[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 19-11269

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cv-00533-MLB

TRACEY CUNNINGHAM, 

ADRIANA CHRISTOPHER, 

CASSANDRA CRAWFORD, 

DWAYNE BOWIE, 

SHIRLEY HALL, 

et al.,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 versus

FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA, 

 Defendant – Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(October 1, 2019)

Case: 19-11269 Date Filed: 10/01/2019 Page: 1 of 14 
2

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, NEWSOM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

More than 500 current and former employees of Fulton County Sherriff’s 

Office sued Fulton County and Fulton County Sheriff Theodore Jackson, asserting 

that the defendants had violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and breached 

contracts because of the way that they handled overtime, vacation time, holiday 

pay, and sick leave.1

 The district court dismissed the FLSA claims against the 

County and all claims against Sheriff Jackson. On the remaining contract claim, 

the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the County. The district 

court then granted the County’s motion for sanctions against two employees and 

their counsel for conduct during discovery and denied the employees’ motion for 

class certification as moot. 

On appeal, the employees present four issues for review—whether the 

district court erred in (1) dismissing their FLSA claims, (2) granting summary 

judgment in favor of Fulton County on their breach of contract claim, (3) granting 

Fulton County’s motion for sanctions, and (4) denying class certification. We hold 

that the district court did not err in any of these respects and now affirm.

1 The employees initially sued seven Fulton County Commissioners, but later voluntarily 

dismissed them as defendants. 

Case: 19-11269 Date Filed: 10/01/2019 Page: 2 of 14 
3

I

The first issue is whether the district court erred in dismissing the 

employees’ FLSA claims. The district court dismissed the bulk of the employees’ 

claims for essentially three reasons. It dismissed the FLSA claims against the 

County on the ground that the County could not be considered the employees’ 

“employer” under FLSA; it dismissed the claims against Sheriff Jackson (in his 

official capacity) on the ground that he was entitled to Eleventh Amendment 

immunity; and it dismissed the claims for declaratory and injunctive relief on the 

ground that they were barred by Georgia’s doctrine of sovereign immunity. 

A

Before we get to the substance, we need to address two preliminary issues 

regarding the employees’ appeal of the district court’s dismissal order. The first is 

whether the appeal should be dismissed as untimely. The County argues that

because the employees’ FLSA claims were dismissed on November 8, 2017 and 

they did not file their notice of appeal until April 4, 2019, the employees missed 

their 30-day window to file. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). 

“[F]iling a timely notice of appeal is ‘mandatory and jurisdictional’; without 

it a Court of Appeals is ‘without jurisdiction to review the decision on the merits.’” 

Bogle v. Orange Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 162 F.3d 653, 660 (11th Cir. 1998)

(quoting Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196, 203 (1988)). Rule 

Case: 19-11269 Date Filed: 10/01/2019 Page: 3 of 14 
4

4(a) requires that a notice of appeal “be filed with the district clerk within 30 days 

after entry of the judgment or order appealed from.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). 

The 30-day time period “does not begin to run until entry of a final judgment.” 

Castleberry v. Goldome Credit Corp., 408 F.3d 773, 779 (11th Cir. 2005) (internal 

quotation marks and citations omitted). If a case involves multiple claims—as the 

employees’ case against the County did—“a district court’s disposition of fewer 

than all the claims does not constitute an appealable final judgment.”2

 Id. at 779–

80. Because the district court’s November 8, 2017 order dismissed some, but not 

all, of the employees’ claims, the relevant judgment from which to measure the 30-

day deadline is the district court’s March 29, 2019 final judgment, which 

accompanied its order granting summary judgment against the employees’ 

remaining claim. The employees’ notice of appeal was therefore timely, even as to 

the district court’s earlier dismissal order.

The second preliminary issue is whether the employees’ appeal of the 

district court’s dismissal order is properly before us, since it was not specified in 

the notice of appeal as required by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3. We 

examine this—even though it was not raised by the parties—because “Rule 3’s 

2 Assuming—as is the case here—that there is no Rule 54(b) certification providing for a final 

judgment on fewer than all of a plaintiff’s claims. Castleberry, 408 F.3d at 779–80; see also

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) (stating that “the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or 

more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no 

just reason for delay”).

Case: 19-11269 Date Filed: 10/01/2019 Page: 4 of 14 
5

dictates are jurisdictional in nature, and their satisfaction is a prerequisite to 

appellate review.” Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248 (1992). The employees’ 

notice of appeal states that they appeal “from that final Judgment entered in the 

above styled action on March 29th, 2019 issued by the Honorable Michael L. 

Brown, United States District Judge.” The March 29 decision reflects the district 

court’s order granting summary judgment against the employees; the district 

court’s earlier dismissal of the employees’ FLSA claims was issued by Judge 

Richard Story on November 8, 2017. 

Rule 3 requires that the notice of appeal “designate the judgment, order, or 

part thereof being appealed.” Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B). The notice must 

“designate an existent judgment or order, not one that is merely expected or that is, 

or should be, within the appellant’s contemplation when the notice of appeal is 

filed.” Bogle, 162 F.3d at 661. But this Court has also held that “it is well settled 

that an appeal is not lost if a mistake is made in designating the judgment appealed 

from where it is clear that the overriding intent was effectively to appeal.” KH 

Outdoor, LLC v. City of Trussville, 465 F.3d 1256, 1260 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting 

Kicklighter v. Nails by Jannee, Inc., 616 F.2d 734, 739 n.1 (5th Cir. 1980)).

Read charitably, the employees’ notice of appeal evinces an intent to appeal 

not only the district court’s summary judgment decision, but also the earlier 

dismissal of their FLSA claims, which was part of their overall case. Because 

Case: 19-11269 Date Filed: 10/01/2019 Page: 5 of 14 
6

there is a “liberal allowance of appeals from orders not expressly designated in the 

notice of appeal,” id., we will proceed to consider the substance of the employees’ 

appeal of the dismissal.

B

This Court reviews a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss de novo. 

Bishop v. Ross Earle & Bonan, P.A., 817 F.3d 1268, 1270 (11th Cir. 2016) (citing 

Miljkovic v. Shafritz and Dinkin, P.A., 791 F.3d 1291, 1296–97 (11th Cir. 2015)). 

We “apply[] the same standard as the district court,” Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 

701, 705 (11th Cir. 2010), meaning that the allegations in the complaint are 

accepted as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, Bishop, 

817 F.3d at 1270 (citation omitted). “[A] complaint must ‘state a claim to relief 

that is plausible on its face,’ meaning it must contain ‘factual content that allows 

the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged’” to survive a motion to dismiss. Id. (quoting Ashcroft v. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 

(2007)). 

Regarding the dismissal of the FLSA claims against the County, the 

employees argue on appeal that “[t]he Eleventh Amendment does not protect a 

county employer from being subjected to FLSA suit in federal court.” Br. of 

Appellants at 12. But the employees are missing the point. The district court did 

Case: 19-11269 Date Filed: 10/01/2019 Page: 6 of 14 
7

not dismiss the employees’ FLSA claims because the County cannot be sued at all, 

but rather on the ground that the employees here are not in fact “employees” of the 

County within the meaning of FLSA. 

In Georgia, “counties delegate no power or authority to sheriffs”—they are 

“separate entit[ies] independent of the sheriff’s office.” Manders v. Lee, 338 F.3d 

1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2003). “Sheriffs alone hire and fire their deputies,” who are 

considered “employees of the sheriff and not the county.” Id. (citing O.C.G.A. 

§ 15-16-23 and collecting cases to support the proposition); see also Grech v. 

Clayton County, 335 F.3d 1326, 1347 (11th Cir. 2003) (stating that the county in 

that case “does not, and cannot, direct the Sheriff . . . how to hire, train, supervise, 

or discipline his deputies, what policies to adopt, or how to operate his office”). 

And as the County has explained, the employees here have not even disputed that 

the County is not their employer. The employees’ FLSA claims against the 

County were therefore properly dismissed. 

In their brief to us, the employees do not challenge either the dismissal of 

their claims against Sheriff Jackson on Eleventh Amendment grounds or the 

dismissal of their claims for declaratory and injunctive relief as barred by 

Georgia’s doctrine of sovereign immunity. Accordingly, we will not address those 

issues. See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 

2014) (citation omitted) (“When an appellant fails to challenge properly on appeal 

Case: 19-11269 Date Filed: 10/01/2019 Page: 7 of 14 
8

one of the grounds on which the district court based its judgment, he is deemed to 

have abandoned any challenge of that ground, and it follows that the judgment is 

due to be affirmed.”).

3

 

II

The employees next assert that the district court erred in granting summary 

judgment for the County on their breach of contract claim. They contend that the 

County breached its contracts with them by violating its own personnel policies—

specifically, that the County “act[ed] in violation of its own policy by taking the 

vacation time without compensation to the employee.” Br. of Appellants at 16. It 

did this, the employees argue, by rolling over accrued vacation and holiday pay 

into an employee’s sick leave time, which the employee cannot be compensated for 

when he or she ceases working for the County. 

The employees’ contract claims survived the defendants’ initial motion to 

dismiss because the district court concluded that the Georgia Constitution waives 

3 The employees’ arguments would fail on the merits even if they had clearly raised them. As to 

the claims against Sheriff Jackson, the Eleventh Amendment bars suits for money damages 

against states and state officials acting as an “arm of the State.” Manders, 338 F.3d at 1308. We 

agree with the district court that the four Manders factors—“(1) how state law defines the entity; 

(2) what degree of control the State maintains over the entity; (3) where the entity derives its 

funds; and (4) who is responsible for judgments against the entity”—weigh in favor of 

determining that Sheriff Jackson was an “arm of the State.” Id. at 1309 (citations omitted). And 

as to the employees’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, we agree with the district court 

that the employees did not establish that sovereign immunity had been waived as to these claims 

and, in any event, “the right to bring an action for injunctive relief under the Fair Labor 

Standards Act rests exclusively with the United States Secretary of Labor.” Powell v. Florida, 

132 F.3d 677, 678 (11th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted).

Case: 19-11269 Date Filed: 10/01/2019 Page: 8 of 14 
9

sovereign immunity for breach of contract actions, and because when liberally 

construed, the employees’ complaint—despite “contain[ing] deficiencies” and 

“fail[ing] to identify the precise provisions of the ‘contract’”—adequately stated a 

claim. Even so, the district court ultimately granted the defendants summary 

judgment because the employees did not show a genuine issue of material fact 

regarding whether the County had breached its own policies. 

Importantly, when considering the motion, the district court refused to 

consider three exhibits proffered by the employees in support of their cross-motion 

for summary judgment; those exhibits apparently would have included leave-time 

and pay records for three employees. The district court did so because it agreed 

with the County that the employees had not provided such information in 

discovery and had given no good reason for failing to provide it, thereby violating 

Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

The employees argue that they permitted “a complete inspection of the 

documents” and allowed the County “total unrestricted access to all time records[,] 

pay records, leave requests, or documents evincing accrual or usage of vacation 

time, sick leave or compensatory time.” Br. of Appellants at 18. The County 

responds that “[t]he record is clear that [the employees] neither provided the 

County with a copy or description and location of” any of those documents nor 

“offer[ed] any explanation for their belated disclosure.” Br. of Appellees at 21–22. 

Case: 19-11269 Date Filed: 10/01/2019 Page: 9 of 14 
10

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) states that when a party “fails to 

provide information” in discovery as required by Rule 26, “the party is not allowed 

to use that information . . . to supply evidence on a motion . . . unless the failure 

was substantially justified or is harmless.” We review a district court’s imposition 

of sanctions under Rule 37 for an abuse of discretion and “a determination that the 

findings of the trial court are fully supported by the record.” OFS Fitel, LLC v. 

Epstein, Becker & Green, P.C., 549 F.3d 1344, 1360 (11th Cir. 2008) (citations 

omitted).

We affirm the district court’s decision not to consider the exhibits. The 

district court found that the employees didn’t list these documents as part of their 

initial disclosures or supplement their disclosures thereafter. And, importantly, the 

district court found that the employees didn’t give any explanation for their failure 

to disclose. The district court did not abuse its discretion and its findings are fully 

supported by the record.

Regarding the substance of the breach of contract claim, we review the grant 

of summary judgment de novo, “applying the same legal standards used by the 

district court.” Seff v. Broward Cty., 691 F.3d 1221, 1222–23 (11th Cir. 2012) 

(quoting Krutzig v. Pulte Home Corp., 602 F.3d 1231, 1234 (11th Cir. 2010)). In 

other words, we will construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and affirm if “we find that no genuine issue of material fact exists 

Case: 19-11269 Date Filed: 10/01/2019 Page: 10 of 14 
11

and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Alvarez v. Royal 

Atl. Developers, 610 F.3d 1253, 1263–64 (11th Cir. 2010) (citing Jones v. 

Dillard’s, Inc., 331 F.3d 1259, 1262–63 (11th Cir. 2003)). 

We affirm the district court’s holding that the employees “failed to carry 

their burden” of demonstrating a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether 

the County has breached any contract. As the district court pointed out, the 

employees “either misunderstand or are dissatisfied with the County’s policies,” 

since they “admit[ted] that the County has not violated any of its policies, 

procedures, or SOPs.” In short, we agree with Fulton County—and the district 

court—that the employees “have presented no evidence of a breach” and therefore 

cannot escape summary judgment. 

III

The third issue is whether the district court erred in granting the County’s 

motion for sanctions. During discovery, two employees—Nattaly Lundie and 

February Clark—failed to appear for their depositions. The district court ordered 

Lundie, Clark, and their counsel—Clifford Hardwick—to pay the fees related to 

the missed deposition and the resulting motion for sanctions. On appeal, Hardwick

argues that he “did everything he could to get the two deponents to appear” and 

Case: 19-11269 Date Filed: 10/01/2019 Page: 11 of 14 
12

that, although “sanctions were appropriate against [Clark and Lundie],” he “did not 

do anything that would justify him being sanctioned.” Br. of Appellants at 19–20. 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d)(1)(A)(i), a court may order 

sanctions if a party fails to appear for a deposition. Various types of sanctions are 

available—among them that the court may require that “the party failing to act, the 

attorney advising that party, or both to pay the reasonable expenses” for failing to 

appear, “unless the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make 

an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(3). Rule 30(d)(2) also states 

that a court may impose sanctions—including the payment of fees—“on a person 

who impedes, delays, or frustrates the fair examination of the deponent.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 30(d)(2).

As explained above, we review the district court’s imposition of sanctions 

for an abuse of discretion and a determination that its decision is “fully supported 

by the record.” OFS Fitel, 549 F.3d at 1360 (citations omitted). The district court 

did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions on employees Lundie and Clark, 

as well as their counsel, Hardwick. The district court properly considered that 

Lundie and Clark—although properly served—failed to appear at their deposition. 

Hardwick apparently did not confirm with Lundie and Clark that they were 

available before identifying them as employees who could be deposed, did not 

communicate with the County about his difficulties with his clients, did not attempt 

Case: 19-11269 Date Filed: 10/01/2019 Page: 12 of 14 
13

to dismiss Clark and Lundie’s claims, and did not provide other employees that 

could be deposed. We agree with the district court that the employees “have not 

tried to show that their conduct was substantially justified or that other 

circumstances make an award of expenses unjust,” and that the employees’ counsel 

“merely seeks to avoid his own liability.”4

 

IV

The final issue is whether the district court erred in denying the employees’ 

motion to certify a class. The employees initially sought class certification under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The district court denied the motion, deciding 

that a FLSA collective action (under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b)) would be the more 

appropriate vehicle to join the employees together since, at the time, the 

employees’ FLSA claims were still alive. Then, in the November 8, 2017 decision, 

the district court dismissed without prejudice the employees’ motion to proceed via 

collective action under FLSA, since the FLSA claims had been dismissed. The 

district court also decided that class certification under Rule 23 was premature at 

4 The employees’ brief does not appear to challenge the district court’s denial of their crossmotion for sanctions against the County, so we do not reach the issue. See Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 

680 (noting that issues not properly challenged are deemed abandoned). 

Case: 19-11269 Date Filed: 10/01/2019 Page: 13 of 14 
14

that time because no defendant had yet filed an answer, as required by Local Rule 

23.1. 

The employees argue on appeal that if we were to reverse the district court 

and remand, “the Appellants’ Motion for Class Certification should be granted 

under either statute [i.e., Rule 23 or FLSA] depending on this Court’s ruling.” 

Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the employees’ FLSA claims, as 

well as the summary judgment decision against their breach of contract claim, we 

do not address their prior motions for class certification. 

* * *

We conclude that the district court did not err in (1) dismissing the

employees’ FLSA claims, (2) granting summary judgment on the employees’ 

remaining breach of contract claim, (3) imposing sanctions on employees Lundie 

and Clark and their counsel, or (4) denying class certification. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-11269 Date Filed: 10/01/2019 Page: 14 of 14