UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

KEY WEST DIVISION

CASE NO. 4:20-cv-10069-JLK

GERARDO FERNANDEZ and

KORNPHAT HILDEBRANT,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

THAI ISLAND RESTAURANT, LLC, a 

Florida limited liability company and PHEN 

P. FUTTERMAN,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 

THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Plaintiffs GERARDO FERNANDEZ and

KORNPHAT HILDEBRANT’s Motion for Sanctions (the “Motion”) (DE 28), filed January 27,

2021. Defendants have not responded and the time to do so has passed.

On July 2, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint alleging a violation of the Fair Labor

Standards Act (“FLSA”) for unpaid overtime wage compensation. See Compl, DE1. On August

27, 2020, Defendants filed their Answer responding to each allegation in the Complaint. See DE

11. In their Motion for Sanctions, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ denial of six allegations in

the Complaint are frivolous because “. . . Defendants’ own records from the U.S. Department of

Labor (“DOL”) records, and [Defendants’] own discovery responses show some liability. . . .”

Mot. at 2. Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that the following Defendants’ denials are frivolous:

Defendants’ denial that “[a]t all times material hereto, Defendants, THAI ISLAND and

FUTTERMAN were the employers of Plaintiffs, FERNANDEZ and HILDEBRANT.” Compl. ¶

10. Defendants’ denial implicitly states that Defendants were not employers of Plaintiffs, thus

creating an issue of fact to be raised at summary judgment or trial. 

Case 4:20-cv-10069-JLK Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 1 of 3
Defendants’ denial that “[a]t all times material hereto, Defendants, THAI ISLAND and

FUTTERMAN were and continue to be an “employer[s]” within the meaning of the FLSA.”

Compl. ¶ 11. Defendants’ denial implicitly states that Defendants are not employers within the

meaning of the FLSA, thus creating an issue of fact to be raised at summary judgment or trial. 

Defendants’ denial that “Plaintiff, FERNANDEZ was not paid time-and-one-half his

regular hourly rate of pay for all his hours in excess of forty in each week.” Compl. ¶ 19.

Defendants’ denial implicitly states that Defendants did pay Plaintiff Fernandez time-and-onehalf his regular hourly rate of pay for all his hours in excess of forty in each week, thus creating

an issue of fact to be raised at summary judgment or trial. 

Defendants’ denial that “Plaintiff, HILDEBRANT was not paid time-and-one-half her

regular hourly rate of pay for all her hours in excess of forty in each week.” Compl. ¶ 22.

Defendants’ denial implicitly states that Defendants did pay Plaintiff Hildebrant time-and-onehalf his regular hourly rate of pay for all his hours in excess of forty in each week, thus creating

an issue of fact to be raised at summary judgment or trial. 

Defendants’ denial that “Defendant, FUTTERMAN was directly involved in decisions

affecting employee compensation and/or hours worked by Plaintiffs, FERNANDEZ and

HILDEBRANT.” Compl. ¶ 25. Defendants’ denial implicitly states that Defendant Futterman

was not directly involved in decisions affecting employee compensation, thus creating an issue

of fact to be raised at summary judgment or trial. 

Defendants’ denial that “[d]uring Plaintiffs’ employment, Plaintiffs worked hours in

excess of forty (40) per week for which they were not compensated at the statutory rate of time

and one-half for all of their hours. Plaintiffs, FERNANDEZ and HILDEBRANT were entitled

to be paid at the rate of time and one-half for all their hours worked in excess of the maximum

2

Case 4:20-cv-10069-JLK Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 2 of 3
hours provided for in the FLSA.” Compl. ¶ 28. Defendants’ denial implicitly states that Plaintiffs

did not work in excess of forty (40) hours per week and were compensated, thus creating an

issue of fact to be raised at summary judgment or trial. Additionally, the fact that Plaintiffs

believe they have overwhelming proof is a matter for consideration at summary judgment or

trial.

In the instant Motion for Sanctions, Plaintiffs seek to be reimbursed for attorneys’ fees

and costs, and for the Court to impose monetary sanctions against both the Defendants and their

counsel. Mot. at 10. The Court finds, after careful consideration, that Plaintiffs’ Motion for

Sanctions is premature as Defendants’ Answer raises issues to be resolved at summary judgment

or trial.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Plaintiffs’ Motion

for Sanctions (DE 28) be, and the same is, hereby DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at the James Lawrence King Federal Justice

Building and United States Courthouse, Miami, Florida, this 3rd day of May, 2021.

______________________________

JAMES LAWRENCE KING

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

cc: All counsel of record

3

Case 4:20-cv-10069-JLK Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 3 of 3