Joe Gordils v. Ocean Drive Limousines, Inc. , 671 F. App'x 731 ( 2016 )

Case: 15-14319 Date Filed: 11/21/2016 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-14319
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-24358-JLK
JOE GORDILS,
FRANCISCO RAMOS,
BEYMAR SABOGAL,
PEDRO P. SOSA,
and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(B),
RIDER MORALES,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
CHRISTIAN R. DIAZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
LAZARO PONTON,
Plaintiff – Counter
Defendant,
versus
OCEAN DRIVE LIMOUSINES, INC.,
OCEAN DRIVE LIMOUSINES, INC. SO. FLA.,
RICHARD BENNETTI,
MELISSA BENNETTI,
Defendants - Counter
Claimants – Appellees.
Case: 15-14319 Date Filed: 11/21/2016 Page: 2 of 4
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(November 21, 2016)
Before MARCUS and BLACK, Circuit Judges, and COHEN,* District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Joe Gordils, Francisco Ramos, Beymar Sabogal, Rider Morales, and Pedro
P. Sosa (Appellants) appeal two issues in their Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
case after a jury determined their employer, Ocean Drive Limousines, Inc. (Ocean
Drive) had not violated minimum wage or overtime laws, but then went on to
award damages for unpaid overtime. Appellants do not appeal the inconsistent
verdict, but assert (1) the trial court abused its discretion in failing to give a
requested jury instruction on cost reimbursement, and (2) the trial court erred in
failing to award liquidated damages on the amount of their award for overtime
wages.
“We review only for an abuse of discretion a district court’s refusal to give a
requested jury instruction.” Lamonica v. Safe Hurricane Shutters, Inc., 711 F.3d
1299, 1309 (11th Cir. 2013) (quotations omitted). “In refusing to give a requested
* Honorable Mark Howard Cohen, United States District Judge, for the Northern District
of Georgia, sitting by designation.
2
Case: 15-14319 Date Filed: 11/21/2016 Page: 3 of 4
jury instruction, ‘[a]n abuse of discretion is committed only when (1) the requested
instruction correctly stated the law, (2) the instruction dealt with an issue properly
before the jury, and (3) the failure to give the instruction resulted in prejudicial
harm to the requesting party.’” Id. (quotations omitted). The failure to give the
cost reimbursement instruction did not result in prejudicial harm to Appellants.
The jury heard argument that Appellants’ fuel and cleaning costs should be
considered in calculating minimum wage and overtime owed during both opening
and closing arguments, and Appellants testified regarding their fuel and cleaning
costs. The jury was aware that Appellants’ calculation of minimum wage and
overtime took into account the drivers paying their own fuel and cleaning costs.
Thus, the failure to give a specific instruction on cost reimbursement did not result
in prejudicial harm to Appellants. The district court did not abuse its discretion in
failing to give the requested instruction.
We review a district court’s decision to award liquidated damages under the
FLSA for an abuse of discretion. Rodriguez v. Farm Stores Grocery, Inc., 518
F.3d 1259, 1272 (11th Cir. 2008). The district court did not abuse its discretion in
refusing to award liquidated damages for two independent reasons. First, the jury
found that Ocean Drive had not failed to pay the drivers minimum wages or
overtime as “required by law.” This finding was never contested. There was thus
3
Case: 15-14319 Date Filed: 11/21/2016 Page: 4 of 4
no violation of the FLSA that necessitated the imposition of liquidated damages
and the district court did not abuse its discretion in so finding.
Moreover, Melissa Bennetti testified that Ocean Drive had been audited by
the Department of Labor, and no overtime violations were found. Only later did
Ocean Drive discover that some overtime wages were owed the drivers, and they
admitted certain amounts were owed. Ocean Drive met its burden of proving its
entitlement to the safe harbor provision, as the omission giving rise to the action
was made in good faith and Ocean Drive had reasonable grounds for believing it
was not violating overtime laws. See id. at 1272-73; Joiner v. City of Macon, 814
F.2d 1537, 1539 (11th Cir. 1987).
AFFIRMED.
4