Melanie Nicole Moore v. Pooches of Largo, Inc.
23-13568
11th Cir.May 20, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Melanie Moore worked at Pooches of Largo for three weeks as a veterinary technician, alleging she was promised a $35,000/year salary but received pay for only 24 hours at $8.45/hr.
- Moore was terminated shortly after complaining about her pay via text message.
- She filed a pro se lawsuit against Pooches and its owner, asserting multiple statutory and common law claims, including under the FLSA, Florida Whistleblower Act (FWA), and Florida Minimum Wage Act (FMWA).
- The district court dismissed several claims on the pleadings and summary judgment, only allowing minimum wage and fraud claims to proceed to trial.
- The jury found Pooches did not pay Moore minimum wage but did not act willfully; the court held her claim time-barred under the two-year FLSA limitation.
- Moore appealed several district court decisions, including dismissal and summary judgment on multiple claims, jury findings, and the court's ruling in favor of the owner on the fraud claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of limitations for FLSA claim | Claim accrued later, or continuing violation saves it | Claim accrued at last paycheck/termination | Claim untimely; two-year limit applies |
| Dismissal of FWA retaliation claim | Texted supervisor about wage rights | No reference to specific law/rule/regulation in complaint | Dismissal affirmed; no protected activity alleged |
| Tortious interference with contract | Employer caused her attorney to drop case | Mere speculation; no factual basis | Dismissal affirmed; no plausible claim |
| Malicious prosecution | Defamation suit’s dismissal counts as favorable | Dismissed for failure to prosecute, not on merits | Dismissal affirmed; not terminated in her favor |
| Civil theft/conversion | Unpaid wages are property subject to claim | Simple debt not subject to such claims under FL law | Dismissal affirmed |
| Summary judgment on FMWA claim | Gave sufficient pre-suit notice; requirement unconstitutional | Notice letter insufficient; statutory requirement valid | Summary judgment affirmed; notice deficient |
| Jury finding (no willfulness under FLSA) | Evidence showed willful underpayment/retaliation | Testimony showed mismanagement, not willfulness | Affirmed; evidence supports jury verdict |
| Judgment as matter of law on fraud claim | Owner liable for fraudulent misrepresentation | Owner made no statements to plaintiff | Affirmed; no evidence of fraudulent statement by owner |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Pleading standard for facial plausibility)
- Knight v. Columbus, Ga., 19 F.3d 579 (Accrual of FLSA claims)
- Reich v. Dep’t of Conservation & Nat. Res., 28 F.3d 1076 (Willfulness standard under FLSA)
- Johnson Enters. of Jacksonville, Inc. v. FPL Grp., Inc., 162 F.3d 1290 (Elements for tortious interference under Florida law)
- Paez v. Mulvey, 915 F.3d 1276 (Requirements for malicious prosecution claim)
- Gasparini v. Pordomingo, 972 So. 2d 1053 (Debts not property for theft/conversion in Florida)
- Butler v. Yusem, 44 So. 3d 102 (Elements of fraudulent misrepresentation in Florida)
- Lambert v. Fulton County, 253 F.3d 588 (Review standard for sufficiency of evidence after jury trial)