Ramon Sabatier v. Suntrust Bank

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
December 9, 2008
No. 08-10351
THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 06-20418 CV-WJZ
RAMON SABATIER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SUNTRUST BANK,
a Georgia Company,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
(December 9, 2008)
Before DUBINA, BLACK and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff/Appellant Ramon Sabatier (“Sabatier”) appeals the district court’s
order granting summary judgment to Defendant/Appellee SunTrust Bank (“Bank”)
on Sabatier’s claims for retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”)
and the Florida Whistle-Blower Act. Sabatier also appeals the district court’s
order granting the Bank’s motion for reconsideration, the district court’s order
denying Sabatier’s motion to reopen discovery, and the district court’s order
denying Sabatier’s motion to recuse the district judge.
The issues presented on appeal are:
1. Whether the district court abused its discretion in granting the Bank’s
motion for reconsideration.
2. Whether the district court erred in granting the Bank’s motion for
summary judgment.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying as moot
Sabatier’s motion to reopen discovery.
4. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Sabatier’s
motion for recusal.
We review the district court’s grant of a motion for reconsideration for
abuse of discretion. See Makro Capital of Am., Inc. v. UBS AG, 543 F.3d 1254,
1261 (11th Cir. 2008) (addressing the denial of a motion for reconsideration).
2
This court reviews de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment,
viewing all issues of material fact in favor of the non-movant. Beshers v.
Harrison, 495 F.3d 1260, 1265 (11th Cir. 2007).
We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decisions concerning
discovery. Artistic Entm’t, Inc. v. City of Warner Robins, 331 F.3d 1196, 1202
(11th Cir. 2003); cf. Shuford v. Fidelity Nat’l Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 508 F.3d
1337, 1341 (11th Cir. 2007) (reviewing for abuse of discretion a district court’s
order on motion for leave to conduct limited discovery under Rule 56(f)).
We also review for abuse of discretion a district court’s order on a motion to
recuse. United States v. Bailey, 175 F.3d 966, 968 (11th Cir. 1999).
After reviewing the record and reading the parties’ briefs, we first conclude
that the district court correctly granted reconsideration of its order denying
summary judgment because it earlier committed legal error in refusing to consider
the affidavit of decision-maker Conchita Rodriquez, which was proffered by the
Bank to establish the Bank’s non-retaliatory reasons for the adverse employment
actions at issue.
Second, we conclude from the record that the district court correctly granted
the Bank’s motion for summary judgment. There were no genuine issues of
3
material fact. Also, there was no error committed in relying on the testimony of
interested witnesses (the Bank’s employees) in granting summary judgment.
Third, even if we assume, arguendo, that Sabatier did establish a prima facie
case, he still cannot prevail because the Bank presented legitimate, nonretaliatory
reasons for the employment actions taken, and Sabatier failed to demonstrate that
those actions were merely a pretext for discrimination.
Finally, we see no abuse of discretion in denying Sabatier’s motion to
reopen discovery to take the deposition of his former supervisor, Juan Arana. We
also see no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to deny Sabatier’s
motion to recuse. Accordingly, for the above-stated reasons, we affirm the district
court’s judgment and orders.
AFFIRMED.
4