TARAZONA CARVAJAL v. MIJELUM, L.L.C.
3:23-cv-00245
| W.D. Tex. | Jun 10, 2025Background
- Defendant Mijelum, L.L.C. hires workers for highway maintenance and sought H-2B visas for laborers, including Plaintiffs, in 2021 and 2022.
- Plaintiffs allege they consistently worked more than 40 hours a week but received only a flat weekly wage and no overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
- Defendant re-hired some plaintiffs in 2022 but did not rehire one due to complaints about pay; new plaintiffs were also hired and assert similar unpaid overtime violations.
- Defendant asserted a counterclaim for conversion (alleged theft of a vehicle) against several plaintiffs and raised several affirmative defenses to the FLSA claim.
- Both parties filed for summary judgment: Defendant sought dismissal of all FLSA claims; Plaintiffs sought summary judgment on Defendant’s counterclaim, most affirmative defenses, and their FLSA overtime claims.
- The Court ruled on June 10, 2025, denying Defendant’s summary judgment, granting Plaintiffs summary judgment on Defendant’s counterclaim and most affirmative defenses, but denying summary judgment on the FLSA claims for unpaid overtime.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Willfulness under FLSA statute of limitations | Defendants were aware of FLSA requirements and acted willfully | Plaintiffs did not show willfulness; thus, 2-year statute applies | Material fact exists; denied summary judgment |
| FLSA Coverage (Individual/Enterprise) | Work was on interstate highways; FLSA applies | No evidence Plaintiffs’ work qualifies for FLSA coverage | Material fact exists; denied summary judgment |
| Evidence of unpaid overtime | Plaintiffs’ declarations and incomplete payroll records suffice | No evidence of overtime; payroll contradicts Plaintiffs’ claims | Material disputes exist; denied summary judgment |
| Conversion Counterclaim | No evidence Plaintiffs took vehicle | Suspicion based on timing and access to keys | Defendant offers only suspicion; claim dismissed |
| Affirmative Defenses (except statute of limitations) | No evidence or abandoned by Defendant | Factual disputes exist, but no evidence provided in response | Most defenses waived/abandoned; summary judgment for plaintiffs |
| Statute of Limitations Defense | Defendant cannot show claims are time-barred | Factual questions on when claims accrued; suit may be partially barred | Only willfulness/statute of limitations proceed to trial |
| Plaintiffs’ FLSA Claims for Overtime | Employer-employee relationship and qualifying work established | Genuine issue as to hours worked and compensation received | Material fact on hours/overtime worked; denied summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (established burden-shifting for summary judgment; movant can point to absence of evidence rather than disprove claim)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (sets standard for summary judgment: whether evidence could support a jury verdict)
- Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (employees can estimate unpaid wages where employer records are inadequate)
- McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128 (defines willfulness standard under FLSA; requires knowledge or reckless disregard)
- Overstreet v. N. Shore Corp., 318 U.S. 125 (maintenance of interstate highways is commerce under FLSA)