IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-51124

Summary Calendar

ANDREW TIMM; JET LOGIC CONSULTANTS, INCORPORATED,

Plaintiffs-Appellees

v.

ADVANCED ENGINEERING SOLUTION, INCORPORATED; AKHIL 

SETH,

Defendants-Appellants

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:12-CV-227

Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiffs-Appellees, Andrew Timm (“Timm”) and Jet Logic Consultants, 

Inc. (“Jet Logic”) commenced this litigation by filing a complaint in a Texas 

state court against Defendants-Appellants, Advanced Engineering Solution, 

Inc. (“AES”) and Akhil Seth (“Seth”). Defendants-Appellants removed the case 

to federal court.

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 16, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-51124 Document: 00513007895 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/16/2015
No. 14-51124

After their original attorney withdrew from the case, DefendantsAppellants took virtually no action while Plaintiffs-Appellees advanced claims 

for an accounting, breach of an express agreement, fraud or misrepresentation, 

violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and Texas compensation 

laws, quantum meruit, conversion, constructive trust and breach of fiduciary 

duty, and retaliation prohibited by the FLSA. Plaintiffs-Appellants filed 

motions for summary judgment against AES and Seth, and eventually filed a 

motion for default judgment against AES. As of March 2014, neither Seth nor 

Advanced Engineering had filed a response.

On March 18, 2014, the magistrate judge before whom this matter was 

tried by consent issued an Opinion and Order tracing the history of this matter 

and analyzing the law and facts applicable, then denied Plaintiffs-Appellees’ 

motion for judgment against AES, and granted in part and denied in part their 

motion for summary judgment against Seth and their joint motion for 

summary judgment against AES. Eventually, pursuant to his Order of June 

2014, the magistrate judge issued an Amended Final Judgment of even date, 

awarding Jet Logic $19,800 and Timm $228,600, jointly and severally against

AES and Seth, and awarded $12,500 attorneys fees and costs of suit to Jet 

Logic against AES and Seth, plus interest of 0.08 percent per annum from the 

date of judgment until paid. The magistrate judge then ordered the case 

closed.

Defendants-Appellants sought reconsideration of the summary 

judgment in favor of Timm and Jet Logic, asking the court to reconsider its 

grant of joint summary judgment motions, and seeking permission to file an 

amended answer. The magistrate judge again explained in detail the facts, 

law, and reasoning for its rejection of Seth’s contentions regarding his alleged 

medical conditions, the objection to Plaintiffs-Appellees’ affidavit evidence, the 

2

 Case: 14-51124 Document: 00513007895 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/16/2015
No. 14-51124

grant of quantum meruit damages, the calculation of hours claimed to have 

been worked by Timm, and their claim for attorneys fees. The magistrate 

Judge concluded that there was no basis for reconsideration or for leave to file 

an amended answer, and he denied those motions. The Amended Final 

Judgment was then rendered accordingly.

On appeal, Defendants-Appellants renew arguments that they advanced 

before the magistrate judge regarding Timm’s affidavit, challenging the hours 

he claims to have worked and seeking to distinguish calculations for the fraud 

claim from the quantum meruit claim. They also reiterate the issue advanced 

before the magistrate judge regarding Timm’s summary judgment affidavit, 

insisting here as they had in the district court that Timm’s “rampant 

narratives” contain hearsay, are not based on personal knowledge, and are 

conclusionary.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and 

we conclude that the orders and judgments appealed from are imminently 

correct for the reasons patiently explained by the magistrate judge in his 

several rulings. For essentially those same reasons, such orders and 

judgments are, in all respects,

AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 14-51124 Document: 00513007895 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/16/2015