Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-16-10091/USCOURTS-ca11-16-10091-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Yojan Cabrera
Appellant
John M. Hernandez
Appellee
Speed Construction Services, Inc.
Appellee
Speed Services, Inc.
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-10091

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-20716-WCT

YOJAN CABRERA,

and all others similarly situated under 20 U.S.C. 216(B),

Plaintiff - Appellant,

 versus

SPEED SERVICES, INC., 

JOHN M. HERNANDEZ, 

SPEED CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC,

Defendants - Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(October 24, 2016)

Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

USCA11 Case: 16-10091 Date Filed: 10/24/2016 Page: 1 of 3
2

Yojan Cabrera appeals the judgment against his complaint that Speed 

Services, Inc., Speed Construction Services, Inc., and their owner, John M. 

Hernandez (collectively Speed Services), violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by 

failing to pay Cabrera overtime compensation. Cabrera argues that the district 

court abused its discretion when it refused to give his proposed jury instruction 

about the treatment of a lump sum payment under a federal regulation. See C.F.R. 

§ 778.310. We affirm.

Cabrera argues that his proposed jury instruction “was supported by the 

evidence and the law,” but we need not address this argument. We can affirm the 

judgment in favor of Speed Services on the alternative ground that Cabrera’s 

proposed instruction was untimely filed. Before we will reverse a “judgment that is 

based on multiple, independent grounds, an appellant must convince us that every 

stated ground for the judgment against him is incorrect.” Sapuppo v. Allstate 

Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014). If the “appellant fails to 

challenge properly on appeal one of the grounds . . . [supporting the] judgment, he 

is deemed to have abandoned any challenge of that ground. . . .” Id. The district 

court denied Cabrera’s proposed “instruction for several reasons; substantive and 

procedural, including the fact that [it] was untimely filed.” Because Cabrera does 

not dispute that his proposed jury instruction was untimely and he offers no 

USCA11 Case: 16-10091 Date Filed: 10/24/2016 Page: 2 of 3
3

argument for why the district court abused its discretion in refusing to give his 

instruction on that procedural ground, “it follows that the judgment [in favor of 

Speed Services] is due to be affirmed,” id.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 16-10091 Date Filed: 10/24/2016 Page: 3 of 3