## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 2744 L I S A H I CKS, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. A V ERY D RE I, LLC an d C HANCE F EL LI NG, D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Indian apolisDiv isi on. No . 1:07- cv-01215-JM S -D ML

—Jan e E . M agnu s- Sti ns on, Judg e.
A RGUED M AY 13, 2011

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 17, 2011

Befo re C UDAH Y, F LA UM, an d K ANN E , C ircu it Judges . K ANN E , Cir cu i tJudg e . L i sa H i cks w or ked f orChance Fe llin g a n d h is h ot el m an ag em en t c o m p an y, A ve ry D re i, LLC, a s a se cur i tyg ua r d a nd the n a s a des kc l er kdur i ng th e co ns truct i o n a nd o per at i o n o fa new ho te li n the I nd i anapol i s a re a. A fterbeing te rm i n ate d fr om herj ob as a des kc l er k, Hi ck s su ed F el l i nga nd Ave r y Dr ei( th e “De fen dan ts ”) s ee k i ngunpa i d wag es , o ve r ti m e pay, a nd accr ued vacat i on pay. The di st ri ct c ourtgr anted the De-2 N o. 10

- 2744 fendants’ m oti on f orj ud gm en t a s a m att ero fl aw o n H ick s’s vacat i on pay cl ai m and a por ti on o fthei r si m i l ar mot i o n o n he r o ver ti m e pa y c l a i m. T he j ur y r e t urne d a ver dicti n the Defe nd ants’ f avo r on the r em ai ni ng por ti on o fhe r o ve r ti m e wag es c l ai m . Hi ck s appe al s, c ha l l en ging both the di str i ct c ourt ’ s deni alo fherpre tr i alm oti on t o preve nt the Defendants’ intr oducti on o fbel ate d evi dence of c as h p a y m en ts an d its int er p re ta tio n s o f th e la w in g r a n t i n gth e j u d g me n t s a s a ma t t e r o fl a w. We a ffi r m.

I. B ACK GR OUN D H icks began w o rking for Fell ing as a secu rity gu ard at the s i te ofa hote lco nstr uc tio n p ro j ect i n J uly20 06. Sh e w as an h ou rly em p loy ee , an d Fe llin g re gu lar ly p aid h er in c as h for h er se rv ice s. O n c e t h e h o t e l op en ed in Oct ober 2006 , Hi ck s tr an si ti o ne d t o wor k i nga s a fr o nt d esk clerk. Fell ing w as t h e o w ne r and m an ager of A very Dr ei, the c o m pan y tha t o per at ed the ho te l, s o he c o nt i n u e d t o s e r ve as Hi c k s ’ s e mpl o y e r a th e r n e w j o b

. As a deskcl er k, she re cei ve d h er h ourly wages by check i ns t e a d o fc a s h

. T h e p a r t i e s d i s a g r e e , h o we v e r, abo ut her ove rt i m e pay at that j ob. H icks al l ege s s he was neverpai d fo r ove rt i m e workatei therherhour l y r ate o r at an o ver tim e r ate
. Fe l l i ng al l ege s that he gave H i cks ca shpaym en ts f o r o ve r ti m e ea r ni ng s, e ve n tho ug h h e nei the r r e qu e s t e d n o r a utho r i z e d h e r t o wo r ko v e r t i m e. Forr eas ons i m m ate ri alto this appeal, the Defe nd ants ter m i nated H icks’ s e m plo ym ent in A pri l20 07, after les s t h an a ye ar of w or k w ith th e h ot el. I n S ept embe r 2 00 7, Hi ck s su ed th e Defen dan ts i n a p ro p os ed cla ss ac tio n to rec o v e r co m p en sa tio n alleg ed lyN o. 10

- 2744 3 owed f orthe w or k s he and s im i l ar l y s i tuate d em plo yee s perf or m ed at the ho tel

. A fterherf or m erco w or kerwas di s mi s s e d fr o m t he s ui ta nd h e r c o un s e lab a nd o ne d at te m pts t o c er ti fy a c l as s ( despi te t wi ce r eque st i nga nd re cei vi ng ext ensi ons ofti m e t o fi l e m oti ons f orcl ass c er tific at ion ) , H ick s p ro c ee d ed in t h e c as e a s t h e s ole pla i nti ffse eking three f or m s o fco m pensati on. In Count I she c l ai m ed the Defe nd ants owed h ero ver ti m e wages pu r s ua ntto th e Fa i r Lab o r S t a nd a r ds Ac t( F LS A) , 2 9 U. S
. C. § 201 et seq
. In Count I Ishe soughtpaym ent o fea rned but unpaid hour l y wage s p ursuant to I nd i ana’ s W age Paym ent S tatute, Ind i ana Code § 22- 2- 5- 1 e t seq
. Final l y, i n Co un tI I Is he s o ughtp a y men to fa c c r ue d v a c ati on pa y u nd e r Ind i a na ’ s Wag e Cl a i ms S t a t ut e , Ind i a na Co de § 2 2

- 2

- 9

- 1 et seq
. The cas e fest er ed f orthr ee yea rs , with l i ttl e acti vi ty on the docket unti l February20 10 , when the c ase was setf ortr i ali n J une 201 0. A l so i n Feb ruar y 2 010, H i cks senta l ett erto Defendants’ counsel re questi ng the m to supplem ent r esponse s t o di sc o ve r y r eque st s o r i g i na l l y a nsw ered i n 2 00 8. The Defe nd ants f ai led t o supp l em ent thei r re sponses i n accord an c e w ith H icks’s requ est in a tim ely m an ne r, l ea d in g the di str i ct c ourtto gr ant Hick s’ s m oti on t o com pel i n M ay 2010
. The Defend an ts then s up ple m ented thei r re sponses to the i nter ro gat or i es and requ es ts f or producti on sp ec ifi ed by H i cks. But theyal so i ncl ud ed an unsol i ci ted supple m entalr esp on se to H i cks’ s Inter ro gato r y Num be r 12
. Tha t i nt er r o g at o r y r eque st ed th atthe Defe nd ants i denti fy each inst ance and the am ount o fcas h pay m en ts made to Hi ck s dur i nghe r e m pl o y m en t, a nd the De fe nd a nt s h a d o r i g i na l l y r e s po nd e d in 2 0 0 8 with4 N o. 10

- 2744

se ve n ins ta nc es o fc as h paym en ts made i n Aug us t an d Se pt e mbe r 2 0 0 6 , wh e n Hi c k s wa s wo r k i nga s a s e c uri ty guar d. I n resp on ding to the m oti on t o com pel o n J une 1, 20 10 , th e D efe n d an ts ind ica te d th e y h a d m ad e s ix ad d iti onalcas h p ay m en ts to H i cks between Decem ber8, 2006 , and A pri l6, 20 07, wh en H i cks w as w or king as a desk c l er k. H i ck s p ro m ptly ( st i l lo n J une 1 , 2 01 0) move d i n l i m i ne to barthe i ntro du cti on o fany evi dence ofthe al l ege d addi ti o na lpa y m en ts dur i ngt r i al

. S he a r g ue d tha t th e tar dy dis cl osur e m andated excl usi on un der the Fe deral Rules o fCi vil P ro cedure because i t s eve re l y pr ej ud i ced he r c ase pr epa r at i o ns . The di st r i ctc o ur t was no t co nv in c ed by h er co u n se l’s a ss er tio n th at ind u lgin g t h is d isclosure

— a “m ere tw enty days” bef or e t ri al

— am ounted to “tr i albyam bush. ” Afte r disc ussi ng H i cks’ s m oti on to excl ud e in i ts fi nalpre - tr i alco nfe re nce o n J une 17, 20 10 , th e d ist ric t c ou rtru led th at th e D efe n d an ts co u ld in tr od u c e e vid en c e o f th e p ay m en ts d u rin g t ria l. Tri alco m m enced on J une 21, 20 10. W hen H i cks re ste d h er c ase the f ol l owing day, the Defe nd ants m ove d fo r d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t s i n th e i r f a v o r o n H i c k s ’ s F L S A o v e r t i me an d I nd iana W ag e Cl ai m s va ca ti o n pa y c l ai m s. The d istri ct cou rt grante d th e m otion in pa rt, hav ing d eterm i ned that the e vi dence pres ented byH i cks coul d not, as a m atter of l aw , sup p ort a j ury ve rd ict i n h er favor. On the sa m e day, the j ury re turned a ver dictagainst H ick s o n th e r e m ain d er of h er ov er tim e w ag es cla im ( the o nly c l a i m r e mai ningi n the t r i a l ) , a nd the di str i ct cour t s ubsequentl y e nter ed j ud gm ent o n that ver dict

.N o. 10

- 2744 5 H i cks ti m el y fi l ed a notice o fappealand then m ove d f o r a wa i v e r o ft r a ns c r i pt i o n fe e s . T he De fe ndan t s o ppo se d the moti o n, a r g ui ngtha t sh e di d no t ful fi l lthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s r equest that sh e pr offerr eas ons w hy her is su es o n appe al wer e no t fr i vo l o us . The di st r i ctcou rt r eque st ed addi ti o na lbriefi ngfr o m Hi ck s r eg ar di ngthe necess i ty ofa t ra n scri pt to appealthe dir ecte d ver dicto n part ofherFLSA cl ai m , but i t deni ed the m oti on a s t o any por ti ons oft h e tr anscr i pt r el ating to hervac ati on payc l ai m , a s i t found tha t cl ai m t o b e fr i vo l o us a nd w i thout any e vi denti ar y foundati on. H i cks m ove d fo r r ec o ns i der at i o n o fthe c o ur t’ s va ca ti o n pa y de ci si o n and su bmi tt ed inf o r m at i o n r eg ar di nghe r F LS A appe al

. The d ist ric t c ou rtw aiv ed th e t ra n sc rip tio n fee for t h e te st im ony rel evan t to her FL SA clai m , bu t d en ied H icks’s m ot ion for re c on s i d er at ion, no tin g t h at H ick s “ h er se lf tes ti fi ed at tr i althatshe w as not enti tl ed to vac ati on p a y . ” H i c k s t he n pr o c u r e d o n l y a p a r t i a lt r a n s c r i p t( c o mpri si ng onl y thos e port i ons f or w hi ch the t ra nscri pti on fee w as w ai ved) , and she subm itt ed o nl y a por ti on o f th at p ar tia l tra n sc rip t t o th is c ou rtin su p p or t of h er ap p ea l.

II. A NA LYSIS H i ck s pr esent s th r ee i ss ue s o n a ppea l

. F i r st, s he c o ntends thatthe dist ri ct c ourter re d by d en yin g her m oti on to e xc l ude e vi den ce o fa ddi ti o na lc ash pa y m en ts the De fe nd a nt s a l l e g e dl y ma de t o h e r . S e c o nd , s he c o nt e nd s that the dist ri ct cour t er re d in gr anti ng a dir ecte d ve rdi ct i n the D efend ants’ f avo r on par t o fherFLSA cl ai m f or tw o re aso ns: the dist ri ct c ourter re d i n i ts enter pri se6 N o. 10

- 2744

c ov er ag e d et er m in at ion, a n d th er e w as su fficie n t e vid en c e fora j ury to fi nd thatthe Defe nd ants w er e wit h in th e F L S A’ s c o v e r a g e . T h i r d , s h e c o n t e n d s th a tthe d ist ric t c ou rterr ed in g ra n tin g a d i re c te d ve rd ict in th e D efe n d an ts ’ fav or on h er va c at ion p ay cla im b e c a us e the r e wa s n o e v i de nc e tha tDe fe nd a nt s h a d a p u b lish ed p olic y d ep ar tin g fro m th e s ta te ’s d efa u lt ru le of p ro -ra ta va c at ion ac c ru al.

A
. Vacation P ay C laim W e dealwith Hick s’ s v acat i on pay iss u e fi rs t be cause i t i s fr i volous. H i ck s te st i fi ed att r i altha t sh e an d F el l i ng ag re ed th at sh e w ou ld n otea r n v a c at ion tim e u n til after ha ving w orked for over a year. T he d is t r ic t cou rt enter ed a di re cted ve rdi ct o n this cl ai m bec ause ofthat te st im on y: T h er e is n o d isp u te in [H ick s’s ] m in d th at th i s is n ota c irc u m st an c e w h er e s h e w as ea rn in g a little b i t a m onth. She had t o be ther e a yea r to geta w ee k. Sh e w as te rm in at ed be for e t h a t ye ar . . . . [ T]he Defend ant i s e nti tl ed to j ud gm ent a s a m at te r of law w ith res p ec t t o th e v ac at ion cla im because o fthe agr eem ent with re spect to vacat i on p ay that the undis puted evi dence es tabl i shes i n thi s ca se. ( Di r e c t e d V e r d i c tT r . a t1 6

- 1 7
. ) We r e v i e w d en ovo the d is t r i c t c ou rt ’s g ra n t o f j u d gm en t a s a m at te r of law in th e D e fe n d a n t s ’ s f a v o r o n H i c k s ’ s v a c a t i o n p a y c l a i m. M ar cu s & M i l lichap Inv. Se r vs . of Chi cago, Inc . v. Sekul ovs ki, 639 F.3d 301, 311 (7th Cir. 2011).N o. 10

- 2744 7 On a ppea l, Hi ck s r en ews the a r g um en t sh e m ade i n a m otion t o rec onsi der b el ow: i n the abse nce o fa pu blish ed p oli cy to th e c o n trary, cove red w orkers in Ind iana earn vacat i on t i m e pr o ra ta. S he ci tes D ie & M o ld, Inc . v. Western , 448 N .E .2d 44 ( I nd

. Ct. A pp . 19 83) , in supp or t o fthat propos i ti on, b ut the case does notsupport her ar gum ent. D ie& M oldd id h old th at be c au se “v ac at ion p ay is ad d iti onalwages, earn ed w eek l y, wh er e o nl y the ti m e o f p ay m en t is d e f er re d , i t n ec es sa rily fo llow s t h at, ab s e nt an agre e m e ntt o thec ontra ry , the em plo yee would be enti tl ed to a pro ra ta shar e o fi t t o the t i m e o fte rm i nation. ” Id. a t 48 ( emphas i s adde d)

. Butunl i k e i n D i e & M old, s e e i d. a t 46, the unequivo calev i dence i n ourcas e showed thatH i cks and the Defenda n ts h ad “an a gr eem ent t o the c ontr ar y” w here ea ch und er sto od thatH i cks was no t ea r ni ngv ac at i o n com pen sa ti o n thr o ug ho ut her em plo ym ent. “In other w or ds, she neverr endered the s er vi ces necess ar y t o have her in te re st i n vaca ti on pa y v est
. ” Wi l l i am s v. Ri ve rs i deCm ty. Cor r . Corp. , 84 6 N
. E
. 2d 738, 748 (I nd

. Ct
. A p p . 2006). H i ck s ne i th era ddr esses thi s f o unda ti o n fo r the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s r eas oni n g n or expl ai ns the co ntra dict i on b et w ee n h er t e s tim on y a n d h er p os itio n on ap p ea l. A lth o u g h s h e a r g u e s th a t th e De fe n d a n t s i n t r o d u c e d no ev i den ce tha t th eyha d a “ p ub li sh ed po l i cy ” st at i ng that em plo yee s would notea rn v acat i on tim e pr o- ra ta t h ro u gh th eir firstye ar of em p loy m en t, D ie& M old does not re quir e that a l lag re em ents be wri tte n orm em or ializ ed in p rin te d p u b l i c at ion s. H ick s’s arg u m en t is m eritl ess, an d w e fi nd no error in th e d istr ic t cou rt’s8 N o. 10

- 2744 d eterm ination th at “th ere i s absolut ely no eviden tiary f o u n d a t i o n ” f o r h e r c l a i m.

B
. Adm is si on of Ev idenc e R egarding Cash P aym ents W e next add re ss H ick s’ s co ntenti on that the di str i ct cour t e rr oneo usl y deni ed herm oti on in l i m i ne to pre vent the Defend an ts fro m i ntro du ci ng newlydi scl ose d evi dence ofaddit i onalcas h paym ents. S he al l ege s that thi s e rr orenti tl es her to a new t ria l w i thout the a dm i ss i o n o fth a te v i d e n c e . As s h e d i d i n h e r mo ti o n b e l o w, H icks argue s tha t she prep ared her c a s e o n th e the ory that sh e’ d been pai d onl y b y c heck w hi l e work i ng as a desk cl er k and that the Defe nd ants’ bel ate d s u pp l em entalr esponse al l ud i ng to ev i dence ofcas h paym ents dur i ngtha t ti m e was s o pr ej udi ci al a s to war r an t excl usi on o fthatev i dence. S he m ake s the unsu p p or ted al l ega ti on that th e Defendants’ supplem entalr esponse showing add i ti onalpaym ents w as “a bas el ess f abr i catio n c on c oc te d b y [th e D efe n d an ts ] to c on fu se th is c ou rt .” (R ep ly B r. at8.) W e w oul d or dinar i l y r evi ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deni al ofH i cks’ s e vi denti ar y m oti on in li m i ne f oran abuse o f di sc r et i o n, a s “de ci si o ns r eg ar di ngthe a dm issi on a nd e x c l u s i o n o fe v i d e n c e ar e p e c u l i a r l y w i th i n th e c o mpetence ofthe dist ri ct c ourt
. ” A ld ri dge v. Fore stRiver, Inc. , 635 F.3 d 8 7 0 , 8 74 (7th C ir. 2011) ( q uot i ng Von de rRuhrv. Im m te ch Int’l, Inc. , 5 70 F
. 3d 85 8, 8 62 ( 7th C ir. 2 00 9) )
. But our re vi ew i s s i gni fi cantl y ham pered bythe abs ence of any r eco rd o fthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s r eas oni ng be l ow. H i cks r e qu e s t e d t r a ns c r i pt s fr o m t he t r i a l, b uts he di d n otN o. 10

- 2744 9

N o r d i d H ick s ind icate th at tra nscr ip tion w as u na v ailab le 1 du e t o t h e absence ofan aud io r ecording or m achine

- aided sh o rt h a n d re co rd o f th e h ea ri n g . S ee F ed . R . A p p . P . 10 (c). r e qu e s tt r a n s c r i p t i o n o f( o r e v e n w a i v e r o fth e t r a n s c r i pti on fee f or ) the or al ar gum ents or bench rul i ng on her m ot ion in li m i n e . H er failu re to ab id e b y F ed er al R u le 1 o fA ppel l at e Pr o ce dur e 10 l ea ve s us wi th o uta mean i ngful basi s o fr evi ew and re sul ts i n a for feiture o fher ar gu m en t. See Fe d . R. A p p . P. 10 (b )(2) ; Le ar ni ng Cur ve Toys, Inc. v. P layWood To y s, Inc. , 34 2 F
. 3d 714, 73 1 n. 10 ( 7th Cir
. 2003 )
. Further, H i cks’ s bri ef does n ot descr ibe

— l et al one add re ss orr efute

— any o fthe dist ri ct court’s r ea so ns f o r de ny i nghe r mot i o n t o e xc l ude , a nd sh e c ite s o n l y on e in ap p os ite ca se in s u p p or t o f h er p os iti on. See Fe d . R. A p p . P. 28 (a)( 9); Sm i t h v
. Ne . Il l
. U ni v. , 38 8 F .3d 55 9, 56 9 (7 t h C i r . 2 00 4). H er ev id en tia ry ch all e ng e i s the r e f o r e do ub l y f o r fe i t e d. W e cou ld re vie w h er for feit ed c on te n tio n fo r p lain er ro r, but w e rar el y a pp l y that doct rine i n ci vi lcas es, and our ass ess m ent s how s th at hers i s no t a cas e with excepti onalci rcum sta nces oro ne wh ere a m i scar ri age ofj ust i c e c o ul d o c c uri fwe de c l i ne t o e xe r c i s e o urdi s cre tio n an d ap p ly p lain err or rev iew
. See Ja cks o n v . P a rker, 627 F
. 3d 63 4, 6 40 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 0)
. Hi ck s as se r ts tha t sh e pr epa r ed he r e nt i r e ca se o n the a ss um pti o n that no cash pay m ents fro m herdesk cl er k t enure w oul d be d isc u ssed at tri al, that the D efend an ts viol ated discov ery rul e s b y wa i t i ngs o l o ng, a nd tha tfi nd i ngo utt wenty days be f or e t rialthatthe evi dence w oul d be pre sente d10 N o. 10

- 2744

The ap pell ees i nd ic ated th a t H ic ks’ s counsel had actual 2 know le dg e ofthe p u rp o rt ed cash paym ents at le astas earl y as M ay 20 , 20 10 , as the y wer e di s c us s ed dur i ng a s et t l em en t c onfer enc e befor e M agi s t ra t e J udge M c V i c ke r Lync h. Hic ks d id no t d en y this kn ow led g e. H e r c ou nsel in stead m ov ed to s t ri ke the c om m en t

— because the disc los ure of that in form at i on “c l ea rl y” vi ol at ed Loc al Al t er nat i ve Dis put e Res ol ut i on R u le 1.6

— and r eques t ed that w e im pos e s anc t i ons f or the v iola tion
. C ou nsel is inco rrect, as the lo ca l r u les he a ttem p ts to i nvo ke “cl earl y” st ate: “ S ett le m ent conferenc es condu ct ed by the J udges an d M agi s t ra t e J udges ofthe Cour tar e not gov er n ed b y thes e Ru le s. ” S. D
. Ind. Local A. D
. R
. Ru le 1. 1. R egard le ss, the im portant pointi s thatcounsell ikel y had know le dg e of the D efendan ts ’ i ntentto prov e the add it ional p ay m en ts at least a m on th in ad v an ce of trial. l eft herwitho ut ti m e to prepar e hercas e. Yet H i cks 2 does not expla i n w hy i t was an abuse o fdi scr et i on t o admi t th e ev i den ce ; rathe r, s he pr o vi des o nl y a c o ncl usor y s tat em ent that the “t ar dy d isc los ure ofthi s v i tal i nfo rm ation se ver el y pr ej ud i ced Em plo yee ’ s abi l i ty to p r o s e c u t e th i s a c t i o n a s th e c i r c u ms t a n c e s a mp l y d e mo ns tr at e. ” ( Appel l an t’ s Br
. a t 8. ) W e ca nno t ag r ee . The al l ege d paym ents w oul d have be en m ade to H i cks, so sh e woul d ha ve ha d kno wl edg e o fthe m o r o fthe i r no nexi ste nce. S he m i ght ha ve been surpri sed byev i dence th er eof, but w e per cei ve no r eas on wh y r efutati on of tha t ev i den ce woul d ha ve r equi r ed ex tr ao r di nary p re p ar at ion t h at co u ld n oth av e b ee n ac c om p lish ed in a “ m er e” tw en ty d ay s . P er h ap s s h e b elie ve d th e e vidence w as prej ud i ci alsi m plybec ause it und er m i ned he r case. Ind eed , her r e qu est for a ne w tri al w he reN o. 10

- 2744 11 that evi dence w oul d be excl ud ed str ongl y s ugges ts her u n d er l yi ng o bj ecti on: i f“t ri albyam bush” was heractual concern, the ad d iti onalpre parat i on t i m e a ff or ded bya re m and for re tr i al w oul d c er tainl y cure an y prej ud i ce ar i si ng fro m the ti m i ng of the disc l osur e. H err equeste d re m edy co nvi nces us thatthe al l ege d prej ud i ce a ri ses fro m the e vi dence’ s power t o persuade a nd notthe ti m i ng o f its disclosu re. Th at is n o t a ki nd of “p rej ud ice” tha t w arra n ts ex c lu sio n . SeeCo bigev. C ity of Chicago , Ill
. ,

___F. 3d

___,

___, 2 01 1 W L 2708756, at* 4 ( 7th Ci r. J uly12 , 20 11) (“T h is kin d o fe ffec t is n ot‘p rej u d ice ’ atall

— not unle ss w e co unt as ‘ prej ud i ce’ al lev i dence that underm i nes th e othe r si d e’s cont en tions .
. . . ”). W e a lso cannot co ncl ud e that a m i scar ri age o fj usti ce l i k e l y o c c ur r e d. We a c k no wl e dg e tha tthe De fe ndants did notti m el y s up ple m en t thei r disc ove ryr esponse s and even had t o be c om p elle d by the di str i ct c ourtto re sp on d

. See Fed. R. Ci v. P. 26 ( e)(1)
. H i cks re peated ly

—b u t s e l ec tiv ely

— quotes l anguage fro m Fe deral Rule ofCi vi lPro cedure 37( c) to a rg ue thatbel ate d discl osu re p r e v en ts ad m iss ion of an y e vid en c e o f th e a d d it i o na lc a s h pa y men t s : “ a p a r t y tha t‘
. . . f a i l s t o p r o v i de in f or m ati on . . . as r equi re d by Rul e 2 6( a) o r ( e)
. . . i s no t al l owed to use that i nfo rm ati on . . . to supply evi dence on a m oti on, at a hear i ng, or at a tr i al

. . . . ’ Ru le 3 7(c )(1) (em p h as is a d d ed ).” (A p p ella n t’s B r. at1 0 ; R e p ly B r. at8.) He r i n c o mpl e t e qu o t a t i o n i s mi s l e a d i n g . In a s a l i e nt se g m en t H i ck s o m i ts , the R ule g o es o n t o qua l i fy the p ro sc rip tio n on u se :

. . . un less the failu re w as substa nti al l y j usti fi ed or i s har m l ess . In ad dit i on t o or i nst ead of thi s s anc-12 N o. 10

- 2744 ti on, the c ourt, o n m oti on a nd aftergi vi ng an o ppo r tu ni tyt o b e he ar d: ( A) m ayo r derpa ym en t of the reason able exp en ses, inc lud ing attorn ey’s fee s, ca us ed by th e f ai l ur e; ( B) m ay i nf o r m the j ury ofthe party ’ s f ai l ure;and (C ) m ay i m pose o th era ppr o pr i ate sa nc ti o ns , i nc l udi nga ny o fthe ord ers li sted i n R ule 37(b)(2)( A )( i) -( vi). Fed. R. Civ. P. 37( c) ( 1) ( em phases add ed). The d ist ric t cour t r esponded app ro pri ate l y t o the Defendants’ del ay by ord ering the De fend an ts to p ay a p ortion of H ic k s ’s a t t o r n ey ’s fe es an d by info rm in g t h e jur y of t h e a lleg ed ly l at e di sc l o su r e an d the i r a ns wer i ngque st i o ns abo utthe c irc u m st an c es . See Fed. R. Civ . P . 3 7( c) ( 1)
. I t co uld have ex cl ude d the a ddi ti o na lc as h pa y m en t ev i den ce , b ut H i cks offer s no co nvi nci ng r ea son w hy the al ternati ve san ctions chos en by the district c o u r t w ere not su ffi ci ent r em edi es

— let alo n e a ny i nd ication th at a m iscarr i a g e o fj us t i c e r e s ul t e d. W e d isce rn ne i therextr aor dinar y c i rcum sta nces nor a r i sk ofm i scar ri ed j u st ice in thi s ca se, so we choos e no t to cond u c t a fullpl ai n er ro r re vi ew o fthi s for fei ted i ss ue . Nordo we fi nd a ny ma nifes t i ndi ca ti o n tha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t ab us ed i ts di sc r et i o n b y a dm i tt i ng the evi dence w hi l e s an c tio ni ng the Defendants’ del ay. A ccor dingl y, w e affi rm i ts denia l ofH i cks’ s m oti on in l i m i ne.
C. Ent e rpr i s eCove r ageun de rtheFL SA H ick s a lso co n te n d s t h at th e d ist ric t c ou rterr ed in g r an tinga di r ec te d v er di cti n the De fen dan ts ’ f av o r o n aN o. 10

- 2744 13 port i on o fherFLSA cl aim b ase d on i ts deter m i nati on th a t h e r e mpl o y e r a t th e t i me d i d n o t f a l l wi th i n t he F LS A’s c o ve r age . S he fi r sta r g ue s th atF el l i ngwas b o und by the F LS A a s a ma t t e r o fl a w b e c a us e h e c o nt ro l l ed a n e nt e r pr i s e o fb us i ne s s e s wi th a c o mm o n b us i ness pur po se . S he the n a r g ues, i n the a l te r na ti ve , tha t th e j u ry sh ou ld h av e d ec id ed w h et h er F e l l i n g w as w ith in the F LSA ’ s c ove ra ge base d on hi s t est i m ony at tr i al about hi s an n u al re venues i n one ofhi s co m panie s, F e l l i n gHo t e l s , L L C
. We r e v i e w deno vo th e d istri ct cou rt’s gran t of j ud gm e n t a s a m atter of l aw on H icks’s FLSA c laim in t h e D efe n d an ts ’s fa vo r. M ar cu s & M illicha p , 639 F. 3d at 311. U n d er t he FLSA, an e m plo yerm ust pay i ts em plo yee ove rt i m e wages ( 150% o fthe em plo yee ’ s ho url y wage) f orea ch h ou r w or ked i n exces s o ff or ty hours a week. 29 U
. S. C
. § 2 0 7 (a)(1). For H icks to prev ailon he r FLSA cl ai m f oro ver ti m e wages, she m ust fi rs t dem onst ra te th at sh e or her “E m p loyer”

— a co nc epts he d efi ne s as the com bi nati on o fFe l l i ng and A ver y Dre i

— f al l s wi th i n the Act so a s to t r i g g eri ts s ubs ta nt i ve pr o vi si o ns . Dur i ng or alar gum ents on the Defendants’ m oti on fo r a di re cted ver dicto n thi s c ou nt, the dist ri ct c ourtco ncl ud ed that H ick s w ou ld h av e b e e n en ga ge d in c om m er c e w h ile w or kin g as a d es k cler k at th e ho te l an d th a t s h e c o u ld ther ef or e seeko ver ti m e wages und erthe FLSA f or th atpe r i o d. Acco r di ng l y, the di st r i ctc o ur t den i ed th e D efe n d an ts ’ d ire c te d ve rd ict m ot ion to th at ex te n t, all o win gth e j u r y t o c o n s i d e r h e r c l a i m. W hi l e th e ho te lwas b eingc o ns truct ed i n 2 00 6 an d H i cks w as w or ki ng as a secur i ty guar d, how eve r, H i cks14 N o. 10

- 2744

was a r g uabl y no t en g ag ed in i nt er st at e co m m er ce . To pla ce he rs el fwithi n the FLSA ’ s pro tect i on during that peri od, H i cks argu es that the Defendants were part of “a n e nt er pr i se e ng ag ed i n c o m m er ce ” be ca us e F el l i ng o per at ed se ve r alb us i ne ss es . 2 9 U. S
. C. § 2 07 ( a) ( 1)
. The FLSA defi nes a n ente rpri se as “th e re l ate d acti vi ti es perf or m ed ( ei therthr ough uni fi ed oper ati on o r com m on c on tr ol) b y a n y p er so n or p er so n s fo r a c o m m on bu siness pu rpos e, and i ncl ud es al ls u ch act i vi ti es w hether per f o r m ed i n o ne o r m ore e st ab l i sh m en ts o r b y o ne orm or e co rporate o r othe r or gani zati onaluni ts. ” 2 9 U
. S. C. § 2 0 3 ( r ) ( 1 )
. T hu s , t o f a l lwi thin e nt e r pr i s e c over ag e, Fe llin g’s bu sin es se s m u st “1 ) be en ga ge d in re l ate d acti vi ti es, 2) under unified o perat i on o r com m on c on trol, and 3) have a com m on business pu rpos e. ” Rei ch v. G ateway Pres s, Inc. , 13 F. 3d 685, 694 (7t h C ir . 1994). Furthe r, the e nt e r pr i s e mus th a v e a n “ a nn ua lg ro ss vol um e o fsa l es m ade orbusi n es s d on e [ of ] notl ess th an $500,000.” 29 U

. S. C
. § 203(b)(1) (A ). A ccor ding to H i cks, Fe l l i ng’ s v ar i ous b usi ness endeavors

— i ncl ud i ng Fel l i ng H ote l, LLC ( oper ating ent i ty f or tw o hote l s not in vo lved i n thi s s uit ) and Fe l l i ng Invest
m ents, LLC ( re ntalpro pertym anage m ent c om pany)

— m eetthes e e l em ents, as theywere und erFe ll i ng’ s co ntro l an d opera ti on a nd had com bi ned annual gr oss r eve nues i n exces s o f$5 00, 000. The di str i ct c ourtas sum ed that H i ck s d e mo n s t r a t e d th e c o mmo n c o n t r o lc r i t e r i o n, b ut i t quest i oned w hat co m m on business pu rpos e un i ted the e nd eavo rs i nto a s i ngl e F LSA ente rpri se. ( Dir ecte d Ve rd i ct Tr
. at9. ) H erco unselr esponded, “The co m m on b us i ne s s p ur po s e i s t o ma k e mo ne y a nd ho w the y doN o. 10

- 2744 15 that can be di ffer ent. ” ( Id. at 10
. ) The di st r i ctc o ur t, no ting that a pro fi t m oti ve al one i s no t a suffi ci ent com m on busi ness pu rpos e, f ound that th e busi nesse s di d not const i tute an enter pri se und er the FLSA
. A c c or dingl y, i t g r an te d a j udg m en t as a matt ero fl aw i n the De fen dant s’ f avo r as to H i cks’ s o ver ti m e cl ai m as i t r el ate d to h er tim e a s a se c u rit y g u ar d in 2 00 6. ( Id. at20 -22 .) H i ck s as k s u s to r ev i ew a nd r ev er se tha t j udg m en t, b ut sh e ta k es a n e nt ire l y di ffer en t ta cko n a ppea ltha n s he too k b el ow. She now a rg u es that Fel l i ng “use d the r eso u rc es of Fe llin g In v e st m en ts , L L C an d Fe llin g H ot el, LLC f o r the c o m m o n bu sine ss pur po se o fc o ns truct i ng the ho tel

. ” ( A pp el l ant’ s Br. at 1 2.) This theo rywas never prese nted, l et al one devel op ed , i n the dist ri ct c ourt
. B ecau se sh e ad van ces a com p letely d ifferent th eory bef or e us than she advanced be l ow, sh e has f or fei ted t h i s iss u e. Se eJac ks on , 627F.3d at64 0; cf. Li b e r l e s v. Cook C o u n ty, 7 0 9 F
. 2 d 1 1 2 2 , 1 1 2 7 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 8 3 ) ( “ I t i s a w el l

- set tl ed rul e that a party o pp osing a su m m ar y j ud gm ent m otion m ust info rm the tr i alj ud ge ofthe re aso ns, l ega lo r f actual, wh y s um m ar y j ud gm ent s houl d not be en te re d . I f it d oe s n otd o s o, an d lose s t h e m o t i on , i t ca nno t r ai se s uchr ea so ns o n a ppea l

. ”)
. The a r g um en t she di d m ake l acks m er i t; the dist ric t co urt w as cor re ct th a t a p r o fi t mo t i v e a l o n e d o e s n o t c o n s t i t u t e a “ c o mm on business pu rpos e” a s requi re d fo r enter pri se cover ag e in th e F L SA
. B renn a n v . Vetera n s C lea nin g S erv., Inc. , 48 2 F
. 2d 13 62 , 13 67 ( 5th Ci r . 19 73 ) ( “Mor e th ana c o mmon g o a lt o ma k e a p r o fi t, h o we v e r, mu s tb e s h o wn to sa tis fy t h e re q u ire m en t.” ); Wir tz v . C olum bian M ut. Lif e Ins . Co. , 380 F.2d 903 , 907 (6th C ir. 1967) (sam e).16 N o. 10

- 2744

At l ea s ts i xt ee n o fthe t wenty- t wo page s com pri s i ng the 3 di re c t ed ve rdi c tar gum en tt ra ns c ri pti nvol ve c ouns el s ar gum ent s an d the di s t ri c tc our t ’ s r ul i ng a nd r ea s oni ng o n the en terp rise c o v e r a g e issue. H ick s inclu d ed on ly o ne of tho se page s i n h er s epa ra t e appe ndi x, an d thatpage doe s no ts how the dist ri ctcourt’ s decis ion or rat ional e. H i cks deci ded notto pro vid e a co m ple te tr anscr i pt of the di str i ct c ourt ’ s r eas oni ng r ega rdi ng i ts enter pri se cove ra ge deci si on , s he change d her tacko n appeal so 3 that nei therthe dist ri ct c ourt n or the Defendants had an op p or tu ni tyt o r es po nd t o the the o r y no w es po us ed, a nd s he ne i the r a c k no wl e dg e d thi s f o r fe i t ur e no r m a de an y a tt em p t t o s h ow th e e lem en ts r e q u i re d for p lain er ro r re vi ew i n herbr i ef. A ccor dingl y, we decl i ne to re vie w th is a sp ec t o f h er co n te n tio n for p lain err or . See Jac ks on , 62 7 F
. 3d at 640. W e al so fi nd no m er i t i n he r fi na l ar g um ent rega r di ng FL SA coverage . H ick s argu es th at th e d istri ct cou rt shoul d have allo w ed the j ury to deci de w hether Fel l i ng H ote l s, LLC i nd ependentl y e ar ned m or e than $5 00 , 00 0 i n a nnua lr ev enue . S he do es no t ex pl ain the r el ev an ce o ftha t po te nt i alfind ing i n l i g hto fhe r de fi ni ng her “Em plo yer ” a s AveryDreiand Fe l ling ind i vi du al l y, butwe wi l la ss um e sh e i m pl i ci tly a r g ue s th at F el l i ng H ote ls an d A ver y Dre iar e bo th i nnkeepi ng ve ntures that shoul d com pri se an FLSA enter pri se. I t i s t rue that Fel l i ng’ s t est i m ony es tabl i shed that one ofhi s businesse s ( Fel l i ng H ote l s) co uld have h ad re venues ofo ver$5 00, 000 in20 05 . B u t t h e tra n sc rip t s h ow s t h at h e w as co m p let ely uncert ai n abo ut the val ues, and no o therte sti m ony orN o. 10

- 2744 17

ev i dence s ho wed the a m o unto fg r o ss r ev enue the e nt i t y e a r ne d. No r di d Hi c k s s e e k a ny b us i ne s s r eco r ds oro therdocum entat i on o fr ev enue duri ng di sco ver y. F e l l i ng ’ s t e s t i mon y, s t a nd i nga l o ne , wo ul d n o ts up po r t th e co nc l us i o n tha t F el l i ngHot el s m etthe r evenue thresho l d o ut l i ne d i n 2 9 U. S
. C. § 2 03 ( b) ( 1) ( A). S ee F ed. R. C iv. P . 50(a ); Zim m e r m an v. Chi cago Bd. of Tr ade, 36 0 F
. 3d 612, 62 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) (“[I]n o rderto r eve rs e a di str i ct cour t’s g ra n t o fj ud gm ent forthe defe nd ants as a m att er of law , th er e m u st be m o r e t h an a m er e s c in tilla of ev id en ce to su p p ort the p lai nt iffs’ case . ”). F u r th e r, th e u l t i mat e d e t e r mi n a t i o n w h e th e r th e e mplo yer is an ente rpri se subj ect to FLSA ’ s r equi re m ents is or d in ar ily th e c ou rt ’s p ro vin c e, n otth e jur y’s
. See Sa pp erstein v. Hager, 18 8 F .3d 85 2, 85 6 (7 th C ir. 19 99 ); R ei ch v. Bay, 23 F.3 d 11 0, 11 4 (5th C ir. 19 94 ); Brock v. Ham ad, 86 7 F.2 d 8 0 4 , 8 0 6 (4t h C ir. 19 89 ); B renn a n v . P la z a Sh o e Sto re, Inc. , 5 22 F
. 2d 84 3, 8 46 ( 8th Ci r . 1 975)
. In l i g htofthe m ea g ere vi den ce o fr eve nue ; Hi ck s’ s unde ve l o ped ar g umen ta s t o i t s s i g ni fi c a nc e ; h er d ec i s i o n no tt o i nc l ud e the t ra nscri pt ofthe cour t’s d ec i si on; and hernegl ect of th e di st r i ctc o ur t’ s r ea so ni ngi n h era p p ell at e ar g um ents, we cann ot concl ud e that the di str i ct c ourter re d i n gr anti ng the Defendants’ m oti on for a j ud gm ent o f l a w o n h e r F L S A o v e r t i me w a g e c l a i m.

III. C ON CLU SI ON F i ndi ngno e r r o r i n the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s r ul i ng s an d j ud gm ents, we A FFIRM .18 N o. 10

- 2744 C UDAH Y, Cir cu i tJudg e, co n c urring in p art an d conc urrin g i n the j ud gm ent. W i th r espectto the i ssue ofFair LaborS tandards Act ( FLSA ) co ve ra ge, Ibel i eve that th e r e i s s uffi c i e nt e v i de nc e t o a v o i d a j ud g men t f or th e de fe nd a nt s a s a ma t t e r o fl a w. S pe c i fi c a l l y, Ch ance Fe llin g’s te st im on y c on ta in s a n ad m i s s ion ag ain st h is i n t e r e s t, a s th e o wn e r o fF e l l i n gHo t e l s , th a tth e c o mp a n y c o u l d h a v e h a d r e v e n u e s e x c e e d i n g$ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0
. He was pr o babl y th e m o sta utho r i ta ti ve wi tn es s o n the su bj ec t o f th e c om p an y’s inc om e, an d th e fa c t t h at h is te st i m o ny was s o m ewha t equi vo ca ls ho ul d f al lb y the w ays i de w hen t h e ev i dence i s v i ew ed i n the l i ght m ost fav or ab le t o th e p lain tiff. Se eCoope rv . Car l A. Ne l s on & Co. , 2 11 F
. 3d 100 8, 1 01 7 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 0)
. Howev er, a s th e m aj o r i typo i nt s o ut, F el l i ngHote l s i s no t a na m ed defen dant, and ther e i s no expl an ati on how i ts potenti al l i ability under the F LSA i s co nnected to the l i abi l i ty of th e d efend an ts th at are na m ed i n th is suit. Itherefore j oi n the j ud gm ent o faffi rm ance.

8- 17- 11