Heeter v. J. Peterman Enterprises, LLC, 2:15-cv-03062

Background

Plaintiffs Brian Heeter and Alan Mayle sued J. Peterman Enterprises, LLC, Carlton Banks Enterprises, LLC, and Robert and Michael Shotwell for unpaid minimum wage and overtime under the FLSA and parallel Ohio laws; Heeter filed the suit and Mayle was later added via amended complaint.
Plaintiffs allege they worked long days beginning and ending at a central shop, traveled to multiple stores (including out of state), regularly worked over 40 hours per week, submitted daily paper timesheets, and were not paid overtime or compensation for end-of-day travel.
Defendants initially answered the original complaint but their counsel withdrew; the corporate defendants did not obtain new counsel and the individual defendants proceeded pro se.
The Clerk entered default against Defendants for Mayle after they failed to respond to the Amended Complaint; Mayle moved for default judgment and requested a post-default hearing on damages.
Heeter moved for partial summary judgment on liability only; corporate defendants and Michael Shotwell did not respond, Robert Shotwell (individually) opposed only on damages.
The court found Mayle established liability by well-pleaded allegations and scheduled a damages hearing; the court granted Heeter partial summary judgment as to liability against Robert Shotwell and J. Peterman, but denied summary judgment as to Michael Shotwell and Carlton Banks (insufficient evidence they employed Heeter).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Liability for unpaid minimum wage and overtime under FLSA/Ohio law	Plaintiffs assert they were non-exempt employees who regularly worked >40 hrs/wk and were not paid overtime or full wages	Defendants generally disputed hours/damages and denied joint/employment by Michael Shotwell or Carlton Banks for Heeter	Mayle: default judgment granted on liability; Heeter: summary judgment granted as to Robert Shotwell and J. Peterman; denied as to Michael Shotwell and Carlton Banks
Whether Carlton Banks and Michael Shotwell were employers of Heeter (joint employer)	Heeter argued defendants were joint employers and thus liable	Defendants denied that Carlton Banks or Michael Shotwell employed Heeter; Carlton Banks was formed after much of Heeter’s employment	Court found Carlton Banks did not exist for most of Heeter’s employment and payroll records did not list Heeter for Carlton Banks; summary judgment denied as to those defendants
Sufficiency of evidence for damages/hours worked	Plaintiffs supplied timesheets, pay records, and declarations estimating hours	Robert Shotwell disputed specific days/hours and alleged retroactive alterations to timesheets	Liability accepted (where found); damages and precise hours remain factual issues to be determined at a hearing/trial
Procedural consequence of defendants’ failure to respond/appear	Plaintiffs argued default and/or summary disposition were appropriate where defendants failed to defend	Defendants largely failed to respond after counsel withdrawal; Robert Shotwell responded only on damages	Court entered default liability for Mayle and warned corporate entities must retain counsel; partial summary judgment entered where evidence undisputed and defendants failed to raise genuine factual disputes

Key Cases Cited

O.J. Distrib., Inc. v. Hornell Brewing Co., 340 F.3d 345 (6th Cir. 2003) (procedural sequence for entry of default and default judgment)
Antoine v. Atlas Turner, Inc., 66 F.3d 105 (6th Cir. 1995) (well-pleaded allegations in default establish liability)
Thomas v. Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC, 506 F.3d 496 (6th Cir. 2007) (Ohio law incorporates FLSA definitions for wage/overtime analysis)
Skills Dev. Servs., Inc. v. Donovan, 728 F.2d 294 (6th Cir. 1984) (joint employment principles)
Elwell v. University Hospitals Home Care Services, 276 F.3d 832 (6th Cir. 2002) (employer bears burden to prove exemptions from FLSA)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (summary judgment standard and drawing inferences)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment and genuine dispute standard)