Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Seelen v. Med Coach, LLC

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division

October 23, 2019

LEONARD SEELEN, LESTER OSBORN, STANLEY BELK, MARY KAESER, and SHARYN BENECK, Plaintiff,
v.
MED COACH, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Defendant.

          ORDER GRANTING “DEFENDANT MED COACH, LLC'S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFFS OSBORN AND BELK FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION”

          TOM BARBER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter is before the Court on “Defendant Med Coach, LLC's Partial Motion to Dismiss Claims of Plaintiff's Osborn and Belk For Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction” filed on May 30, 2019. (Doc #21). On June 12, 2019, Lester Osborn and Stanley Belk filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion. (Doc. #23). On September 13, 2019, the Court converted the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and provided both parties with ample time to provide supplementary evidence and briefs on the merits. (Doc. #34).[1] On October 14, 2019, Defendant filed a memorandum in support of summary judgment. (Doc. #35). The same day, Osborn and Belk filed a memorandum in opposition of summary judgment. (Doc. #46). After reviewing the motion, memoranda, court file, and record, this Court finds as follows.

         Background

         In this Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) case, Plaintiffs assert that Defendant, a provider of transportation services to the sick and elderly, did not make legally required overtime payments. In February 2018, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) opened an investigation into Defendant's practices and found that Defendant had misclassified its employees as independent contractors and failed to pay overtime. (Doc. #32). Subsequently, the DOL

provided [Defendant] with specific instructions regarding the letter to send to the [employees], the payment of the monies owed, setting deadlines for compliance, and requiring proof that payments were made. One of those requirements was to include a Form WH-58 with each of the checks.

Id.

         On September 7, 2018, Defendant issued checks to Lester Osborn and Stanley Belk accompanied by a Form WH-58, a standard DOL form that Defendant had been instructed to provide. The form states:

NOTICE TO EMPLOYEE: Your acceptance of this payment of wages and/or other compensation due under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) or Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), based on the findings of the WHD means that you have given up the right you have to bring suit on your own behalf for the payment of such unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation for the period of time indicated above … Do not sign this receipt unless you have actually received this payment in the amount indicated above.

         Osborn and Belk cashed their checks but did not sign the form.

         Legal Standard

         The Court may grant summary judgment where “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “Whether a genuine issue concerning a material fact exists is itself a question of law that must be decided by the court.” See Carlson v. FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc., 787 F.3d 1313, 1317-18 (11th Cir. 2015). An issue is genuine where “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986).

         The moving party bears the initial burden to show there is no genuine issue of material fact, and all factual inferences will be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Allen v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 121 F.3d 642, 646 (11th Cir. 1997); Rollins v. TechSouth, Inc., 833 F.2d 1525, 1532 (11th Cir. 1987). Once the moving party has met its burden, the nonmoving party must identify specific facts and evidence to show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. Jeffrey v. Sarasota White Sox, Inc., 64 F.3d 590, 593-94 (11th Cir. 1995). Speculation does not create a genuine issue of fact and the nonmovant must provide more than a mere scintilla of evidence to survive summary judgment. Urquilla-Diaz v. Kaplan Univ., 780 F.3d 1039, 1050 (11th Cir. 2015).

         Discussion

         Defendant claims that Osborn and Belk are precluded from bringing their claim because (1) Defendant was adequately supervised by the DOL as required by statute; and (2) Osborn and Belk waived their respective rights to sue for unpaid wages even though they did not sign the Form WH-58. Upon ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.