Case Name: Kenneth KLEIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FLORANADA WAREHOUSE AND STORAGE, INC., a Florida profit corporation, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-01-26
Citations: 674 F. App'x 967
Docket Number: No. 16-11342 Non-Argument Calendar
Parties: Kenneth KLEIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FLORANADA WAREHOUSE AND STORAGE, INC., a Florida profit corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 674
Pages: 967–968

Head Matter:
Kenneth KLEIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FLORANADA WAREHOUSE AND STORAGE, INC., a Florida profit corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-11342 Non-Argument Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Filed (January 26, 2017)
Richard Celler, Richard Celler Legal, PA, Davie, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant
Robin I. Bresky, Michele Karlin Feinzig, Law Offices of Robin Bresky, Boca Raton, FL, Kimberly Anne Gilmour, Kimberly A. Gilmour, PA, Davie, FL, for Defendant-Appellee
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Klein is a former émployee of Floranada Warehouse and Storage (Flora-nada). He brought suit against Floranada seeking damages for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Klein alleged that Floranada failed to pay him overtime pay at time-and-a-half for hours he worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week, as required by 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). A jury decided in favor of Floranada, finding that Klein was properly paid and was not due any overtime compensation (beyond the commissions or non-discretionary bonus payments for which Klein was partially granted summary judgment). On appeal, Klein challenges the district court's denial of his motion for a directed verdict and his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
We have reviewed and considered the briefs and the record, and we have drawn all reasonable inferences in favor of Flora-nada, the nonmoving party. See Cleveland v. Home Shopping Network, Inc., 369 F.3d 1189, 1192-93 (11th Cir. 2004). There was more than sufficient evidence tó support the jury's verdict. In reaching that conclusion, we find no merit to Klein's argument that his pay structure emanated from a vain attempt to establish a Belo agree ment. Therefore, we conclude that the motions for directed verdict and motion for judgment notwithstanding the jury's verdict were properly denied. The decisions of the district court are
AFFIRMED.
. Walling v. A.H. Belo Corp., 316 U.S. 624, 62 S.Ct. 1223, 86 L.Ed. 1716 (1942).