United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
LEONARD SEELEN, LESTER OSBORN, STANLEY BELK, MARY KAESER, and SHARYN BENECK, Plaintiff,
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”
BARBER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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). 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
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.
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
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.
and Belk cashed their checks but did not sign the form.
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).
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).
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 ...