United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
ORDER & REASONS
the Court are Defendant's Motions to Dismiss, for Summary
Judgment, for Decertification of Collective Class Action, and
to Strike. R. Docs. 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, and 48. Plaintiffs
have responded in opposition. R. Docs. 43, 44, 45, 46, and
47. After considering the parties' briefs and the
applicable law, the Court issues this Order & Reasons.
Antonia Hernandez (“Hernandez”) has filed this
lawsuit as a putative class action on behalf of herself and
other similarly situated parties to recover unpaid overtime
wages. R. Doc. 1 at 1. Plaintiff claims that, while she was
employed as a kitchen helper at Defendant Morning Call Coffee
Stand, Inc. (“Morning Call”), she was not paid
one-and-a-half times her hourly wage for hours worked in
excess of forty (40) hours per week. R. Doc. 1 at 1.
Plaintiff claims that all overtime hours were paid in cash.
R. Doc. 1 at 4. Plaintiff files this lawsuit under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and claims unpaid
wages, interest, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees
and costs. R. Doc. 1 at 1-2. Plaintiff also requests
declaratory and injunctive relief. R. Doc. 1 at 2.
15, 2017, the Court entered the default of Defendant Morning
Call because Defendant had failed to appear, plead, or
otherwise defend. R. Doc. 6. On November 21, 2018, the Court
vacated the default because good cause was shown, namely the
death of president and sole shareholder of Defendant Morning
Call. R. Doc. 14. Defendant answered the complaint generally
denying the allegations. R. Doc. 16. Defendant also asserts
the following affirmative defenses among others:
prescription, good faith, and Defendant did not authorize
Plaintiffs to work overtime. R. Doc. 16.
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (R. Doc. 37)
moves to dismiss the claims brought by Plaintiff Angelo
Albers, Jr. for failure to prosecute. R. Doc. 37. Defendant
alleges that Plaintiff Albers, Jr. has twice failed to appear
for a noticed deposition and has failed to communicate with
counsel. R. Doc. 37-1.
only opposes dismissal with prejudice. R. Doc. 43.
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (R. Doc.
moves for summary judgment against Plaintiff Antonia
Hernandez based on statements made during her deposition
testimony. R. Doc. 39-3. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff
Hernandez made the following statements during her deposition
testimony: 1) she worked 16-17 hours overtime per week, 2)
she was paid either $270 or $360 per week in cash for
overtime, and 3) she was paid approximately $18, 576 per year
in cash for overtime. R. Doc. 39-3 at 3. Defendant argues
that these statements are judicial admissions that negate any
claims Plaintiff has for overtime pay. R. Doc. 39-3 at 4.
Defendant argues that given this testimony, Plaintiff
Hernandez would have had to work 23.8 hours of overtime per
week to be entitled to any additional overtime pay. R. Doc.
39-3 at 4. Therefore, Defendant asks the Court to grant
summary judgment on Plaintiff Hernandez's overtime
claims. R. Doc. 39.
responds in opposition arguing that Defendant has
mischaracterized Plaintiff's deposition testimony. R.
Doc. 44 at 1. Plaintiff argues that she has never stated that
she was paid the correct amount of overtime and that the
amounts given in her deposition testimony were
“estimates.” R. Doc. 44 at 2.
Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (R. Doc.
moves for partial summary judgment against Plaintiff David
McEniry based on statements made during his deposition
testimony. R. Doc. 40-3. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff
McEniry made the following statement during his deposition
testimony: he worked roughly one hour of overtime per week.
R. Doc. 40-3 at 2. Defendant argues that this statement is a
judicial admission that limits Plaintiff McEniry's claims
for overtime pay. R. Doc. 40-3 at 6. Defendant argues that
given this testimony, Plaintiff McEniry is entitled at most
to only one hour of overtime pay over the course of his time
working for ...