Guevara v. Ischia, Inc.
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76984
D.D.C.2014Background
- Plaintiffs Moises and Jose Batres Guevara worked at Ristorante La Perla (Ischia, Inc.) as a line cook and dishwasher, paid a fixed weekly salary and received no separately designated overtime.
- Plaintiffs allege they routinely worked over 40 hours/week and were not paid overtime, invoking the FLSA and DCMWA; defendants concede employment status and that overtime pay was never separately paid but dispute the actual hours worked.
- Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment seeking (a) a finding that Vittorio Testa is an individual “employer,” (b) liability for unpaid overtime, and (c) entitlement to liquidated (double) damages; defendants opposed and sought trial on liability.
- Testa conceded in discovery that it was possible plaintiffs worked over 40 hours, but several La Perla employees and Testa submitted affidavits saying plaintiffs frequently left or took long breaks, creating a credibility conflict.
- No contemporaneous time records exist; the absence of employer records was noted but the Court held plaintiffs still must produce sufficient evidence to permit a “just and reasonable inference” of hours worked.
- Court granted partial summary judgment that Testa is an “employer,” but denied summary judgment on liability for unpaid overtime and on liquidated damages, leaving factual disputes for a jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Vittorio Testa is an individual "employer" under the FLSA/DCMWA | Testa exercised operational control (hiring/firing, set pay, supervised work) so is individually liable | Testa did not meaningfully contest the point in opposition | Granted — Testa is an employer (conceded by failure to oppose) |
| Whether plaintiffs actually worked uncompensated overtime (over 40 hrs/week) | Plaintiffs testified they regularly worked long days (up to ~10–12 hrs); Testa admitted it was possible | Defendants produced multiple affidavits saying plaintiffs left early/took long breaks; factual dispute exists | Denied — credibility and conflicting evidence create genuine issue for jury |
| Effect of employer's failure to keep time records on plaintiffs' burden of proof | Employer's record-keeping failure should relax plaintiff's proof burden under Mt. Clemens line of cases | Defendants argue plaintiffs still must produce sufficient evidence to show amount and extent of work | Court: employer's failure is relevant but plaintiffs still failed to make the required showing at summary judgment; issue for jury |
| Entitlement to liquidated (double) damages under FLSA/DCMWA | Plaintiffs sought summary adjudication that liquidated damages apply if liability found | Defendants did not adequately rebut plaintiffs' motion on this point | Denied as premature — cannot decide before liability; noted plaintiff-friendly standard for liquidated damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden shifting principles)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard and credibility cannot be resolved there)
- Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. v. Anderson, 328 U.S. 680 (plaintiff's burden when employer's records are missing)
- Ventura v. Bebo Foods, Inc., 738 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2010) (individual owner liability where operational control shown)
- Thompson v. Linda And A., Inc., 779 F. Supp. 2d 139 (D.D.C. 2011) (liquidated damages good-faith defense requires affirmative showing)
- Wilkins v. Jackson, 750 F. Supp. 2d 160 (D.D.C. 2010) (failure to respond to summary judgment argument can be treated as concession)
- FDIC v. Bender, 127 F.3d 58 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (treatment of unopposed arguments at summary judgment)