Josendis v. Wall to Wall Residence Repairs, Inc.
662 F.3d 1292
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Josendis sued Wall to Wall Residence Repairs, Inc. for unpaid overtime and back wages under the FLSA, its regulations, and Florida law.
- Wall to Wall moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); district court converted the motion to summary judgment and allowed limited discovery after initial scheduling.
- Josendis sought extensive post-deadline discovery; the district court imposed a protective order and sanctioned his attorney for abusing discovery.
- At summary judgment, the district court granted Wall to Wall summary judgment on both individual and enterprise coverage, and dismissed the state-law claim; the court rejected Josendis’s regulatory claim under § 776.23(c).
- On appeal, Josendis contends there were material facts precluding summary judgment and that restricted discovery prejudiced him; he also challenges sanctions.
- The Eleventh Circuit majority affirmed; it held no abuse of discretion in discovery or sanctions and upheld summary judgment on both coverage theories and rejection of the regulatory theory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Josendis is covered under individual coverage | Josendis directly engaged in interstate commerce via use of Wall to Wall’s vehicles/GPS | Josendis did not directly participate in interstate commerce; activities were intrastate | No individual coverage; Josendis failed to prove direct participation in interstate commerce |
| Whether Josendis is covered under enterprise coverage | Wall to Wall’s work at the Miami Home and gross sales exceeded thresholds, making Josendis enterprise covered | Wall to Wall did not have $500,000 in gross sales and the Miami Home was not a single enterprise; no coverage | No enterprise coverage; no annual gross sales threshold proven and Miami Home not a single enterprise |
| Whether the district court properly managed discovery and sanctions | restricted discovery prejudiced ability to contest summary judgment | court acted within its broad discretion to limit discovery and impose sanctions for abuse | No abuse of discretion; discovery limits and sanctions upheld |
| Whether § 776.23(c) regulatory theory is entitled Chevron deference and applicable here | Regulation should be given Chevron deference to expand coverage | Statutory text unambiguous; Chevron deference not warranted; regulation not controlling | Chevron deference not applied; regulation rejected as not extending coverage |
Key Cases Cited
- Thorne v. All Restoration Servs., Inc., 448 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 2006) (defines 'engaged in commerce' to require direct or regular use of interstate instrumentalities)
- Polycarpe v. E & S Landscaping Serv., Inc., 616 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir. 2010) (defines 'materials' vs. 'goods' and rejects 'coming to rest' doctrine; discusses ultimate-consumer exception)
- Patel v. Wargo, 803 F.2d 632 (11th Cir. 1986) (derivative liability for FLSA; involvement in day-to-day operations)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting framework; admissible evidence required)
- Ala. Farm Bureau Mut. Cas. Co., Inc. v. Am. Fidelity Life Ins. Co., 606 F.2d 602 (5th Cir. 1979) (summary judgment consideration where evidence is controlled by movant; access to proof factors)