - Appellees.

USCA11 Case: 15-12129 Date Filed: 10/15/2015 Page: 1 of 3
2

__________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

__________________________

(October 15, 2015)

Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal challenges the District Court’s order of May 11, 2015, granting 

defendants summary judgment on plaintiffs’ Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 

§§ 201-219, claims on the ground that plaintiffs were not employees covered under 

the Act. Doc. 61. Plaintiffs admitted many of the material facts in the case when 

they failed to respond in any way to defendants’ requests for admissions. In 

opposing defendants’ motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs filed declarations 

containing assertions purportedly contrary to their earlier admissions, but they did 

not explain why the assertions were contrary to such admissions or seek any relief 

from their admissions.

Plaintiffs contend that they did seek relief from their admissions in their 

response to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Their response, they 

submit, “constituted a valid request to withdraw or amend any facts that had been 

automatically deemed admitted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 36,” and the “District 

Court ‘was required to analyze Plaintiffs’ request as to whether withdrawal or 

USCA11 Case: 15-12129 Date Filed: 10/15/2015 Page: 2 of 3
3

amendment [of the admitted facts] would have subserved the presentation of the 

case’s merits, and whether it would have prejudiced Defendants.” Appellants’ Br. 

at 12. Plaitiffs seek the vacation of the summary judgment and a remand of the 

case so that the District Court can conduct such analysis. We are not persuaded. 

We find no error in the District Court’s consideration of the facts admitted 

via plaintiffs’ failure to respond to the requests for admissions. There is no 

material issue of fact for submission to a jury in this case. Summary judgment was 

appropriate and was due to be granted.

AFFIRMED. 

USCA11 Case: 15-12129 Date Filed: 10/15/2015 Page: 3 of 3