1

ORDER

Before the Court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 34), filed November 3, 2022; and Plaintiff’s Objection (ECF No. 35), 

filed November 15, 2022. 

Plaintiff raises three main objections to the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation 

of the United States Magistrate Judge, arguing: (1) Plaintiff properly served Defendants H & K 

Steel Erectors Enterprises, LLC and Jason Soliz with process; 1(2) Plaintiff’s Affidavit was 

sufficient evidence for the entry of monetary judgments against Defendants;2and (3) the request 

for attorney’s fees and costs should no longer be held in abeyance.3

After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, the undersigned District Judge 

believes that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct as to the issue of 

whether Plaintiff properly served Defendants H & K Steel Erectors Enterprises, LLC and Jason 

Soliz with process, and they are accepted as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court. The Court 

does, however, find merit to Plaintiff’s remaining objections, which the Court addresses in turn. 

1 Obj. 3, ECF No. 35. 

2

Id. at 6. 

3

Id. at 9.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

 

LUIS ENRIQUE JUAREZ, §

 §

Plaintiff, §

 §

v. § Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00169-O-BP

 § 

H & K STEEL ERECTORS §

ENTERPRISES, LLC, et al., §

§ 

Defendants. §

Case 4:22-cv-00169-O Document 36 Filed 03/23/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID 194
2

Turning to the issue of whether Plaintiff’s Affidavit was sufficient evidence for the entry 

of monetary judgments against Defendant H & K Steel Building, the Magistrate Judge noted that 

Plaintiff is entitled to the full amount of liquidated damages but found that, at this time, such 

damages cannot be awarded as Plaintiff provided nothing to the Court, other than a table he created 

and his own affidavit to support his request. 4 The Magistrate Judge found that additional 

documentation, in the form of time sheets, pay stubs, work logs, etc., is needed to support an award 

of damages in this case.5

To support his Findings, the Magistrate Judge cited Quinonez v. Alpha Air Conditioning, 

Heating & Elec., LLC, No. 4:16-CV-01092-O, 2018 WL 11434598 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 26, 2018).

6

In Quinonez, there were nine Plaintiffs seeking actual and liquidated damages. Id. at *4–5. All the 

Plaintiffs provided sworn affidavits of what damages they were owed. Id. Only one of the Plaintiffs 

provided actual payment records to support their claim. Id. at *4. The undersigned District Judge

granted the Plaintiffs’ requests, even for those Plaintiffs who only provided affidavits. Id. at *5. 

The Court did not require further documentation beyond the Plaintiffs’ sworn statements. Another 

case cited in the Findings and Conclusions was Gibbs v. Parr Mgmt., LLC, No. 12–CV–474, 2013

WL 2355048 (N.D. Tex. May 29, 2013), where again the district court awarded liquidated damages 

based on only the sworn declarations of the plaintiff where the plaintiff provided evidence of her 

hourly rate and the number of hours she worked overtime. Id. at *1. In Bell v. Able Sec. & 

Investigations, Inc., No. 10–CV–1945, 2011 WL 2550846 (N.D. Tex. June 28, 2011), the plaintiff 

provided timekeeping records in support of her overtime claim, but the district court did not 

indicate that such evidence was required. Id. at *1–2. 

4 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation 10, ECF No. 34. 

5

Id. 

6

Id.

Case 4:22-cv-00169-O Document 36 Filed 03/23/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID 195
3

The Magistrate Judge also cited Jimenez v. Rockwood Dev., L.L.C., No. 3:17-CV-3174-C, 

2018 WL 11433003 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 19, 2018). The plaintiffs in Jimenez, like Plaintiff in this 

case, provided nothing other than their own affidavits to support their requests for damages. Id. at 

*4. The district court took issue with the fact the plaintiffs failed to provide time sheets, pay stubs, 

work logs, or any other evidence to provide proof as to their length of employment, hourly rate, or 

total hours worked. Id. Ultimately, the district court declined to award the plaintiffs their requested 

damages “absent further documentation.” Id. The district court concluded more information was 

necessary because the affidavits submitted lacked appropriate detail. Id. at 4. 

Accordingly, the question is whether Plaintiff’s affidavit is sufficient. It is if it is detailed 

enough to support his damages request. “[A]ffidavits submitted to support a claim for liquid or 

mathematically calculable damages ‘must be sufficiently detailed to establish necessary facts.’”

Quinonez., 2018 WL 11434598, at *2 (O’Connor, J.) (quoting United Artists Corp. v. Freeman, 

605 F.2d 854, 857 (5th Cir. 1979)). Looking at Plaintiff’s Affidavit, he provides (1) the time span 

of his employment; (2) the hours he worked each week; (3) his hourly salary; and (4) his statement 

that he was not paid overtime wages (1.5 times his regular rate of pay) for the overtime hours he 

worked each week.7 He provides a table detailing the breakdown of what unpaid wages he is owed

under the FLSA, which amounts to $11,466.00.

8 Comparing Plaintiff’s Affidavit to the affidavits 

of the plaintiffs in Quinonez, Plaintiff provides just as much information as was provided by the 

plaintiffs in that case. See Plaintiffs’ Affidavits, Quinonez v. Alpha Air Conditioning, Heating & 

Elec., LLC, No. 4:16-CV-01092-O (N.D. Tex. 2018), ECF Nos. 60-1, 60-3–11. As all but one of 

the plaintiffs in Quinonez filed solely an affidavit to support their claim for damages and the 

undersigned District Judge granted plaintiffs’ damages requests, the Court similarly finds 

7 Pl. Affidavit, ECF No. 31-1. 

8

Id.

Case 4:22-cv-00169-O Document 36 Filed 03/23/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID 196
4

Plaintiff’s request for damages should be granted in this case where Plaintiff’s Affidavit is equally

detailed. 

Accordingly, as the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Affidavit is sufficient evidence to support 

Plaintiff’s claim for damages, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claimed damages need not be held in 

abeyance. Plaintiff claims $11,466.00 in unpaid wages under the FLSA and a further $11,466.00 

in liquidated damages under the FLSA. Furthermore, Plaintiff claims $7,297.06 in attorney’s fees.

The Magistrate Judge recommended that the attorney’s fees also be held in abeyance but did not 

comment on the sufficiency of the affidavit of Plaintiff’s counsel. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s 

counsel’s affidavit is sufficient evidence to support Plaintiff’s claim of attorney’s fees, after 

considering the pertinent factors. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff should be awarded the

full amount of $30,229.06 plus any supplemental attorney’s fees incurred after the filing of 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment on August 4, 2022. Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide 

documentation of any further attorney’s fees on or before March 31, 2023. 

In conclusion, the Court accepts the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge in 

part. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 25) is 

DENIED without prejudice as to Defendants Jason Soliz and H & K Steel Erectors, LLC and 

GRANTED as to Defendant H & K Steel Building, LLC.

SO ORDERED on this 23rd day of March, 2023. 

Case 4:22-cv-00169-O Document 36 Filed 03/23/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID 197