[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-14319

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-24358-JLK

JOE GORDILS,

FRANCISCO RAMOS,

BEYMAR SABOGAL,

PEDRO P. SOSA,

and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(B),

RIDER MORALES, 

Plaintiffs – Appellants,

CHRISTIAN R. DIAZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

LAZARO PONTON, 

Plaintiff – Counter 

Defendant,

versus

OCEAN DRIVE LIMOUSINES, INC.,

OCEAN DRIVE LIMOUSINES, INC. SO. FLA.,

RICHARD BENNETTI,

MELISSA BENNETTI,

Defendants - Counter 

Claimants – Appellees.

Case: 15-14319 Date Filed: 11/21/2016 Page: 1 of 4 
2

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(November 21, 2016)

Before MARCUS and BLACK, Circuit Judges, and COHEN,

* District Judge.

PER CURIAM: 

Joe Gordils, Francisco Ramos, Beymar Sabogal, Rider Morales, and Pedro 

P. Sosa (Appellants) appeal two issues in their Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) 

case after a jury determined their employer, Ocean Drive Limousines, Inc. (Ocean 

Drive) had not violated minimum wage or overtime laws, but then went on to 

award damages for unpaid overtime. Appellants do not appeal the inconsistent 

verdict, but assert (1) the trial court abused its discretion in failing to give a 

requested jury instruction on cost reimbursement, and (2) the trial court erred in 

failing to award liquidated damages on the amount of their award for overtime 

wages. 

“We review only for an abuse of discretion a district court’s refusal to give a 

requested jury instruction.” Lamonica v. Safe Hurricane Shutters, Inc., 711 F.3d 

1299, 1309 (11th Cir. 2013) (quotations omitted). “In refusing to give a requested 

 

* Honorable Mark Howard Cohen, United States District Judge, for the Northern District 

of Georgia, sitting by designation. 

Case: 15-14319 Date Filed: 11/21/2016 Page: 2 of 4 
3

jury instruction, ‘[a]n abuse of discretion is committed only when (1) the requested 

instruction correctly stated the law, (2) the instruction dealt with an issue properly 

before the jury, and (3) the failure to give the instruction resulted in prejudicial 

harm to the requesting party.’” Id. (quotations omitted). The failure to give the 

cost reimbursement instruction did not result in prejudicial harm to Appellants. 

The jury heard argument that Appellants’ fuel and cleaning costs should be 

considered in calculating minimum wage and overtime owed during both opening 

and closing arguments, and Appellants testified regarding their fuel and cleaning 

costs. The jury was aware that Appellants’ calculation of minimum wage and 

overtime took into account the drivers paying their own fuel and cleaning costs. 

Thus, the failure to give a specific instruction on cost reimbursement did not result 

in prejudicial harm to Appellants. The district court did not abuse its discretion in 

failing to give the requested instruction.

We review a district court’s decision to award liquidated damages under the 

FLSA for an abuse of discretion. Rodriguez v. Farm Stores Grocery, Inc., 518 

F.3d 1259, 1272 (11th Cir. 2008). The district court did not abuse its discretion in 

refusing to award liquidated damages for two independent reasons. First, the jury 

found that Ocean Drive had not failed to pay the drivers minimum wages or 

overtime as “required by law.” This finding was never contested. There was thus 

Case: 15-14319 Date Filed: 11/21/2016 Page: 3 of 4 
4

no violation of the FLSA that necessitated the imposition of liquidated damages 

and the district court did not abuse its discretion in so finding.

Moreover, Melissa Bennetti testified that Ocean Drive had been audited by 

the Department of Labor, and no overtime violations were found. Only later did 

Ocean Drive discover that some overtime wages were owed the drivers, and they 

admitted certain amounts were owed. Ocean Drive met its burden of proving its 

entitlement to the safe harbor provision, as the omission giving rise to the action 

was made in good faith and Ocean Drive had reasonable grounds for believing it 

was not violating overtime laws. See id. at 1272-73; Joiner v. City of Macon, 814 

F.2d 1537, 1539 (11th Cir. 1987). 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 15-14319 Date Filed: 11/21/2016 Page: 4 of 4