Source: http://gkemploymentlaw.com/recent-events.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 02:55:05
Document Index: 594173448

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1985', '§ 448', '§ 760', '§ 216', '§ 201', '§ 201', '§ 201']

Recent Events | Glasser & Kleppin, Attorneys at Law
Arilus v. Joseph A. DiEmmanuele, Inc., 522 Fed. Appx. 881 (11th Cir. 2013)
Dominguez v. Central Tire Corp., 2013 WL 1908950 (S.D. Fla., Apr. 30, 2013)
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.
Rodriguez v. Marble Care Int'l, Inc., 2013 WL 1110800 (S.D. Fla., Mar. 11, 2013)
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.
Lamonica v. Safe Hurricane Shutters, Inc., 711 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2013)
Joseph v. Nichell's Caribbean Cuisine, Inc., 2012 WL 5306360 (S.D. Fla., Oct. 26, 2012)
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.
Barrera v. Weiss & Woolrich Southern Enterprises, Inc., 900 F. Supp. 2d 1328 (S.D. Fla. 2012)
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.
Arilus v. Joseph A. DiEmmanuele, 895 F. Supp. 2d 1257 (S.D Fla. 2012)
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.
Garrido v. CSA Group Professional Servs., Inc., 2012 WL 4489479 (S.D. Fla., Sept. 21, 2012)
Brown ex rel. Brown v. Jenne, -- So. 3d -- , 2012 WL 3101318 (Fla. 4th DCA, Aug. 1, 2012)
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.
Portales v. Another Beautiful Corp., 121 So. 3d 562 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2012)
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.
Bedoya v. Aventura Limousine & Transp. Serv., Inc., 861 F. Supp. 2d 1346 (S.D. Fla. 2012)
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.
Bedoya v. Aventura Limousine & Transp. Serv., Inc., 2012 WL 1933553 (S.D. Fla., Apr. 10, 2012)
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.
Gomez v. Virtual Imaging Servs., Inc., 2012 WL 1933337 (S.D. Fla., Apr. 3, 2012)
Suchite v. Tecta America South Florida, Inc., 2012 WL 1933344 (S.D. Fla., Mar. 23, 2012)
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.
Barrera v. Tecta America South Florida, Inc., 2012 WL 1933319 (S.D. Fla., Feb. 15, 2012)
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.
Ceant v. Tinkler, 2012 WL 1933557 (S.D. Fla., Feb. 24, 2012)
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.
Rodriguez v. Marble Care Int'l, Inc., 862 F. Supp. 2d 1316 (S.D. Fla. 2012)
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.
Joseph v. Nichell's Caribbean Cuisine, Inc., 862 F. Supp. 2d 1309 (S.D. Fla. 2012)
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.
Obando v. M & E Investments, Inc., 2012 WL 1933552 (S.D. Fla., Jan. 13, 2012)
Rakip v. Paradise Awnings Corp., 2011 WL 6029981 (S.D. Fla., Nov. 30, 2011)
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.
Orellana v. Tecta America South Florida, Inc., 2011 WL 6030108 (S.D. Fla., Nov. 29, 2011)
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.
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.
Aguirre, et al., v. Safe Hurricane Shutters, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-22913-CIV-SIMONTON (S.D. Fla.)
Palma v. Safe Hurricane Shutters, Inc., 2011 WL 6029968 (S.D. Fla., Oct. 24, 2011)
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.
Rodriguez v. Marble Care Int'l, Inc., 2011 WL 918634 (S.D. Fla., Mar. 15, 2011)
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.
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.