Glenn	Solomon	#833287

Attorney

1001	SW	Fifth	Avenue,	Suite	1220

Portland,	Oregon	97204

(503)	241-3508

glensol@aol.com

IN	THE	UNITED	STATES	DISTRICT	COURT

FOR	THE	DISTRICT	OF	OREGON

PORTLAND

KAREN	HUYCK,	 )				No.	3:	15-cv-01298BR

)

Plaintiff, )				Plaintiff’s	Motion	for	Summary

)				Judgment

v.		 )				

)				

LIMITLESS,	LLC,	an	Oregon )				

corporation, )

)		Oral	Argument	Requested

Defendant. )

Plaintiff,	by	and	through	counsel,	moves	for	summary	judgment	on	

her	wages	due	and	owing	claims	pursuant	to	Rule	56(a),	FRCP	and	Local	

Rule	56-1.		This	motion	relies on	the	following	memorandum	in	support,

the	Joint	Statement	of	Facts	(JSF),	the	Declaration	of	Karen	Huyck,	and	the

Declaration	of	Glenn	Solomon.

Summary	and	Introduction

This	is	a	wages	due	and	owing	case	in	which	Karen	Huyck	(Huyck)	asserts

claims	for	overtime	wages	and	liquidated	damages	under	the	FLSA,		penalty

1.		MOTION	FOR	SUMMARY	JUDGMENT
wages	under	state	law,	as	well	as	attorney	fees.		There	is	no	genuine	dispute	as	to

as	to	any	material	fact.		Defendant,	in	its	Answer	to	the	Compliant	admits	

allegations	sufficient	to	establish	liability,	and	Plaintiff	is	entitled	to	judgment	as	a	

matter	of	law.	The	only	dispute	concerns	the	matter of	law	as	to	the	calculation	of	

the	overtime	due	under	the	FLSA.		That	dispute	resolves	in	plaintiff’s	favor	under

29	CFR	548.301.

Factual	Background

These	facts	are	undisputed	based	on	the	Complaint, defendant’s	

Answer	and	the	Joint	Statement	of	Facts	(JSF),	which	is	now	part	of	the	record	in	

this	case.		

All	jurisdictional	facts	are	admitted.		JSF	1	– 3.		The	plaintiff,	(Huyck)

was	a	non-exempt	employee	who	worked	for	limitless	between	January	19

and	April	27,	2015.		JSF	2,	4	– 6.	

Huyck	was	required	to	submit	time	records,	and	did	so.		These	records

show	that	she	frequently	worked	in	excess	of	forty	hours	per	week.		JSF	7.		She

was	paid	according	to	a	contract	at	a	rate	of	$200.00	per	work	day	for	a	total

of	$1,000.00	per	work	week	regardless	of	how	many	hours	she	worked.		Id.

Huyck	submitted	time	records	to	defendant	that	showed	that	she	worked

150	hours	of	overtime.		JSF	8,	Declaration	of	Karen	Huyck	(Huyck	Dec)	6,	Exhibits	2	

and	3.

In	June	of	2015,	a	letter	was	sent	to	Limitless	by	Huyck’s	attorney,

which	was	dated	June	5,	2015	and	delivered	to	a	Limitless	employee,	demanding

payment	of	$5,587.50	in	overtime	wages,	$2363.50	in	penalties	and	$3,224.00

2.		MOTION	FOR	SUMMARY	JUDGEMENT
in	attorney	fees.		JSF	9,	Declaration	of	Glenn	Solomon	(Solomon	Dec)	Exhibit	4.

These	facts	are	undisputed	based	on	the	Declaration	of	Karen	Huyck.

Huyck	was	paid	on	a	bi-weekly	basis.		 Every	Earning	Statement	Huyck	received	

gave	her	credit	for 80	hours	of	work	regardless	of	the	number	of	hours	she	worked.		

Huyck	Dec,	Ex’s	1	and	2.

At	no	time	during	the	course	of	her	employment	did	Limitless

or	any	of	its	agents	or	employees	challenge	Huyck	as	to	the	accuracy	of	her	time	

records.	 Huyck	Dec	4	– 5.		To	date	Huyck	has	only	been	paid	$1400.00	by	Limitless	

on	her	claim	for	overtime,	penalties	and	attorney	fees.

Legal	Standard	

Summary	judgment	is	appropriate	when	there	is	no	genuine	dispute	

as	to	any	material	fact	and	the	moving	party	is	entitled	to	judgment	as	a	matter	of	

law.		Rule	56(a)	FRCP.		The	moving	party	has	the	burden	of	proving	that	there	is	no	

genuine	dispute of	material	fact.		Celotex	Corp.	v.	Catrett,	477	U.S.	317,	323	(1986).		

Once	the	moving	party	shows	the	absence	of	an	issue of	fact,	the	non-moving	

party	must	go	beyond	the	pleadings	and	designate	specific	facts	showing	a	genuine

issue	for	trial.		Id	at	324.		“A	‘scintilla	of	evidence,’	or	evidence	that	is	‘merely	

colorable’	or	‘not	significantly	probative’	is	not	sufficient	to	present	a	genuine	issue

as	to	a	material	fact.”		United	Steelworkers	of	Am.		v.	Phelps	Dodge	Corp.,	865	F.2d	

1539,	1542	(9th Cir.	1989)	(quoting	 Anderson	v.	Liberty	Lobby,	Inc.,	477	U.S.	242,	

249-250,	252	(1986).		The	materiality	of	a	fact	depends	upon	the	applicable

3.		MOTION	FOR	SUMMATY	JUDGMENT
substantive	law.		T.W.	Elec.	Serv.,	Inc.,	v.	Pacific	Elec.	contractors	Assn.	 809	F.2d	626,

630	(9th Cir.	1987).		Where	the	record,	taken	as	a	whole,	could	not	lead	the	trier	of	

fact	to	find	for	the	non-moving	party,	there	is	no	genuine	issue	for	trial.		Matsushita	

Elec.	Indus.	Co.	v.	Zenith	Radio	Corp.,	475	U.S.	574,	587	(1986).

Argument

1.		Based	on	the	agreed	facts	Huyck	was	a	salaried	non-exempt	employee

and	should	have	been	paid	overtime	for	all	hours	worked	over	40	hours	per	week

at	time	and	one	half	her	regular	rate	of	pay.		29	USC	207(a).

Huyck	was	salaried	non-exempt	employee.		She	was	paid	semi-monthly.

As	such	she	should	have	been	paid	overtime	according	to	a	rate	per	hour	

determined	by	dividing		her	salary	by	the	number	of		working	days	of	eight	hours	

each	or	eighty	(80)	hours.		This	yields	a	basic	rate	of	$25.00	per	hour.		See

29	CFR	548.301(b).		This	basic	rate	may	be	used	to	compute	overtime	at	time	and	

one	half.	Id.	 Therefore	Huyck’s	overtime	rate	was	$37.50.	per	hour.

Huck	worked	a	total	of	150	hours	of	overtime	for	which	she	received	no	

compensation.		Multiplication	of	Huyck’s	overtime	rate	by	150	yields	$5,625.

in	overtime	wages	that	are	due	an	owing.

2.		Limitless	is	liable	to	Huyck	for	an	additional	amount	equal	to	her	

overtime	pay	as	liquidated	damages.		29	USC	216(b).

Based	on	an	examination	of	the	time	records	that	Huyck	submitted

and	her	pay	statements,	Limitless	knew	that	Huyck	put	in	overtime	hours and	yet

continued	to	pay	her	the	same	amount	regardless	of	the	number	of	hours	that	she	

4.		MOTION	FOR	SUMMARY	JUDGMENT
worked.		Limitless	also	knew, based	on	the	type	of	work	that	she	performed,	that	

Huyck	was	non-exempt.		Therefore	liquidated	damages	are	appropriate,	because	

Limitless	knew	that	the	FLSA	was	in	the	picture	and	that	Huyck	was	cocvered.		See

Coleman	v.	Jiffey	June	Farms,	Inc.,	458	F.2d	1139,	1142	(5th Cir)	cert	den	409	U.S.

944	(1972).		Employers	may	not	remain	blissfully	unaware	of	the	FLSA	

requirements.		See	Reeves	v.	International	Telephone	and	Telegraph	Corp.,	616	F.2d

1342,	1353	(5th Cir.	1980)	cert	den	449	U.S.	1077	(1981).

Double	damages	under	the	FLSA	are	the	norm.		Single	damages	are	the	

exception.		Liquidated	damages	are	mandatory	unless	the	employer	can	overcome	

the	difficult	burden	of	proving	subjective	good	faith	an	objectively	reasonable	

grounds	for	believing	that	it	was	not	violating	the	FLSA.		Haro	v.	City	of	L.A.	Corp.,

745	F.3d	1249,	1259	(9th	Cir.	2014)	and cases	cited.			In	the	light	of	the	undisputed	

facts	in	the	case	at	hand	there	are	no	objectively	reasonable	grounds	available.

Therefore	the	court	is	required	to	award	liquidated	damages.

3.		The	court	should	award	additional	penalties	under ORS	652.140(1)(a).

The	letter	of	June	5,	2015	that	plaintiff’s	counsel	sent	to	Limitless constituted

an	explicit notice	of	nonpayment	under	ORS	652.140(2).		Limitless	failed	to	pay	all	

the	wages due	and	owing	within	12	days	as	per	the	statute.		Therefore	Huyck	is	due

an	additional	penalty	of	a	continuation	of	her	wages	for	thirty	days	or	$4,000.

ORS	651.140(1)(a).

Conclusion

For	the	foregoing	reasons	plaintiff	is	entitled	to	judgment	as	a	matter	of	

5.		MOTION	FOR	SUMMARY	JUDGMENT
law	for	all	the	relief	requested	in	her	Complaint.

Respectfully	submitted	by:

/s/	Glenn	Solomon

Attorney	for	Plaintiff

6.		MOTION	FOR	SUMMARY	JUDGMENT