Court Opinion

ID: 9396683
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-23 16:01:07.999306+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:18.175337
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-14088    Document: 25-1     Date Filed: 05/23/2023   Page: 1 of 6

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-14088
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       JOSE LUIS VERA,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       MARKET WOOD LLC,
       ADRIANA PICCOLI,
       RICARDO RUBIN,

                                                 Defendants-Appellees.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
USCA11 Case: 22-14088     Document: 25-1     Date Filed: 05/23/2023   Page: 2 of 6

       2                     Opinion of the Court                22-14088

                      D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-23837-FAM
                           ____________________

       Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Jose Luis Vera appeals from the district court’s order dis-
       missing his complaint for failure to comply with a trial order and
       the district court’s order denying his motion to reopen the case.
       After careful review, we affirm.
              I.     FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
              Vera worked for Market Wood, LLC, Adriana Piccoli, and
       Ricardo Rubin (collectively, “Defendants”) as a non-exempt sales
       associate. Throughout his employment for Defendants, Vera
       worked an average of 46.5 hours per week but was only paid for 43
       hours per week. Vera regularly complained about this underpay-
       ment, and Defendants eventually demoted Vera from a sales asso-
       ciate to custodial work, which precluded him from earning com-
       missions and reduced his compensation. On September 27, 2021,
       Vera filed a complaint against Defendants in state court, alleging
       wage and hour violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act
       (“FLSA”) (Counts I, II, and III), retaliation under the FLSA (Count
       IV), breach of contract (Count V), quantum meruit (Count VI), and
       unjust enrichment (Count VI) against Defendants. On November
       1, 2021, Defendants removed the case to federal court in the South-
       ern District of Florida.
USCA11 Case: 22-14088      Document: 25-1     Date Filed: 05/23/2023     Page: 3 of 6

       22-14088               Opinion of the Court                         3

              Defendants moved to dismiss as to Counts V, VI, and VII on
       November 1, 2021, arguing that Vera did not allege the elements
       necessary to state a claim for breach of contract, quantum meruit,
       and unjust enrichment and that Counts V, VI, and VII did not state
       a claim against the individual defendants Piccoli and Rubin. On
       February 13, 2022, the district court granted Defendants’ motion to
       dismiss. The litigation continued as to Counts I, II, III, and IV.
                Pursuant to the district court’s order granting the parties’
       joint motion for extension, the deadline for Vera to file witness and
       exhibit lists was on November 16, 2022. Defendants’ witness and
       exhibit lists were due on November 18, 2022, and the parties’ pre-
       trial stipulation was due on November 22, 2022. Due to the failure
       of both parties to comply with all these deadlines, the district court
       entered an order dismissing the case on November 28, 2022. The
       district court concluded that the parties had “either settled without
       notifying the Court or abandoned their claims and defenses.” That
       same day, Vera moved to reopen the case, explaining that Vera had
       accepted an offer of judgment in the amount of $9,000 against De-
       fendants on November 16, 2022, and requesting that the district
       court reopen the case and enter judgment against Defendants.
       Vera also stated that the failure to comply with the scheduling or-
       der and to notify the court of the resolution was excusable neglect
       in part because Vera’s counsel “was out of town for the
USCA11 Case: 22-14088           Document: 25-1       Date Filed: 05/23/2023         Page: 4 of 6

       4                          Opinion of the Court                       22-14088

       Thanksgiving holiday break.” On December 6, 2022, the district
       court denied Vera’s motion to reopen the case. 1
              This timely appeal followed. Vera’s notice of appeal stated
       that he was appealing “the Court’s Order Dismissing Plaintiff’s
       Complaint and Final Order of Dismissal issued November 28, 2022
       and the Court’s Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen the
       case entered December 6, 2022.” Vera’s notice of appeal to this
       Court did not mention or attach the district court’s February 3,
       2022 order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to
       state a claim.
                          II.      STANDARD OF REVIEW
              We review a district court’s dismissal of a case for failure to
       comply with court orders for abuse of discretion. Foudy v. Indian
       River Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 845 F.3d 1117, 1122 (11th Cir. 2017).
                                    III.    ANALYSIS
              Vera argues that the district court erred in dismissing his
       case against Defendants and in denying his subsequent motion to
       reopen. “A district court has inherent authority to manage its own
       docket ‘so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of
       cases.’” Equity Lifestyle Props., Inc. v. Fla. Mowing & Landscape Serv.
       Inc., 556 F.3d 1232, 1240 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Chambers v.
       NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991)). This authority permits a

       1 Also on December 6, 2022, Vera refiled his complaint, and it is pending before

       a judge in the Southern District of Florida. See Vera v. Market Wood LLC, et al.,
       No. 1:23-cv-20285 (S.D. Fla. filed Jan. 25, 2023).
USCA11 Case: 22-14088         Document: 25-1         Date Filed: 05/23/2023          Page: 5 of 6

       22-14088                   Opinion of the Court                                 5

       district court to dismiss a claim if the plaintiff fails to comply with
       a court order. Id.; accord Smith v. Psychiatric Sols., Inc., 750 F.3d
       1253, 1262 (11th Cir. 2014). In general, a dismissal without preju-
       dice is not considered an abuse of discretion because the plaintiff
       may still refile. See Dynes v. Army Air Force Exch. Serv., 720 F.2d 1495,
       1499 (11th Cir. 1983).
              Given Vera’s failure to meet multiple court deadlines, his
       failure to notify the district court in any way of a pending resolu-
       tion of the case, and the fact that he has already refiled his com-
       plaint, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discre-
       tion in dismissing his claims. 2
                                 IV.      CONCLUSION
             For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s order dis-
       missing Vera’s claims and its order denying his motion to reopen.

       2 Vera also requests review of the February 3, 2022, order dismissing portions
       of his complaint, even though he did not reference that order in his notice of
       appeal. “The timely filing of a notice of appeal is a mandatory prerequisite to
       the exercise of appellate jurisdiction.” See United States v. Ward, 696 F.2d 1315,
       1317 (11th Cir. 1983). “Although we generally construe a notice of appeal lib-
       erally, we will not expand it to include judgments and orders not specified
       unless the overriding intent to appeal these orders is readily apparent on the
       face of the notice.” Osterneck v. E.T. Barwick Indus., Inc., 825 F.2d 1521, 1529
       (11th Cir. 1987). And “where some portions of a judgment and some orders
       are expressly made part of the appeal, we must infer that the appellant did not
       intend to appeal other unmentioned orders or judgments.” Id. Because Vera
       did not mention in his notice of appeal that he was appealing the district
       court’s February 3 dismissal order, nor attach that order to the notice of ap-
       peal, we lack jurisdiction to review that order.
USCA11 Case: 22-14088   Document: 25-1   Date Filed: 05/23/2023   Page: 6 of 6

       6                  Opinion of the Court              22-14088

             AFFIRMED.