Source: http://gkemploymentlaw.com/recent-events.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 02:55:05+00:00

Document:
On July 8, 2013, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the firm's defense client, which was granted by the trial court, because the plaintiffs could not prove that the Fair Labor Standards Act applied to the corporate defendants, because they did not have the requisite $500,000 in gross annual sales volume.
On April 30, 2013, the court granted the firm's defense client's motion for judgment on the pleadings concerning the plaintiff's minimum wage claim.
On March 27, 2013, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided an appeal and a cross-appeal in favor of the firm's defense client. This case was a Fair Labor Standards Act case, and the firm brought a counterclaim against Plaintiff Rakip under Florida's civil theft statute, Florida Statutes § 772.11, which the court converted into a breach of contract claim during the trial. Shortly before trial, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants as to Plaintiff Rakip's overtime claim on the ground that he released it. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendants on the FLSA claim, finding that Plaintiff Jeronimo was an exempt manager not entitled to overtime and that in any event no overtime was worked. The jury also rendered a verdict on the counterclaim in favor of the defendants for $1,360.00 against Plaintiff Rakip. After trial, the court denied the plaintiffs' post-trial motions, except it took away the jury's award of $1,360.00 against plaintiff away and granted judgment as a matter of law in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiffs appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants as to Plaintiff Rakip's overtime claims and the defendants cross-appealed the court's granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of Plaintiff Rakip as to the counterclaim. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants as to Plaintiff Rakip's overtime claim, but reversed the trial court's grant of judgment as a matter of law as to the breach of contract claim and reinstated the jury verdict of $1,360.00 on the counterclaim.
On March 11, 2013, the court issued a final judgment in the firm's defense client's favor in the amount of $8,340.00 against plaintiff's counsel for bringing a frivolous lawsuit.
On March 6, 2013, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recognized that the firm prevailed as to 7 of the 9 plaintiffs in this Fair Labor Standards Act case, and affirmed the judgment in favor of 2 of the plaintiffs against the firm's employer client for a fraction of the money that they sought.
On October 26, 2012, the firm convinced the trial court to grant summary judgment in this Fair Labor Standards Act against the plaintiff and in favor of the firm's defense client. The court had earlier dismissed the overtime claim, see Joseph v. Nichell's Caribbean Cuisine, Inc., 862 F. Supp. 2d 1309 (S.D. Fla. 2012), and in this order granting summary judgment as to the retaliation claim, which was the plaintiff's only claim remaining.
On October 19, 2012, the court taxed costs against the 14 plaintiffs and in favor of the firm's employer client for a little more than $32,000.00. This was a Fair Labor Standards Act case that went to trial for approximately 2 weeks, and resulted in a jury verdict in favor of the firm's clients.
On September 19, 2012, in this Fair Labor Standards Act case in which the firm was representing the defendant-employer, the firm successuly argued to the trial court that it should grant summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the ground that the FLSA did not apply to it, because the defendant-employer did not have the requisite $500,000 in gross annual sales volume required by the Act.
This was a civil rights case brought under several different theories, including violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1985, in which the firm represented defendant Lt. Ken Swan of the Broward Fire & Rescue. The firm had successfully obtained a summary judgment award on behalf of its client and convinced the appellate court to affirm that order. This opinion dealt with the plaintiff's petition for rehearing, and the appellate court denied it in total with respect to the firm's client Lt. Ken Swan.
On June 27, 2012, in this Fair Labor Standards Act case, firm successfully represented its client, as it convinced the court to grant in part the defendant-employer's (represented by the firm) motion to dismiss the case.
In this case brought under the Florida Whistleblower Act (Florida Statutes § 448.101 et seq.) and the Florida Civil Rights Act (Florida Statutes § 760.01 et seq.), the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the firm's defense client on the ground that the plaintiff was appealing an issue that she had not perserved below, because her attorneys did not lodge a contemporaneous objection to the issue. This decision was issued after the court heard oral argument.
On May 16, 2012, the trial court, in this FLSA case, granted the defendant's motion to disqualify plaintiff's counsel who had engaged in multiple unethical and unprofessional behavior, including drawing pictures of penises at depositions and pointing them at the defendant's in-house general counsel.
This was a Fair Labor Standards case brought by a limousine driver against one of the world's leading limousine companies which was represented by the firm, and the plaintiff attempted to start a collective action under § 216(b) of the FLSA, which would have allowed all of the limousine drivers utilized by the company to join the suit. The firm fought this attempt vigorously, and in this order, the court denied the plaintiff's motion, because the plaintiff was unable to prove that the other limousine drivers were similarly situated to him.
This was a retaliation case brought against the largest roofing company in the world under the theory that it retaliated against the plaintiffs who were illegal aliens who brought suit against it under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court, in this opinion, denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the order granting the defendant-employer's motion for summary judgment which threw the plaintiffs' case out of court because there was no evidence of any retaliation. See Suchite v. Tecta America South Florida, Inc., 819 F. Supp. 2d 1284 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (which is the decision granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment). The firm successfully represented the defendant in this case.
After the court granted summary judgment for the defendants in this Fair Labor Standards Act case on the ground that the FLSA did not apply to the corporate defendant because it did not have the requisite gross annual sales volume, and it was clear that no pre-suit investigation was conducted by plaintiffs' counsel, the firm filed a motion for attorneys' fees and sanctions against plaintiff's counsel, and the motion was granted in part, awarding the small business defendant $8,340.00 in attorney fees for the filing of a frivolous lawsuit.
In this case Fair Labor Standards Act case, on May 10, 2011, a jury came back with a verdict for the defendant (the firm's client), believed to be the world's largest roofing company, and against the 14 plaintiffs. In the cited decision, the trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion for new trial, alternatively, motion for judgment as a matter of law. The plaintiffs did not appeal.
In this Fair Labor Standards Act case brought against one of the world's leading limousine companies (the firm's client), the court struck the statement of claim that the plaintiff had filed as being completely deficient in regard to calculating the plaintiff's alleged damages.
This case was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the court granted summary judgment because the defendant-employer (a small, local marble refinishing and polishing company) did not have the minimum $500,000 in gross sales volume required for the applicability of the Act. See Rodriguez v. Marble Care Int'l, Inc., 2011 WL 918634 (S.D. Fla. 2011). The prevailing defendants filed a motion to tax costs, and the court taxed costs in the amount of $1,251.61 against the two plaintiffs.
This case was brought by the plaintiff pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, under the theory that the defendant-employer owed the plaintiff unpaid overtime and also terminated the plaintiff in retaliation for exercising her rights under the FLSA. The defendant was a small Jamaican restaurant represented by the firm. On January 26, 2012, the trial court granted in part the defendant's motion to dismiss dismissing the overtime claims.
In this Fair Labor Standards Act case, the firm represented the defendant-employer from the two plaintiffs' claims of overtime and prevailed at a jury trial. The plaintiffs moved for a new trial and, alternatively, judgment as a matter of law, but the district court denied those motions upholding the jury verdict in favor of the defendants. The defense at trial was that the manager exemption applied to the plaintiffs, and the jury found that it did, and also found that the plaintiffs had not worked overtime.
In this Fair Labor Standards Act case, the firm represented the defendant-employer from the plaintiff's claims that he was entitled to overtime and that he worked it without being properly paid for it. Concerning some of the plaintiff's co-workers, a jury had previously found that the workers were properly paid their overtime. Barrera v. Tecta America South Florida, Inc., f/k/a Weiss & Woolrich Southern Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 09-21841-CIV-DLG (S.D. Fla.). After 208 docket entries, the plaintiff, who was an illegal alien, was apparently deported as he could not appear for trial. Accordingly, the defendants moved for involuntary dismissal, and that motion was granted.
The firm represented one of approximately ten (10) Defendants (Lt. Kenneth Swan) in a civil rights case brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 for wrongful death. The basic facts of the case were that the decedent neglected to take his anti-seizure medication, had a seizure while driving, and crashed, which resulted in a roll-over of the SUV. The police and fire rescue arrived at the scene to assist the decedent, and have became violent, and refused all attempts to communicate his medical condition. The decedent was restrained, not for any law enforcement purpose, but to render medical aid. The decedent was placed in an ambulance for transport to an area hospital. Shortly after the decedent arrived at the hospital, he passed. The decedent sued all of the police and fire rescue personnel who were at the scene. Lt. Swan, our client, was the highest ranking officer at the scene of the accident, but he did not ride in the ambulance with the decedent to the hospital, as other Defendants did that.
Judge Bowman of the Circuit Court of Broward County granted Lt. Swan's motion for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. Brown v. Jenne, 2009 WL 3253820 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 2009). The Plaintiffs appealed, but the Plaintiffs lost that appeal, because the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the grant of summary judgment. Brown v. Jenne, -- So. 3d --, 2011 WL 5375045 (Fla. 4th DCA, Nov. 9, 2011). The court held that there was no Fourth Amendment search or seizure, because the decedent was not restrained for a law enforcement purpose, but rather was restrained for fire rescue personnel to administer first aid.
The firm represented a defendant-employer in a Fair Labor Standards Act case. Because it was revealed during discovery that some of the plaintiffs were illegal aliens, and because it became clear as the case neared trial that several of the plaintiffs would not appear because they had been deported or were otherwise not in the country, the defendant moved for involuntary dismissal as to all such plaintiffs. In this opinion, the court involuntarily dismissed three (3) plaintiffs who could not appear. Thereafter, the firm won the jury trial as to the remaining plaintiffs.
In this case, the Defendant is a Chinese restaurant that has been in business for approximately twenty-five (25) years and had never been sued before. The Plaintiff had brought many lawsuits under Title III of the ADA, and thus appeared to be a serial plaintiff. During his deposition, it was established that with respect to many of the suits the Plaintiff brought he could not say that he patronized the businesses, but also he readily admitted that he had never even heard of many of the businesses. In particular, with respect to the Defendant, the Plaintiff admitted that he had only been to the restaurant on one previous occasion, that he liked other restaurnats better and in particular other Chinese restaurants, and that he seldom travels near the Defendant, and thus could not say that he was going to patronize the restaurant in the future. Consequently, the firm moved for summary judgment on several grounds, including that the Plaintiff cannot prove that he has standing to sue, because he cannot say that he will patronize the restaurant in the future. The court granted summary judgment, finding that the Plaintiff lacked standing to bring the suit. Accordingly, final judgment was entered in favor of the Defendant against the Plaintiff. Unfortunately, many of these Title III suits, like this one, are being brought by individuals and lawyers even though they are aware that the Plaintiff has not been a regular patron of the business, and does not intend to be a patron in the future. This opinion was reconsidered.
In this newspaper article, concerning the infamous Scott Rothstein's ex-law partner who has recently started filing cases for plaintiff Charles Bado, partner Chris Kleppin was mentioned concerning his defense of various lawsuits brought against local businesses under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mr. Kleppin defended three cases brought by Charles Bado. The article notes that Mr. Kleppin was able to get the three cases dismissed (Bado v. Alster Trading, L.L.C., d/b/a The Old Heidelberg Deli, Case No. 10-61774-PCH (S.D. Fla.); Bado v. German Specialty, Inc., d/b/a The Old Heidelberg, Case No. 10-61775-PCH (S.D. Fla.); and Bado v. The Hut Lounge, Inc., Case No. 10-62285-JEM (S.D. Fla.)), and had written in court documents that "It is clear that plaintiff's [Charles Bado's] lawsuits are a scheme or artifice to use the court system to defraud and extort businesses" and that Mr. Bado "wants to sue as many [local businesses] as he can, as fast as he can."
The firm represented the Defendant who is a local floor finisher. The plaintiffs were laborers who worked at the company. The Plaintiffs filed a claim alleging overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., seeking back wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorney fees and costs. The court granted the Defendant's motion for summary judgment finding that Plaintiffs would not be able to meet the burden of proof that Defendant was subject to the FLSA under either the enterprise or individual coverage analyses. The firm filed on behalf of the Defendants a motion for attorney fees and costs against Plaintiffs' counsel, as they believe that the case was completely frivolous, and that Motion was recently granted in part, assessing sanctions against Plaintiffs' counsel in the amount of $7,480.00.
In this case, on May 10, 2011, after a 10-day jury trial in federal court, the firm received a jury verdict in its defense clients' favor as to fourteen (14) plaintiffs' Fair Labor Standards Act claims (for alleged overtime that was not paid and missing hours). The jury found that there were no overtime or minimum wage violations and that the firm's clients did not employ the Plaintiffs pre-August 27, 2007.
The firm represented Defendant Another Beautiful Corporation in a case alleging pregnancy discrimination and whistleblower retaliation (for allegedly being fired after complaining about the employer wrongly recording telephone calls between sales associates and potential customers, pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights Act, Florida Statutes § 760.01 et seq., and Florida's Whistleblower Act, Florida Statutes § 448.101 et seq. The Defendant runs a successful modeling school and agency. The Plaintiff sued for compensatory damages, punitive damages, back pay, front pay, attorney fees, and costs.
The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant for all of the reasons listed and others. The defendant is deciding whether to seek attorney fees from plaintiff's counsel for the filing of a frivolous lawsuit.
The firm represented the Defendant which operates a local bakery. The Plaintiff was a cake decorator who worked at the company. The Plaintiff filed a claim alleging overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., seeking back wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorney fees and costs. The court granted the Defendant's motion for summary judgment finding that Plaintiff would not be able to meet the burden of proof that Defendant was subject to the FLSA under either the enterprise or individual coverage analyses, which the Plaintiff eventually conceded.
The firm represented the Defendant who is a local floor finisher. The plaintiffs were laborers who worked at the company. The Plaintiffs filed a claim alleging overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., seeking back wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorney fees and costs. The court granted the Defendant's motion for summary judgment finding that Plaintiffs would not be able to meet the burden of proof that Defendant was subject to the FLSA under either the enterprise or individual coverage analyses. The Defendants are filing a motion for attorney fees and costs against Plaintiffs' counsel, as they believe that the case was completely frivolous.
In this case, on December 3, 2010, after a 10-day jury trial in federal court, the firm received a jury verdict in its defense clients' favor in an FLSA case and also successfully prosecuted a counterclaim against one of the plaintiffs for $1,360.00 for breach of contract. The court granted summary judgment as to Plaintiff Rakip's wage and hour claims during an evidentiary hearing that occurred the first day of trial, and as to Plaintiff Jeronimo, the jury found that he was a manager and therefore exempt, meaning that he was not entitled to any overtime, and it also found that Jeronimo was not owed any overtime.

References: § 772
 v. 
 § 1983
 § 1985
 § 448
 § 760
 § 216
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 760
 § 448