F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT May 9 , 2 006 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK

Honora ble J ohn F. Nang le, United States District Judge f or the Ea stern District of * Missouri, sit ting by

desig nation. [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HEEL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

________________________ N o. 05- 1123 3

________________________ D. C. Docket N o. 04-60095 -CV -JIC JOSEP H THORNE, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us ALL RESTORATION SERVICES, INC . et al ., Defen da nt s- App el le es .

________________________ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rn D istri ct

of F lorida

_________________________ (M ay 9 , 200 6) Before BIRC H a nd MARCU S, Circuit Judges, and NA NG LE , D istrict Judg e. * N A N G L E , D istri ct

Jud ge :2

Jos ep h T hor ne appe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of A ll Re sto ratio n S er vic es ’ [A RS ] Ru le 50 m oti on f

or dis miss al . T hor ne arg ue s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr edin granting th e Rule 50 m otion because there wa s sufficient evidence presented at tr ia l t o sh ow that he w as e nti tle d to ind ivi dua l c ove ra ge und er the F ai r L ab or Standards Ac t when he r egularly used Def endants’ c redit car ds, and performed re sto ratio n w ork di re ct lye sse nti al to the pr oduc tio n of goo ds f or c omm er ce . T his Court finds that Thorne failed to present sufficient evidence that he w as either en ga ge d in int er state c omm er ce or w as e nga ge d in the pr oduc tio n of goo ds f or co mm er ce . A cc or din gly , the Co urt AF FIR MS the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of Appellees’ Rule 50 m otion and dismissal of the case. I. BACK GROUND A ppe lla nt T hor ne sue d D ef en da nt A ppe lle es und er

the F ai r L ab or

S ta ndard s A ct ( “ FL SA ”) f

or a lle ge d no npa y m en t of

ove rt ime co m

pe nsa tio n. D ef

en da nts m ove d f or aRu le 50 m oti on t o di smiss , arg uin g th at the F L SAdidnot

appl y because T horne had notpresented evidence at tria l that he qualified for either enterprise covera ge or individ ual coverage under the FL SA . The district court g ra n t ed Ap p el l ee s ’ m o t i o n an d d i s mi s s ed t h e c as e, fi n d i n g t h at“ t h e p l ai n t i ff ’s ac tiv iti es w er e loc al in natur e an d r ea llydidnot a ff ec t i nte rs ta te c omm er ce in ge ne ra l. ” R4 4 a t 16 3. T hor ne appe al s on lythe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ind ing that he didAp pe llant T ho rn e didno t r a isetheiss ueof e nte rp ri se c ov e ra g e onapp e a l. 1 3 no t p ro ve in di vi du al co ve rag e u nd er t he FLSA. A t tri al , T hor ne te sti fi edthat du ri ng h is e m plo y m en t f

or A RS , he pr im arily pe rf or m edm olda nd w at er

da m ag e re sto ratio n w ork f or r es ide nti al a nd comm ercia l properties. H e also performed ministerial work for ARS , w hich inc lud edm aking pur ch as es of goo ds f or the c om pa ny . T hor ne te sti fi edthat t w o to thr ee ti m es pe r w ee k, he use d A ppe lle es ’ V IS A c re dit c ar d to pur ch as e ga s f

or A p p e l l e e s ’ t ru c k . R 4 4 a t8 3 . T h o r n e a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a th e u s e d A p p e l l e e s ’ H o me De pot credit card tw o to three tim es per w eek to purchase goods and m aterials as p ar to f h i s e mp l o yme n t . R 4 4 a t8 3 . T h o r n e t e s t i f i e d t h a th e b e l i e v e d t h e H o me De pot bi lls cam e fr om

Atlanta. R44 at 84. H owever , T horne later testified that his a ct ivi tie s w er e pur el y loc al w ith out a ny a ff ili at ion to m atte rs out sid e the state of F lorida . R 44 a t 12 4, 132 . II. D ISCU SSION Thorne ar gues that he qu alifies for individual coverage under the FL SA be cause a s part

of his e m plo y m en t he w as ( 1) e nga ge d in c omm er ce , a nd ( 2) en ga ge d in the pr oduc tio n of goo ds f or c omm er ce . U nde r FL SA , a n e m plo y er is re qui re d to pa y ove rt ime co m pe nsa tio n if

the e m plo y ee c an e stabli sh e nte rp ri se co ve rag e or i nd iv id ua l co ve rag e. Fo r in di vi du al co ve rag e to ap pl y un de r FLSA,

14

Thorne m ust have provi ded evidence at trial that he w as (1) e ngaged in comm erce or ( 2) e nga ge d in the pr oduc tio n of goo ds f or c omm er ce . 29 U . S. C. § 20 7( a) (1 ) (2 005) ( statin g “ no e m

plo y er sha ll em plo y a ny of

his e m plo y ee s w ho . . . is engaged in comm erce or in the productio n of good s for comm erce . . . for a wor kwe eklo ng er t ha n fo rty ho ur s u nl es s s uc h e m pl oyee rece iv ed co m

pe ns at io n . .

. a t a r at e no l es s th an one a nd o ne -h al f times the r eg ular rate ”) . A ft er dis cu ssi ng th e st an da rd forrev ie w, th e Co ur t wi ll ad dr es s ea ch pro ng in tu rn . A. Standard for

Review T he Co urt r ev ie w s th e gr an t of aRu le 50 m oti on d e novo a nd “ ap pli es the sa m e sta ndard s e m

plo y edbythe dis tr ic t c ourt. ” A be l v. D ubbe rl y , 210 F . 3d 1 334, 1337 ( 11 Ci r. 200 0) . T he sta ndardf or j udgmen t a s am atte r of

la w mirro rs that of th summ aryj udgm ent in that the no n-m ovant must do m ore than raise som e doubt as to the e xis te nc e of

f ac ts b ut m

ust pr oduc e ev ide nc e tha t w oul d be suf fi ci en t t o re qui re sub miss ion of

the iss ue to a j ur y . Matsu shi taE le c. I nd. Co . v. Z en ith Rad io Co rp ., 47 5 U.S. 5 74 , 58 6 (1 98 6) . A lth ough w e loo k a t the e vid en ce in the lig ht m ost

f av or ab le to the non -movi ng p arty , “ the non -mova nt m ust put f orth m or e tha n am er e sc intill a of e vid en ce sug ge sti ng tha t r ea sonable mind s c oul d reac h differing verdicts.” Abel, 210 F.3d at 1337. Ther efore, a substantial co nf lic t i n th e ev ide nc e is r eq uir edbe fo re am atte r w ill be se nt t o th e j ur y , a nd the5

gr an t of aRu le 50 m oti on i s pr ope r w he n th e ev ide nc e is s o w ei ght edin fa vor of one sid e tha t tha t part y is en tit le d to suc ce edin his or he r posi tio n a s am atte r of law. Id. T he Court finds that Appellant Thorne has failed to ra ise a substantial c o n f l i c ti n t h e e v i d e n c e t h a th i s a c t i v i t i e s we r e i n h e r e n t l y l o c a l . Ac c o r d i n g l y, App el le es were en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of law. B. Engaged in Comm erce Thorne ar gues that he was individ ually engaged in interstate comm erce be cause he r eg ularl y use d D ef en da nts /A ppe lle es ’ c re dit c ar ds i n th e co ur se of

his em ploy m ent. A ppellees respond th at the trial court w as corre ct in finding that Thorne w as not ind ividu ally covered by FL SA because his credit card activities didnot inv olv e int er state c omm er ce . T he Co urt i s pe rs ua de d byA ppe lle es ’ argum ent, a nd the Court finds that Thorne did not prod uce sufficient evidence a t trial that his credit car d use invo lved interstate comm erce . T he S upr eme Co urt ha s art ic ula te d th at it is the int en t of

Co ngr es s to re gul at e onl y a ct ivi tie s c onst itu tin g in te rs ta te c omm er ce , not a ct ivi tie s mer el y affe cting comm erce . McL eod v. T hrelkeld, 319 U. S. 491, 497. T herefor e, for an em plo y ee to be “ en ga ge d in c omm er ce ” unde r the F L SA , he m ust be dir ec tly participating in th e actual m ovem ent of persons or thin gs in in terstate comm erce by (i) wo rk in g fo r an in st ru m en ta li ty of in te rs ta te co mm erce , e.g ., tr an sporta tio n or6

comm unication indus try em

ploy ees, or (ii) byregularlyusing the instrum entalities of int er state c om

m er ce in his w ork, e . g. , r eg ular an d r ec urre nt u se of int er state telephone, telegraph, m ails, or tr avel. 29 C.F .R. §776 .23 (d)( 2) (2005); 29 C.F. R. § 7 7 6 .2 4 (2 0 0 5 ). Se e, e. g ., M cL eo d , 3 1 9 U.S . a t4 9 3 -9 8 (f i n d i n g t h atp l ai n t i ff ’s ac tiv iti es w er e pur el y loc al , a nd h e w as not e nga ge d in c omm er ce w he n he m er el y co oke d a nd c le an edf

or r ai lr oa d w orke rs ). I n th e ca se a t i ssu e, the re w as no evidence at trial that T horne worked for an instrum entality of interstate comm erce , an d T hor ne onl y arg ue s th at he r eg ularl y use d th e ins trum en ta lit ie s of int er state co mm er ce in his w ork byusi ng A ppe lle es ’ c re dit c ar ds t o m ak e pur ch as es f or the bu si ne ss . Thorne ar gues that he engaged in interstate comm erce both when he used an ins trum en ta lit y of

int er state c omm er ce , i. e. ac re dit c ar d, to tr an sa ct

bus ine ss, a nd al so when he pu rch as ed go od s wh ic h h ad tra ve le d i n i nt ers ta te co mm erce . H ow ev er , T hor ne ’ s arg um en t tha t he e nga ge d in int er state c omm er ce f ai ls b ec au se he di d n otpro du ce s uf

fic ie ntev id en ce o f in te rs ta te tra ns act io ns . First, Thorne cites no bindin g authority which holds that credit card tr an sa ct ion s c onst itu te a n in strum en ta lit y of int er state c omm er ce . C . f. K itc hin gs v . Fl or ida U nit edMe tho dis t C hil dr en ' s H om e, I nc . , 393 F . Su pp. 2d 1 282, 129 3 (M. D. Fla. , 2005) (deny ing in divid ual coverage under FL SA when plaintiff7

hous eparents at Children’ s Hom e purchased personal item s for Re sidents at local sto re s us ing Ch ild re n' s H om e' s c re dit c ar d) . T hor ne r el ie s on aD ep artmen t of Labor opin ion letter, w hich states that “ [e] m ploy ees . . . are individu ally covered unde r the F L SAif, in the pe rf or m an ce of

the ir dut ie s, the y are e nga ge d in int er state c omm er ce . . . . S uc h e m plo y ee s in cl ude tho se w ho r eg ularl y ha ndl e int er state m ai l a nd t el ep hone c al ls, e nga ge in ba nki ng o r cr ed it cardtr an sa ct ion s, or rec eive or handle good s or m aterials f rom or destined for out-of-state sources. ” Opi ni on Lett er, FLSA, 1 99 9 WL 10 02 37 3 (M arch 5, 1 99 9) . E ve n a ssu ming , w ith out

de ci din g, that c re dit

c ar d tr an sa ct ion s a lon e co uld constitu te an instrum entality of interstate comm erce , T horne did n ot produ ce suf fi ci en t e vid en ce of

int er state a ct ivi tyto ove rc om e D ef en da nts /A ppe lle es ’ Ru le 50 m oti on. T hor ne didnot pr oduc e ev ide nc e tha t he c orre spon de d w ith m er ch an ts outsi de the state of Florida using the m ail, phone, or fax, and nor did h e produce ev ide nc e tha t he m ad e pur ch as es of goo ds f ro m out -o f- state ve ndor s. R athe r, the only evidence T horne produced at trial which im plicated interstate activity wa s tha t bi lls f

or pur ch as es m ad e loc al lya t a H om e D ep ot m ayha ve be en se nt f ro m Geo rg ia . Tho rn e te st ifi ed th atth e Hom e Dep otbi ll s, “ [i]f I’m no t mis ta ke n, I thinkthey com e fr om

out of Atlanta. ” R44 at 84. How ever, Thorne late r testified at tr ia l tha t he “ did n’ t do a ny thi ng tha t ha d a ny thi ng t o do w ith a ny m atte r out sid eDec isions of the United States Court of Appeals for the F ifth Circuit on and befor e 2 September 30, 1981 a

re binding prec edent f

or the Eleve nth Circuit. Bonner v. Cityof Prichar d, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 ( 11 Cir. 1981) (en banc). th 8 of the state . ” R4 4 a t 13 2. T his Co urt f ind s th at T hor ne ’ s te sti m ony , statin g he b e l i e v e d c r e d i tc ar d b i l l s c a me f r o m A t l a n t af

o r p u r c h a s e s ma d e a tal o c a l H o me De pot was not sufficient evidence of engagem ent in interstate comm erce to require s u b mi s s i o n o f

t h e i s s u e t o aju r y. Moreover, the fac t that som e of the tools he purchased m ay have crossed st at e li ne s at a pr ev io us ti m e d oe s n otin it se lf i m pl ic at e in te rs ta te co mm erce . W he n go ods re ac h th e cu sto m er f or w hom the y w er e int en de d, the int er state j our ne y e nds an d e m

plo y ee s e nga ge d in a ny f urthe r intra state m ove m en t of the good s are not

c ove re d un de r the A ct . Mc L eo d, 319 U . S. a t 49 3. C ourts dis tin gui sh b et w ee n mer ch an ts w ho b ri ng c omm er ce a cr oss state li ne s f or sa le a nd the ult im at e co nsumer , w ho mer el y pur ch as es goo ds tha t pr ev iou slym ove d in interstate comm erce for intrastate use. T herefor e, a custom er w ho pu rchases an ite m f ro m H om e D ep ot i s no t e nga ge d in c omm er ce e ve n if H om e D ep ot pr ev io us ly pur ch as ed itfro m ou t-o f-s ta te who le sa le rs . In Dunlop v. Industrial America Corporation, 516 F.2d 498, 499 (5th Cir. 1975 ), the court wa s face d with the question of w hether a business which

29

co nsumes ga sol ine a nd o il in the pr oc es s of pr ovi din g se rv ic es to its c ust om er s is the "ultim ate consum er" of those go ods, and therefore not sub j ect to FL SA co ve ra ge . T he de fe nda nt c orpor at ion ope rate d aw hol lyintra state garb ag e rem oval service, and its on ly tie to interstate comm erce wa s that its em ploy ees use d ga sol ine a nd o il pr oduc ts w hic h ha d m ove d in int er state c omm er ce in ope ratin g a nd m ai nta ini ng the c om pa ny ' s truc ks. T he c ourt he ld tha t the de fe nda nt w as not c ove re d be cause it

w as a n “ ult im at e co nsumer ” of the goo ds. I d. a t 49 9- 50 2. Si milar to the de fe nda nt i n D unl op, A RS ope rate s e xc lus ive lyw ith in the state of F lorida , a nd i ts c ust om er s are loc at edins ta te . U nde r the pr ec ed en t of D unl op, A RS ’ s a ct ivi tie s w er e not r en de re d in te rs ta te c omm er ce sim plybe cause A RS , a n ul tim at e co nsumer , pur ch as edgoo ds w hic h ha d pr ev iou slym ove d in interstate comm erce . Ac cordingly , the C ourt finds th at T horne did n ot produ ce s u f f i c i e n te v i d e n c e t h a th e e n g a g e d i n i n t e r s t a t e c o mme r c e t o o v e r c o me Defen da nt s’ Rul e 5 0 m ot io n. C. Engaged in the Production of Goods for Comm erce T hor ne arg ue s he w as ind ivi dua llyc ove re d un de r the F L SAnot onl y because he w as engaged in comm erce , but also because his restoration work w as1 0

dir ec tlye sse nti al to the pr oduc tio n of goo ds i n c omm er ce . E m plo y ee s w hose w ork is c los el y r el at eda nd d ir ec tlye sse nti al to the pr oduc tio n of goo ds f or co mm erce are i nd iv id ua ll y co ve red un de r th e FLSA. 29 C.F.R. § 77 6.1 8 (2 00 5) . Congress has ind icated that indivi dual coverage under the FL SA includes even m ai nte na nc e em

plo y ee s of

a n in de pe nde nt e m

plo y er w ho p erfo rm s w ork di re ct ly es se nti al to pr oduc er s of

c omm er ce . 29 C. F. R. § 77 6. 18 ( b) . T y pic al of the em plo y ee s in thi s c ove re d gr oup ar e tho se w ho r ep ai r or m ai nta in the m ac hin ery or bui ldi ngs use d bythe pr oduc er in his pr oduc tio n of

goo ds f or c omm er ce a nd em plo y ee s of

ase cu ri tyf

or ce that pr ote ct s th e pr oduc er ' s pr em ise s. I d. F or e x a mp l e , i n K i r s c h b a u m v . Wa l l i n g , 3 1 6 U . S . 5 1 7 , 5 1 8

- 5 2 6 , ( 1 9 4 2 ) , t h e S u p r e me Court held that certain m aintenance em ploy ees of a clothin g m anufacturer we re co ve re d un de r FL SAbe cause the re w as “ suc h ac los e an d im m ed ia te ti e w ith the pr oc es s o f pr od uc ti on forco mm erce .” Id . In contrast, e m

ploy ees of independent contractors which provided lo cal se rv ic es suc h a s w ind ow c le an ing , la w n m ai nte na nc e, a nd p es t c ontro l are not inc lud eda s e m

plo y ee s do ing w ork " cl ose lyr el at ed " t o pr oduc tio n mer el y be cause the c ust om er s of

the e m plo y er happe n to inc lud e pr oduc er s of goo ds f or comm erce . 29 C.F. R. § 776 .19 (b)( 5). For exam ple, e m ploy ees of a local ex te rm ina tor se rv ic e fi rm

w ho w orke d w hol lyw ith in the state e xte rm ina tin g pe stsConflicting testimony showed that the ma

jority , betwee n fifty

and ninety

perc ent, of 3 ARS’s work was r esidential, which is not cove red unde r F L SA. R44 at 30, 94. Th ornete sti fi e d th at hepe rf orme d r e sto ratio n s e rv ic e s f or thefo llo wi ng bu sin e sse s: 4 Bur dines depa

rtment store, City

Hall, offic es in a hig h-rise c omplex , and a Ca dillac dealership. Howeve r, Thornenever

produce d evidenc e that thesebusiness wereeng ag ed in the produc tion of g oods for interstate commer ce. 1 1 in private hom es and in buil ding s used to p roduce good s for interstate c omm erce are n otin di vi du al ly cov ered un de r FLSA. 29 C.F.R. § 77 6.1 9 (b )(5 ). Similar to a local e xterminator service firm , A RS w as a local ser vice firm tha t pe rf or m edm olda nd w at er

r es tor at ion of

r es ide nti al a nd c omm er ci al bui ldi ngs en tir el y intra state . T es tim onya t tri al sho w edthat a mino ri tyof

A RS ’ s c lie nts we re c omm ercia l busin esses. T he Court is not conv inced that Thorne’ s wate r 3 re sto ratio n w ork f

or a f ew c omm er ci al bus ine sse s c onst itu te s w ork di re ct ly es se nti al to the pr oduc tio n of goo ds f or int er state c omm er ce . R athe r, te sti m ony show edthat A RS w as pr im arilyaloc al se rv ic e pr ovi de r, w hose se rv ic es ha d li ttl e ef fe ct on c omm er ci al e stabli shmen ts, le t a lon e the pr oduc tio n of goo ds f or comm erce . A ccordingly , the C ourt finds th at the district court properly granted

4 Defen da nt s/ App el le es ’ Ru le 50 m ot io n. III. CO NC LUS ION A ppe lla nt T hor ne appe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of A ppe lle es ’ Ru le 50 m oti on a nd arg ue s on thi s appe al that he pr oduc ede vid en ce suf fi ci en t a t tri al to1 2

invo ke indiv idual coverage under the FL SA . Af ter de novo review, the Court finds that Appellant Thorne failed to ra ise a substantial con flict in the evidence at trial that his activities were inherently local. Finding n o error, we AFFIRM the di st ric t co ur t’s g ran t o f App el le es ’ Ru le 50 m ot io n a nd di smis sa l o f th is cas e. AFFIRMED.