Jaszmann Espinoza v. Teri Galardi

Case: 18-14371 Date Filed: 05/07/2019 Page: 1 of 10
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-14371
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-21244-JG
JASZMANN ESPINOZA,
SELETA STANTON,
TIFFANY THOMPSON,
DOUGANNA BALLARD,
JANICE BAILEY,
and all persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
SHANICE BAIN,
Plaintiff,
versus
GALARDI SOUTH ENTERPRISES, INC., et al.,
Defendants,
Case: 18-14371 Date Filed: 05/07/2019 Page: 2 of 10
TERI GALARDI,
individually,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(May 7, 2019)
Before BRANCH, EDMONDSON, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Teri Galardi appeals the district court’s entry of a final money judgment in
favor of Shanice Bain, Netonia Bell, Janice Dennis, Jaszmann Espinoza, Ronika
Jones, Queen Lewis, Stevontrae McDowell, Kiara Scott, and Seleta Stanton
(“Plaintiffs”). The district court entered judgment following a jury trial on
Plaintiffs’ claims for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et
seq. (“FLSA”). No reversible error has been shown; we affirm. We also grant
Plaintiffs’ motion for damages and costs (filed pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 38) and
2
Case: 18-14371 Date Filed: 05/07/2019 Page: 3 of 10
remand to the district court for a determination of costs and reasonable attorneys’
fees incurred on appeal.
Background
Galardi was the controlling shareholder and president of Fly Low, Inc. (“Fly
Low”), an entity that owned and managed the King of Diamonds dance club.
Plaintiffs -- dancers at the King of Diamonds -- filed this civil action against
several defendants, including Galardi and Fly Low. Plaintiffs asserted claims for
minimum wage and overtime violations under the FLSA.
Galardi filed a partial motion for summary judgment, arguing that she was
no “employer” within the meaning of the FLSA. The district court denied
Galardi’s motion, determining that genuine disputes of material fact existed about
whether -- based on Galardi’s involvement with the King of Diamonds -- Galardi
qualified as Plaintiffs’ “employer.”
The case proceeded to a seven-day jury trial. The jury returned a verdict in
favor of Plaintiffs and, through special interrogatories, calculated damages owed to
each Plaintiff. Consistent with the jury’s verdict, the district court entered a final
3
Case: 18-14371 Date Filed: 05/07/2019 Page: 4 of 10
money judgment assessing damages against Galardi and Fly Low, jointly and
severally.
Galardi’s Appeal
On appeal, Galardi challenges (1) the district court’s denial of Galardi’s
motion for partial summary judgment, (2) the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting the jury’s finding that Galardi was Plaintiffs’ “employer” under the
FLSA, and (3) the district court’s evidentiary rulings.
As an initial matter, we will not consider Galardi’s challenge to the district
court’s denial of her motion for partial summary judgment. See Ortiz v. Jordan,
562 U.S. 180, 183-84 (2011) (a party may not “appeal an order denying summary
judgment after a full trial on the merits”); Lind v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 254
F.3d 1281, 1286 (11th Cir. 2001) (“this Court will not review the pretrial denial of
a motion for summary judgment after a full trial and judgment on the merits.”).
Nor will we review Galardi’s sufficiency-of-the-evidence argument. A party
may not challenge the sufficiency of evidence on appeal when that party has failed
to file motions for judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) and
50(b) and failed to file a motion for a new trial under Rule 59. See Rosenberg v.
4
Case: 18-14371 Date Filed: 05/07/2019 Page: 5 of 10
DVI Receivables XIV, LLC, 818 F.3d 1283, 1292 (11th Cir. 2016) (citing
Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394 (2006)). Because
Galardi filed in the district court no motions for judgment as a matter of law or for
a new trial, she is barred from challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on
appeal. See id.
We now address Galardi’s challenge to the district court’s evidentiary
rulings. On appeal, Galardi contends that the district court abused its discretion by
permitting each Plaintiff to testify about her damages by “literally” “reading from”
a document that was not admitted into evidence. As a result of the alleged error,
Galardi contends the final money judgment should be vacated and the case
remanded to the district court for a new trial.
We review for abuse-of-discretion the district court’s evidentiary rulings.
Furcron v. Mail Ctrs. Plus, LLC, 843 F.3d 1295, 1304 (11th Cir. 2016). Under this
standard, we will affirm “unless the district court has made a clear error of
judgment or has applied an incorrect legal standard” and the error “affects the
substantial rights of the parties.” Id. When a party fails to make a timely objection
and, instead, raises an objection for the first time on appeal, we review only for
plain error. See Fed. R. Evid. 103(e); S.E.C. v. Diversified Corp. Consulting Grp.,
378 F.3d 1219, 1227 n.14 (11th Cir. 2004). Under plain error review, we will
5
Case: 18-14371 Date Filed: 05/07/2019 Page: 6 of 10
reverse only if an error occurred, the error was plain, the error affected substantial
rights and, if left uncorrected, the error would seriously affect the fairness of the
judicial proceedings. Farley v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 197 F.3d 1322, 1329
(11th Cir. 1999).
The Federal Rules of Evidence permit a witness to use a writing to refresh
his memory for the purpose of testifying. Fed. R. Evid. 612. The “principal
requirements” for permitting a witness to use a document to refresh his recollection
are “that the witness demonstrated a need for having his memory refreshed and that
the paper used had that effect.” Thompson v. United States, 342 F.2d 137, 139
(5th Cir. 1965).
During the trial, each Plaintiff testified about the number of weeks she
worked at the King of Diamonds, the number of hours worked per week, the
number of shifts worked, and about the amount of “house fees” she was required to
pay each shift. Each Plaintiff also referred to a damages calculation summary --
prepared by each Plaintiff before trial -- to testify about the amount of minimum
wage damages she sought (the total hours worked multiplied by the minimum
wage ($7.25)) and the amount of overtime damages sought (the number of hours
worked per week in excess of 40 hours multiplied by half the minimum wage
($3.62)). Each Plaintiff also referred to her damages calculation summary to
6
Case: 18-14371 Date Filed: 05/07/2019 Page: 7 of 10
testify about her kickback damages: the number of shifts worked multiplied by the
amount of mandatory house fees paid per shift.
Galardi objected to the use of the damages calculation summaries because
the documents had not been admitted into evidence. * The district court overruled
Galardi’s objections, determining that the documents were being used to refresh
the witnesses’ recollection: not being read into the record.
We conclude that the district court abused no discretion -- and committed no
plain error -- by allowing each Plaintiff to use a damages calculation summary to
refresh her memory about the specific dollar amount of minimum wage, overtime,
and kickback damages sought. The district court supervised the use of the
damages calculation summaries and was able to observe each Plaintiff’s testimony
and demeanor on the stand. Each Plaintiff testified from her own memory about
the number of weeks, hours, and shifts worked; and Galardi cross-examined
extensively each Plaintiff about the accuracy of her recollection. The damages
calculation summaries were used to refresh each witness’s recollection about the
mathematical calculation of damages. Nothing in this record evidences that
*
We note that Galardi raised this objection during the testimony of only two of the nine
plaintiffs (Plaintiffs Espinoza and McDowell). To the extent that Galardi now challenges the use
of the damages calculation summaries during the testimony of the remaining Plaintiffs, we
review that argument only for plain error.
7
Case: 18-14371 Date Filed: 05/07/2019 Page: 8 of 10
Plaintiffs were merely reading from the summaries rather than testifying based on
her own personal knowledge.
Plaintiffs’ Rule 38 Motion
Plaintiffs have filed a motion for damages and costs, pursuant to Fed. R.
App. P. 38, against Galardi and Galardi’s lawyer for pursuing a frivolous appeal.
Rule 38 provides that, “[i]f a court of appeals determines that an appeal is
frivolous, it may, after a separately filed motion or notice from the court and
reasonable opportunity to respond, award just damages and single or double costs
to the appellee.” An award of damages and costs under Rule 38 is appropriate
against an appellant who raises “clearly frivolous claims in the face of established
law and clear facts.” Parker v. Am. Traffic Solutions, Inc., 835 F.3d 1363, 1371
(11th Cir. 2016). “[A] claim is clearly frivolous if it is ‘utterly devoid of merit.’”
Id.
We have already determined that Galardi’s first two arguments on appeal are
foreclosed plainly by established binding precedent; those arguments are clearly
frivolous. We also conclude that Galardi’s challenge to the district court’s
evidentiary rulings -- an argument that is conclusory and wholly unsupported by
8
Case: 18-14371 Date Filed: 05/07/2019 Page: 9 of 10
the record -- is also utterly devoid of merit. In her appellate brief, Galardi
identifies no specific language from the witness testimony about damages that
would support her claim that the witnesses read “literally” from the damages
calculation summaries. Galardi also fails to address -- at all -- the district court’s
determination that the documents were being used to refresh the witnesses’
recollection. Nor does Galardi argue that the alleged errors affected her substantial
rights: a necessary element to justify a vacatur of the final money judgment. See
Furcron, 843 F.3d at 1304 (abuse-of-discretion); Farley, 197 F.3d at 1329 (plain
error).
Because Galardi’s appellate arguments are entirely without merit -- and
because Galardi’s lawyer failed to bring to this Court’s attention binding precedent
that forecloses plainly two of Galardi’s arguments and failed to brief adequately
Galardi’s remaining argument -- we award to Plaintiffs double costs and
reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred as a result of having to defend this appeal, to be
assessed against Galardi and her lawyer, jointly and severally. See Pelletier v.
Zweifel, 921 F.2d 1465, 1523 (11th Cir. 1991) (awarding Rule 38 damages jointly
and severally against a lawyer and his client when the lawyer pursued claims on
appeal without notifying the Court of a state court decision that foreclosed his
client’s appellate arguments).
9
Case: 18-14371 Date Filed: 05/07/2019 Page: 10 of 10
The district court’s final money judgment is AFFIRMED, and the case is
REMANDED to the district court to determine costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees
incurred in this appeal.
AFFIRMED and REMANDED.
10