Yojan Cabrera v. Speed Services, Inc. ( 2016 )

Case: 16-10091 Date Filed: 10/24/2016 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-10091
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-20716-WCT
YOJAN CABRERA,
and all others similarly situated under 20 U.S.C. 216(B),
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SPEED SERVICES, INC.,
JOHN M. HERNANDEZ,
SPEED CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC,
Defendants - Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(October 24, 2016)
Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 16-10091 Date Filed: 10/24/2016 Page: 2 of 3
Yojan Cabrera appeals the judgment against his complaint that Speed
Services, Inc., Speed Construction Services, Inc., and their owner, John M.
Hernandez (collectively Speed Services), violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by
failing to pay Cabrera overtime compensation. Cabrera argues that the district
court abused its discretion when it refused to give his proposed jury instruction
about the treatment of a lump sum payment under a federal regulation. See C.F.R.
§ 778.310. We affirm.
Cabrera argues that his proposed jury instruction “was supported by the
evidence and the law,” but we need not address this argument. We can affirm the
judgment in favor of Speed Services on the alternative ground that Cabrera’s
proposed instruction was untimely filed. Before we will reverse a “judgment that is
based on multiple, independent grounds, an appellant must convince us that every
stated ground for the judgment against him is incorrect.” Sapuppo v. Allstate
Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014). If the “appellant fails to
challenge properly on appeal one of the grounds . . . [supporting the] judgment, he
is deemed to have abandoned any challenge of that ground. . . .” Id. The district
court denied Cabrera’s proposed “instruction for several reasons; substantive and
procedural, including the fact that [it] was untimely filed.” Because Cabrera does
not dispute that his proposed jury instruction was untimely and he offers no
2
Case: 16-10091 Date Filed: 10/24/2016 Page: 3 of 3
argument for why the district court abused its discretion in refusing to give his
instruction on that procedural ground, “it follows that the judgment [in favor of
Speed Services] is due to be affirmed,” id.
AFFIRMED.
3