United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
CHARLENE EDWARDS HONEYWELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court upon the Plaintiff's Motion
for Summary Judgment (Doc. 53), Defendant Vincent
Addonisio's response thereto (Doc. 60), and the
parties' Joint Stipulation of Agreed Material Facts (Doc.
62). In the motion, Plaintiff argues that summary judgment
should be granted as to Addonisio's liability for
overtime pay under the FLSA because the evidence shows that
Plaintiff is covered by the FLSA and Addonisio qualified as
his employer. Doc. 60. The Court, having considered the
motion and being fully advised in the premises, will deny
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.
BACKGROUND AND FACTS
David Pedraza-Victoria filed the Complaint and Demand for
Jury Trial (Doc. 1) against Defendants Villa Bellini
Ristorante & Lounge, Inc. (“Villa Bellini”)
and Vincent Addonisio, an officer of Villa Bellini, alleging
one count for recovery of overtime compensation against both
Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C. § 216(b) (“FLSA”), and a second count
alleging a collective action under the FLSA for similarly
situated employees. Doc. 1. Villa Bellini is a restaurant
that provides food and beverages to the general public and
Pedraza-Victoria was employed by Villa Bellini. Doc. 1
¶¶ 5, 20; Doc. 13 ¶¶ 5, 20.
Defendants' Answer, Defenses and Counterclaim (Doc. 13),
Villa Bellini admitted that its employees ran credit card
transactions that transacted business in interstate commerce
on a daily basis; handled goods such as food, napkins,
silverware, appliance and restaurant equipment that have
traveled in interstate commerce; and, during the times
relevant to the Complaint, had an annual gross volume of
sales made or business done of not less than $500, 000. Doc.
1 ¶¶ 17-19; Doc. 13 ¶¶ 17-19. Addonisio
did not make such admissions. Doc. 13 ¶¶ 17-19.
Bellini also raised various counterclaims against
Pedraza-Victoria. However, the instant Motion for Summary
Judgment is not directed to Villa Bellini, which has since
filed a Notice of Bankruptcy (Doc. 45), resulting in this
action being stayed as against Villa Bellini (Doc. 46).
was an employee of Villa Bellini from April 2015 to January
2018. Doc. 62 ¶ 1. During that time, Pedraza-Victoria
worked more than forty hours in one or more workweeks without
being compensated at the rate of time and one-half for all
such hours. Id. ¶¶ 2, 3.
February 2015 to April 2015, Addonisio was the Vice President
of Villa Bellini. Id. ¶ 6. He became the Chief
Executive Officer of Villa Bellini in September 2016.
Id. ¶ 7. For at least some portion of
Pedraza-Victoria's employment, Addonisio had the
authority to hire and fire him. Id. ¶ 5.
Additionally, at all times relevant to this action, Addonisio
was authorized to discipline Villa Bellini's employees,
as well as to set rates of pay and schedules for its
employees, including Pedraza-Victoria. Id.
¶¶ 9-13. Addonisio also had control of Villa
Bellini's payroll during all times relevant to this
action. Id. ¶ 14.
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment
moves for summary judgment on the issue of liability against
Addonisio, arguing that Addonisio is individually liable
because he created, implemented, and enforced Villa
Bellini's illegal pay practices. Doc. 53 at 2. Plaintiff
relies, in part, on his Requests for Admissions propounded on
Defendants that Defendants failed to respond to and are
deemed admitted (the “Admissions”). Id.
Among the requests was a request that Addonisio
“[a]dmit that Defendant's failure to compensate
Plaintiff at the rate of time and one-half for all of
Plaintiff's hours worked in excess of forty (40) in a
workweek constitutes a violation of the [FLSA].” Doc.
53-1 at 12. In the Request for Admissions directed to
Addonisio, “Defendant” was defined as Addonisio.
Id. at 2.
argues that the Answer and Admissions establish that: (1) he
is individually covered by the FLSA; and (2) Addonisio is his
employer under the FLSA. Doc. 53. Addonisio responds that
Pedraza-Victoria cannot rely on the Admission that Addonisio
violated the FLSA because that request constituted a legal
conclusion and was improper. Doc. 60 at 2.