FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T Dec ember

9, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

No. 0 8- 10 35 1
D. C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 20 41 8 C V-W JZ RAMON SABATIER, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us SUNTRUST BANK, a Geo rg iaCo m

pa ny, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.
App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a (Dece m be r 9, 2 00 8)

Befo re DUBINA, BLACK an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Pl ai nt iff /Ap pe ll an t Ra m on Sab at ie r (“ Sab at ie r”) app eal s the di st ric t co urt’s
or de r gr an ti ng su m

m ary jud gm en t t o Def

en da nt/Ap pe ll ee Su nTru stBan k (“ Ban k” )
on Sab at ie r’s cl ai m s fo r ret al ia ti on un de r th e Fai r Lab orSta nd ard s Act(“ FLSA”)
an d t he Flo rid a Whis tl e-Bl owe r Act . Sab at ie r al so ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s
or de r gr an ti ng th e Ban k’s m ot io n fo r reco ns id erat io n, t he di st ric t co urt’s o rd er de nyin g S ab at ie r’s m ot io n t o re op endi sc ov ery, an d t he di st ric t co urt’s o rd er de nyin g S ab at ie r’s m ot io n t o re cu se th e d is tri ctjud ge . The is su es pre se nt edon ap pe al are: 1. Whethe r th e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n g ran ti ng th e Ban k’s
m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n. 2. Whethe r th e d is tri ctco urt erredin grant in g t he Ban k’s m ot io n fo r
su m m ary jud gm en t. 3. Whethe r th e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d en y in g a s m oo t Sab at ie r’s m ot io n t o re op endi sc ov ery. 4. Whethe r th e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d en y in g S ab at ie r’s
m ot io n fo r rec us al
. W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f a m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Se e Ma kr o C ap it al of Am., Inc. v. UBS AG , 54 3 F .3d12 54 , 12 61 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (ad dr es si ng th e d en ia l o f a m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n)
. 2Thi s co urt re vi ews de no vo th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t, vi ewin g a ll is su es of m at eri al factin fav or of the no n- m ov an t. Besh er s v. Har riso n , 49 5 F .3d12 60 , 12 65 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). W e rev ie w forab us e o f di sc ret io n adi st ric t co urt’s d eci si on s co nc ern in g di sc ov ery. Art is ti c Entm’t, In c. v. Ci tyof W ar ne r Ro bi ns , 33 1 F .3d11 96 , 12 02 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) ; cf

. Sh uf or d v . Fid el it y Na t’l Pro p. & Ca s. In s. Co

. , 50 8 F .3d 13 37 , 13 41 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (rev ie win g fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n adi st ric t co urt’s
or de r on m ot io n fo r le av e to co nduc t l im it eddi sc ov ery un de r Ru le 56 (f)). W e al so rev ie w forab us e o f di sc ret io n adi st ric t co urt’s o rd er o n am ot io n t o
recu se . Uni te d Sta tes v. Ba il ey , 17 5 F .3d96 6, 9 68 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). Afte r rev ie win g t he reco rdan d re ad in g t he pa rti es ’ br ie fs , we firs t co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt co rrec tl y gra nt edreco ns id erat io n o f it s o rd er d en y in g
su m m ary jud gm en t b ecau se itearl ie r co m m it te d l eg al erro r in refu si ng to co ns id er th e aff id av itof d eci si on -m ak er Co nc hi taRo dr ique z, whi ch was p ro ffer edby the Ban k t o e st ab li sh th e Ban k’s n on -ret al ia to ry reas on s fo r th e ad ve rs e em pl oym en t act io ns at i ss ue . Seco nd , we con cl ud e fro m th e rec or d t ha t t he di st ric t co urt co rrec tl y gra nt ed th e Ban k’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. The re were no ge nu in e is su es of

3m at eri al fact . Also , th ere was no erro r co m m it te d i n re lying on th e te st im on y of in te res te d wi tn es se s (t he Ban k’s em pl oyees) ingra nt in g s umm ary jud gm en t. Thi rd , eve n i f we as su m e, arg ue nd o, t ha t Saba ti er d idest ab li sh a pr im a fac ie
cas e, he st il l ca nn otpre va il be cau se th e Ban k p res en te d l eg it im at e, no nr et al ia to ry
reas on s fo r th e em

pl oym en t ac ti on s t ak en , andSab at ie r fai le d t o d em on st rat e th at th os e act io ns were m erel y a pr et ex t fo r di sc riminat io n. Fi na ll y , we see no ab us e o f di sc ret io n i n d en y in g S ab at ie r’s m ot io n t o
reo pe n d is co ve ry

to tak e th e d ep os it io n o f hi s fo rm er s up erv is or , Ju anAran a. W e al so see no ab us e o f di sc ret io n i n t he di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on to de ny Saba ti er’s
m ot io n t o re cu se . Accor di ng ly, fo r th e ab ov e-s ta te d re as on s, we af firm th e d is tri ct
co urt’s jud gm en t an d o rd ers . AFFIRMED.

4