FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T APR 7, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 12 11 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 0 7- 20 12 9- CV-AMS
CARLOS B. BR ANDT, Pl ai nt iff -Co un te r-Defe nd an tApp el la nt -Cro ss -Ap pe ll ee, ORESTES LOPEZ, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an tCro ss -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us MAGNIFIC ENT QUA LITY FLORALS CORP., MOISES S ANCHEZ, Defen da nt s- Count er -Cl ai m an ts

App el le es -Cro ss -Ap pe ll an ts

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 7, 2 01 0) Befo re BLACK, PRYOR an d C OX, Circ ui t J ud ge s.PER CURI AM:

Pl ai nt iff s Carl os B. Bran dt an d Ores te s Lop ez su ed D e f e nd an ts Mag ni fic en t Qua li ty Fl o ral s Co rp or at io n an d Mo is es San ch ez to reco ve r ov ert im e wag es th at Defen da nt s al le ge dl y owe d t he m un de r th e Fai r Lab or St an da rd s Act, 29 U.S.C. §§
20 1- 21 6. Pl ai nt iff

s, who were e mp l oyed by Defen da nt s, each cl ai m ed th at Defen da nt s di d no t pa y th em fo r th e ti m e th ey wor ke d whi ch ex ceed ed fo rty ho ur s pe r week , as req ui red by th e Act. The cas e was tri ed to a jury be fo re a m ag is tra te jud ge
. A jury award ed da m ag es of $6 04 .26 to Pl ai nt iff Bran dt (wh ic h was do ub le d to $1 ,20 8.5 2 wi th li qu id at ed da m ag es ), bu t awa rd ed no da m ag es to Pla in ti ff Lo pe z. Th e r e a f te r, Defen da nt s fil ed two m ot io ns fo r sa nc ti on s an d at to rn ey ’s fees
ag ai ns t th e Pl ai nt iff

s an d th ei r co un se l. Defen da nt s arg ue d th at Pl ai nt iff s co m m it te d
pe rjury, t h a t t h e c as e was a frau d pe rp et rat ed up on th e co ur t, an d th at Pl ai nt iff s’

co un se l di d no t in ve st ig at e th ei r cl ie nt s’ cl ai m s. Mo reo ve r, Pl ai nt iff s fil ed a m ot io n fo r a ne w tri al , arg ui ng th at Defen da nt s’ co un se l pr es en te d an im pr op er cl os in g
arg um en t by en ga gi ng in pe rs on al at ta ck s on Pl ai nt iff s’ at to rn ey s, refe rri ng to

ev id en ce th at th e m ag is tra te jud ge ha d ex cl ud ed fro m tri al , a nd m ak in g ou t r a g eo us
st at em en ts

. The m ag is tra te jud ge de ni ed bo th m ot i o n s. (R.4 -1 32 , 13 5.) Pl ai nt iff s
ap pe al , ch al le ng in g th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s de ni al of th ei r m ot io n fo r a ne w tri al , an d Defen da nt s cr os s- ap pe al , cha ll en gi ng th e d en ia l o f th ei r m ot io ns for san ct io ns
.
2W e rev ie w th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s de ni al of a m ot io n fo r a ne w tri al fo r an ab us e

of di sc ret io n. Mil le nn iu m Par tn er s, L.P. v. Co lma r St or ag e, LLC , 4 9 4 F .3d 12 93 , 13 01 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 07 ). Lik ewis e, we rev ie w th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s de ci si on de nyin g

sa nc ti on s an d at to rn ey ’s fees fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n. SC ADIF, S.A. v. Fir

st Uni on Na t’l , 34 4 F.3d 11 23 , 11 30 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 03 ); Mut

. Se rv
. In s. Co. v. Fri t Ind us ., In c. , 35 8 F .3d 13 12 , 13 26 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). Alt ho ug h th e m ag is tra te jud ge no te d th at th e arg um en ts m ad e by Defen da nt s’

co un se l wer e im

pr op er, s he fou nd th at co un se l’s “ co m m en ts , vi ewed in th e co nt ex t of th e to ta li ty of th e cas e, di d no t affe ct su bs ta nt ia l jus ti ce, an d do no t ris e to th e le ve l
at whi ch a ne w tri al is ap pr op ria te .” (R.4 -1 35 at 4 -5 .) W it h resp ect to Defen da nt s’

m ot io ns fo r sa nc ti on s an d at to rn ey ’s f ees , t he m ag is tra te jud ge fo u nd th at al th ou gh th e Pl ai nt iff

s’ cla im s wer e weak , “ th ey were n ot fri vo lo us .” (R.4 -1 32 at 8 .) Afte r rev ie w, we fin d th at th e m ag is tra te jud ge di d no t ab us e he r di sc ret io n in d e nyin g Pl ai nt iff

s’ m ot io n fo r a ne w tri al or in de nyin g Defen da nt s’ m ot i o n s f o r

sa nc ti on s an d a tt or ne y ’s fees

. The cl os in g arg um en t of Defen da nt s’ counse l w as im pr ope r in se ve ra l resp ect s, bu t no ob jecti on s to th e arg um en t were vo ic ed at th e ti m e. W hi le th e m ag is tra te jud ge sh ou ld ha ve in te rv en ed an d cu rta il ed th is im pr op e r a r g um en t, we fin d no ab us e of di sc ret io n in th e de ci si on to de ny Plai nt iff s’ m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l be cau se we fin d

3th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s reas on s fo r de nyin g Pl ai nt iff s’ m ot io n pe rs ua si ve
. And , whi le

we fin d th e Pl ai nt iff

s’ cas e weak at be st , we fin d no ab us e of di sc ret io n in th e de ni al of Defen da n t s ’ mo t i on fo r sa nc ti on s. Defen da nt s di d no t ke ep reco rd s of ho ur s

wor ke d by em

pl oyees as req ui red by th e Act. Thu s, Pl ai nt iff s’ co un se l di d no t ha ve

acce ss to ti m e reco rd s an d ha d to rel y la rg el y on Pl ai nt iff s’ m em or ie s reg ard in g ti m e

wor ke d. Giv en al l th e ci rcu m st an ces , th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in gi vi ng Pl ai nt iff

s th e be ne fit of th e do ub t in de nyin g Defen da nt s’ m ot io n fo r sa nc ti on s. AFFIR MED.

4