Reddish v. Epoca Corp et al, No. 1:2017cv21206 - Document 95 (S.D. Fla. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER Denying 83 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Senior Judge James Lawrence King on 10/25/2019. See attached document for full details. (jw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Reddish v. Epoca Corp et al Doc. 95 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SO UTHERX DISTRICT O F FLORIDA M IAM ID IVISIO N CA SE N O .1:17-cv-21206-JLK R OBERT JULIU S M D D ISH , ' Plaintiff, ' ( ' EPOCA CORP D/B/A BM DLEY FOUNDATIONS,DAVID BM DLE#, M ATTH EW BM DLEY ,SCOTT BM D LEY , Defendants. ORD:R bENW NG DEFENDANTS' M OTION FOR SUM M ARY JUD GM ENT (DE 83) x ' THIS CAUSE com esbeforethe Courtupon Defendants'M otion forSum mary Judgment (lhe'-Motion,')(DE 83),filedseptember6,2019.DefkndantsEpocacorp.('&Epoca',),David . ' Bradley,M atthew Bradleyand ScottBr>dley(thetsDefendants'')askthisCourttograntstlmmary jttdgmentbecause(1jPlaintiffRobertReddishijanindependentcontyactorandisnotentitledto any reliefundertheFairLaborStandardsAct($iFLSA'');(2)Reddish cénnotprovetheelements ofovertimeorretaliation claimsasamatterotlaw;and (3)ScottBradley isnotan lçemployer'' underthe FLSA .Id at21.The Defèndantsfiled a Statem entofUndisputed Facts in Supportof M otion forSummary Judgmenton August30,2019(DE 82).Reddish respondedtotheM otion (DE 92)withacorrespondingstatementofmaterialfacts(DE 93)ônOctober4,2019. Dockets.Justia.com 1. BA CK GRO UND Thefollowing factsareundisputed: EpocaisaFloridacorporationthatengagesin plumbing and construction servicesfornew constructionandrenovationprojects.SeeDE 82! 1.DavidBradleyistheChiefExecutiveOffcer andPrejidentofEpoca(DE 82!2),andM atthew BradleyistheChiefFinancialOfûcerandVice Presi' dentofEpoca.1d !3.ScottBradley (thefatherofDavidandM atjhew)worksforEpoca(i6l ! 4),buttheparties dispute whetherScottisa managerpfEpoca (thereby subjecting him tp individualliability)oramereemployee.PlaintiffRobertReddishwortedforEpocafrom June 2015 tllrough February 2017 before fling the instant law suit.D E 1 Ex. A , DE 1-3. Reddish perform ed demolition services,removed debrisfrom construction sites,ahd operated m achinery . . ' during his alleged employment.See DE 82 !! 62-9.Reddish sued the Defendantsforunpaid overtimewagesandretaliationundertheFairLaborStandardsActonApril2,2017(DE 1). II. LEG AL STANDARD Summaryjudgmentisappropriatewherethereisçlnogenuiié'issueastoanymatçrialfact j' . and.Ejthemovingpartyisentitledtojudgmentasamétteroflaw.''Fed.R.Civ.P.56(a);Anderson v.fibertyLobby,Inc.,477U.S.242,247-48(1986).Anissueisgequineifareasonablejurycould return a. verdictforthenonmovingparly. Mizev.Jefferson Cj/z Bd.ofEduc.,93 F.3d739,742 (11thCir.1996).A factismaterialifi' tmayaffectthe'outcomeofthecéseundertheapplicable substantivelaw.Allenv.TysonFoods,Inc.,121F.3d642,646(11th Cir.1997). lfa reasonablefactfindercould draw more than ope inference from the facts,creatipg a' h k . genuineissueofmaterialfact,summaryjudgmentshouldnotbegranted.Samplesexrel.Samples v.City ofAtlanta,846 F.2d 1328,1330 (11th Cir.1988). The movingpartyhasthe burden of establishingboththeabsenceofagenuineissueofmaterialfactandthatitisentitledtojudgment as a m atter of law . See M atsushita Elec.Indus. Co.,. Ja/tf v.Zenith Radio Corp.,475 U .S.574, 586-87 (1986).On a motion for summary judgment,the courtviews the evidence and a11 reasonableinferencesinthelightm ostfavorabletothenon-m oving party.Davisv.Williams,451 F.3d759,763(11thCir.2006). 111. . DISCUSSION ' . Defendantsarguethey arèentitled to summaryjudgmentbecause(1)Reddilh isnotan Csemployee''underthe FairLabor Standards Actand (2)Reddish has failèd to establish thé : elem entsofhisovertimeorretaliation claim sasam atteroflaw .Defendantsalso movetoestablish . asamatterof1aw thatScottBradleyisnotindividuallyliablewithEpocaforanyFLjA vlolations. A .r .IndependentContractorvs.E m ployee The FLSA does notapply to independentcontractors.See M urbay v.Playmaker Servs. LLC,512F.Supp.2d 1273,1276(S.D.Fla.2007).Rather,theFLSA onlyappliestoCtemployees,'' ' ' , . . whicharetsindividualgs)employedbyanemployer.''29U.S.C.j203(e)(1).W h .etheranindividual qualifies as an em ployee or independentcontractorisa question of law forthe Court.A ntenor v. D & S Farms,88 F.3d 925,929 (11th Cir.1996).Accordingly,courtslook to thle Eseconomic . , reality'' of.the relatiunship between the parties and whether the relationship demonstrates . dependence.SeeScantland v.Jefh. y Knight,Inc.,721F.3d 1308,1311(11th Cir.2013);see.also Bartelsv.Birmingham,332 U.S.126,130 (1947)(ltgEjmployeesarethosewho asamatterof economicrealityaredependentuponthebusinesstowhichtheyrenderservice.'').Thetiecdnomic ! ' realitiestest''includessix factors,discussed in detailbelow.No singlefaciorisdispositive,and couryszmay consideranycombinatibn offactorsthataccurately reflectstheecopomicrealityofthe relationship.M urray,512 F.Supp.2d at 1277. 3 1. Control Thefîrstfactorconsidersthedegreeofthe alleged employer'scontroloverthem annerin which work isto bepdrformed.Construing the factsin thelightm ostfavorable to Reddish asthe nonm ovin'g party,the Courtconcludes thatgenuine issues ofm Aterialfactrem ain asto the extent of Defendants' control over Reddish's work.Edcontrolis only significant when it shows an individualexertssuch acontroloverameaningfulpal4ofthebusinessthatshestandsasaseparate economiccn///y.''Scantland,721F.3dat1313(emphasisadded)(quoting Useryv.Pilgrim A#z/I >. Co.,Inc.,527F.2d 1308,1312-13(5thCir.1976)). In theinstantcase,theGinormalgdailyqpracticewastoàhow upforwork''(DE 93! 11)at lûthewarehouse,''wherefrom Defendantswould send Reddish to thevariousjob sites.Reddish . Depo.at215,!! 8-11 (DE 82-5 at55).Reddish woulà advise when work wascompleted by . sendingpicturesofcompletedprojectstoDavidandVatthew Bradley.(DE 82!22).Davidand M atthew Bradley wouldperiodicallyreview completedworkatthejob siteswhereReddish was working.DavidBradleyAff.!3(DE 94-1).DefendantstoldReddish whatjobsitestoattend and what tasks to complete,although the parties dispute the am ountof supervision that Reddish received.CompareDavid Bradley Aff.! 3 (DE 94-1)with (DE 93 !36).AfterReddish would sendphotographsto David and M atthew and inform them thathehad completed a'project,they wouldsometimesrespond:SiGoodjob.1neetiyoutogoto anothersite.''Reddish Depo.at94,!! 19-20(DE 82-5yt24).Then,ReddishwouldeitherEsggjetintheirvehicleandgotoanothersite'' y % orttgobacktothewarehouse''iftherewasnotanotherprojectatthattime.Id at21-25. Thepartiesalso disputewhetherReddish maintained otherjobsorsolicited work from other companies during the period of his alleged employm ent with Epoca. According to Defendantj,Reddish (tactually drew incom efrom otherswhileworking with Epoca.''DE 83 at4. 4 ButReddishstatesthatheonly workedforDefendants(andnooneelse)duringtheperiodofhi; allegedemployment.DE 93!8.AlbertSierra,theownerofAtlanticCoastConstruction(1W CC''), stated in hisaffidavitthatReddish solicitedworkfrom ACC (and thatReddish even workedfor ACC atonepoint)(SierraAff.!!4-5DE 82-7),butReddishdisputesthatheeversolicitedwork .' ) ' from A CC or ever perfonned w ork for anyone other than D efendants during thç relevanttime . period.ReddishAff.!7(DE 93-1). Reddish ownedaseparatecompany entitledG$A11inDemolition,LLC.''(DE 82!7).But R eddish disputes thathù ever conducted business underktA 11in D em olition, LLC' '(oranyother bu)inessname,forthatmatter).DE93at2!7.1nstead,hesimplyGflledoutaform onSunbiz.org toregistertheentityname...(andlaterjreal ,izedthathecouldnotaffordto operatethebusiness and neverdid.''1d.Thecom pany wasadm inistratively dissolved forfailure to file an nnnualreport. f#.The company iscurrentlyon StINACTIVE''status.f#. ' Constnling theje facts in the lightm ostfavorable to Reddish as'the nonm oving party,the CourtfindsthatthetsrstfactoroftheEteconomicrealitiestest''weighsinfavorofemployee status. Howevçr, genuine issues of material fact rem ain as to the àm ount of control exercised by Defendants,supportingdenialofsummaryjudgmentontheltindependentcontractor''arplment. 2. O ppörtunity for Profit or Loss Thesecondfaciorconsidersthealleged employee'sopportunity forprotk orlossbased on hisorhermanagerialskill.Defendantsassertthat(1)Reddishwascompensatedbythejobandnot tthehour,l(2)keddishwasfreetoacceptjobsfrom otheréompanies,and(3)Reddishwaspermitted todeclineworkfrom Epoca(DE 83at9).1d.Butinhisdeposition,Reddishstatesthathewaspaid 1Defendants appearto contradictthis argum entin their Statem entof M aterialFacts,w here they statethatReddishitwaspaidadifferenthourly wagedependingon theworkheperformed.''(DE 82! 10)(emphasisadded). bythehourandnotthejob.ReddishDepo.at38,!! 10-25(DE 82-5at3).lnfact,Epoca'spayroll recordsdemonstratethatReddishwaspaidhourlyonnumerousoccasions(DE 82-1Ex.B). D raw ing al1 factual inferences in favor of Reddish,the Courtconcludes that Reddish's opportunityforprofitorlosswaslimitedatbest.DefendantsarguethatEçgReddish)controlledhis aàilitytoearnmoremoney andtakeonmorejob gsicjdependingon hisefficiency''(DE 83 at9). ' Buteven ifthatwere true,Gtgaqn individual's ability to earn more by being more technically t. ,' profcientisum-elated to an individual'sability to earn orilose profitviahismanagerialskill,and ' .. 9' itdoes notindicate thathe operateshis own business.yySçantland, 721 F.3d at 1317;gsee also Rutherfo. rd Food Corp.v.M ccomb,331U,S.722,730 (1947)(holdingthatajob whoseprofits are based on efficieùcy is ism ore like piecework than an enterprise thatactually depended for tsuccessupontheinitiative,judgmentorforesightofthetypicalindependentcontractor'').Instead, Reddish'sopportunity forprofitorlosswaslargely based on theam ountofwork assigned to him, w hich suggests an em ployer-em ployee relationship.' . . ï. 3.. Investm entin Equipm entorM ateèials The third fàctorconsidersthe alleged employee's degree ofinvestm entin equipm entor N materials.ThepartiesdisputewhetherReddishusedhisownm aterialswhenperform inghisduties. Accordingto Reddish,Edghejdid nothavetoinvestinhisowntools,supplies,orequipment.A11 (' toolgsj,supplies,andequipmenttodoReddish'sjobforDefendantswereprovidedtoReddishby Defendants.''DE 93! 35(internalcitationsomitted).TheDefendantsdisputethisfactandclaim that t$gReddishl would use equipzent he owned or purchased and occasionally borrowed Defendants'equipm ent.Foral1m aterialspurchased,Plaintiffwasréimbursedby Defendants,and 2 M oreover, in Scantland,the Eleventh C ircuit reasoned that an alleged em ployee had m inim al opportunity forprofitorlosswherehecould notnegotiatetheréte ofpay.721F.3d at1315.Upon drawing a11factualinferencesin favorofReddish,the sam erationaleapplfeshere. 6 ' l thàtcostwasultim atqly forwarded to Defendants'clientsq''DE 83 at 10.ln short,genuine issues qfm aterialfactrem ain asto whetherReddish invested in hisown equipm entormaterials. 4. SpecialSkill The fourthtfactorconsidersthe amountofspecialskillrequired to complete thé alleged . employee'sdutiesand t>sks.Here,thisfactorweighsin favorofindependentcontractorstatusbut onlyslightly.Reddish'sdutiesincludeddemolishingwalls,removingpipes,diggiyguptrenches, installlngdrainfelds,installlngdrainfieldpipes,çleaningupjobsites,pickinguptrashfrom job sites,refilling dirtin excavation sites,sealing newly-installed pipeswith black tar,and installing plumbing drainsincluding French drains.DE 93 ! 9.Reddish testifed thathe did notreceive trainingoreducation to learn how to perform hisjob.Reddish Depo.at89,!! 19-24 (DE 85 at 19).Defendantsarguethattsgcjommonsensedictatesthatanaveragepersonwouldnotbeableto' perform gdemolitionandconstnzctionrelatedseryicesjwithoutfirsthavingbeentrainedorlearning how tö do them with caref' ulsupervision.''DE 94 at2.And becauseDefendantsdid notprovide Reddish with those necessary skills, Defendants believe that Reddidh was an independent contrac tor.DE 83at10.However,therecordw ouldbenefitfrom addltional evidenceastotheskill 1 . 1 . required to completeReddish'sduties.Factualissuesrem ain on thispoint5. Perm anence and D uration The fifth factor considers the perm anence and duration of the alleged employm ent relationship.Here,ReddishworkedforDefendantsfrom June2015throughFebruary2017.'bE 1 Ex.A,DE 1-3.TheDefendantshavefurnishedtheCourtwithEloca'spayrollrecords,including item ized paym entsm ade to Reddish during the period ofhis alleged employm ent.See DE 82-1 Ex.B .The D efendants pointto severalw eeks and m onths w here Reddish did notappear on the 1. Epocapayroll(DE 83at8),suggesting thatReddishwasan independeht,contractorbecausehe 7 wasnotconsistently employed byDefendants.However,Reddishtestisedthatatonepoint,Epoca wasCdtllree(orqfourwedksbehind(onissuingchecks)andtheyhadtocatchup''byissuingacheck foralargernmountofpaymentthantheynolm allywould.ReddishDepo.at185,!!4-7 (DE 82.' ( 5.at37).And although Defendantsclaim they alwayspaid Reddish by check (DE 83 at 17), Reddish states in his affidavitthat(r efendantspaid ghimqpartially in cash''on Csatleastone occasion,''Reddish Aff.! 11 DE 93-1.The partiesalso dispute whetherReddish drew income from otheremployerswhileworkingforEpoca.Contpare(DE 83 at5)with (ReddishAff.!7). A ccording to Defendants,R eddish's statem entthat he w as paid in cash on 'tat least one occasion''should bedisregarded becausethatb statem entcontradictshispriordçposition testim ony thathe was always paid by check.3 However, because the Courtdisagrees that Reddish has c6ntradictedhisStpreviouslygivencleartestimony,''id (emphasisadded),theCourtmayconsider R eddish's statem entthathe w as paid in cash when deciding whether there is a genuine issue of materialfactasto thepermanency and duration oftherelationship.Blcausethepartiesdispute whether,am ongotherthings,Reddish waseverpaidin cash andWhetherReddish worked forother em ployers during theperiod ofhis alleged employm ent,genuine issues ofmaterialfactrem ain precludingsummaryjudgment. 6. IntegralPartofA lleged Em ployer'sBusiness Thesixthandftna1factorconsiderstheextenttowhichtheallegedemployee'sservices 'are integraltotheallegedemployer'jbusiness.GtgW jhenthebusiness'scontinuationdependsintegrally i upon theperformanceofcertain work,theworkerwhoperforlnsthatworkismorelikely to be considered an em ployee and notan independentcontractor.''Zquaiv.Evans,C aseN o:14-23936- CIV-MORENO,2015WL 4768293,at*4(S.D.Fla.Aug.11,2015)(emjhasisadded). 3See Van./:JunkinsandAssoc.,Inc.v.US.Industries,Inc.,736F.2d656,657(11th Cir.1984). 8 Thisfactorweighsin favorofemployeestat'usinthe instantcase.Thereisno evidencein the record suggesting that Defendr ts could complete a construction project withoutpipe 1 . ipstallation,demolition,heavy m achinery operation,drain field installation,orplumbing drain installation.Although these tasks are not specific to Reddish's skillset,that does not negate employee status.Thetestiswhethertheservicesrendered areintegral,notwhethertheem ployee him selfisintegraltothebusiness.4In any event, thisfactorcouldbenefitfrom am orethoroughly developed record. 7. W eighing the Factors Construing these factsin the lightm ostfsvorableto Reddish asthenonm oving party,the Courtfindsthatnumerous genuine issuesofmaterialfactpreclude summaryjudgmenton this argum ent. R. Overtim eClaim Dqfendantsalsomoveforsummaryjudgmenton Reddish'sovertimeclaim,arguingthat summaryjudgmentiswarranted even ifReddish isan employee because he cannotmeetthe . % elem entsofhisovertime claim .Upon consideration,and being otherwisefully advised,theCoul' t concludesthatDefendan' ts'motionforsummaryjudgmentonReddish'sovertimeclaim shouldbe denied. TheFairLaborStandardsActrequiresemployerstoprovideoveftim ecom pensation atthe . , b rate of (Gtim e and a half'to em ployees for a11hours w orked beyond forty hours in a given week. 29U.S.C.j207(a)(1).Anemployeetçhastheburdenofprovingthatheperformedworkforwhich 4For exnm ple, &:gcqourtshaveroutinelynotedthatthepresenùeofexoticdancersgisjes 'sential,or obviously very im portant,to the success ofa topless nightclub.''M cFeeley v.Jackson St.Entm 't, LLC,47F.Supp.3d260,273(D.M d.2014)(internalquotationsomitted).Cgurtshaveheld exotic dancersto be em ployees despite theirservicesbeing easily perform ed by otherindividuals w ith sim ilarskillsets. The service itselfis what's integralto the business.So too here. 1 9 he w as not properly com pensated.''Anderson v.M t. ClepensPotterk Co.,328 U.S.680,687 (1946).EtW hen the employerhas.keptproperand accurate records the employee may easily discharge his burden by securing the production of those records.''Id However,Etwhere the em ployer's fecords are inaccurate or inadequate and the em ployee cannot offer convincing subs'titutes...an employeehascarried outhisburden ifheprovesthathehasin factperfo 'rm ed work forwhichhewasimproperly compensated and ifhepro/ucessufficientevidenceto show theamountand extentofthatwork asamatterofjustandmasonableinference.''Anderson,328 U.S.at687.lftheemployeejatisfiesthisburden,Slgtjheburdenthénshiftstotheemplpyertocome forward with evidence ofthepreciseam ountofw ork performed orwith evidenceto negativethe reasonablenessoftheinferencetp bedrawn from theem ployee'sevidehcè.''1d.at687-88. H ere,Reddish attests thathe w orked an average offif'ty hours per w eek butthathe never received overtime compensation forthoseaddijionalhours(DE 93 ! 9).Heprovided theCourt with a photograph ofa tim esheetDefendants required him to complete during hisemploym ent, along with a timesheetfor another worker named tscharles Brown.''(DE 82-9,p.42).The T tim esheet,signed by Reddish,reflectsthatReddish worked fif' ty hours during onew eek in July d < . 2015.f#.The Courthas notbeen provided w ith any othertim esheets.Additionally,the Cotirthas considered Epoca's payroll records'w hich indicate severalw eeks w here R eddish worked m ore thanfol'tyhours(DE 82-1Ex.B).ButReddish'spaystubsfluctuateintheamountofpaymentand do notclearly indicate whetherheFaspaid overtime forthose weeks,creating genuine issuesof materialfactthatprecludesummaryjudgmentonhisovertimeclaim. (2. ltetaliation (zlainl ' Defendantsalso move forsummary judgmenton Reddish's retaliation claim.Section 215(a)(3)oftheFairLaborStandardsActprohibits employersfrom taking retaliatory actions against em ployees w ho engage in protected activity.To prove retaliation,a plaintiff m ust.show 10 that:(1)heengagedinactivityprotectedundertheact;(2)hesubsequentlysufferedadverseaction by theemployer;and (3)a causqlcormection existedbetweentheemployee'sprotectedactivity andtheadverseemploymentaction.Wolfv.Coca-cola Co.,200F.3d 1337,1342-43 (11th Cir. 2000). In the instantcase,Reddish testifed atone pointin hisdeposition thatM tthew Bradley didnotreduce(hishoursbecaujeof.hisdemandforovertime.ReddishDepo.at222-23,!! 17-25 (DE 82-5at62).Butata separatepointin the samedeposition,Reddish testifedthatM atthew Bradleydid,in fact,reducehishoursand end hisemploym entforcom plainingabotltovertim e.Id. at91!! 1-12 (DE 82-5 at21).Despitetheseseemingly contradictory statements,areasonable q 5 inferenceto draw from therecord isthatReddish may havecomplained aboutoyertimeon atleast two separateoccasions,including oncetoward thebeginning ofhisemploymentand oncetoward theend,Thus,areasonablejurycould concludethatReddish madetWo complaintsto M atthew Bradleyaboutovertime,andthatReddish'sfirststatementinhisdeposition(whereheclaimedhis hourswerenotreduced)referredtohisfirstcomplaintaboutovertimewhilehissecondstatement (whereheclaimedhishotlrswerereducedJn#hewasterminated)referredtohissecondcomplaint aboutovertim e.sA ccordingly, genuine issues ofm aterialfactrem ain. D . IndividualLiability ofScott'Bradley befendantsalsomovetoestablish asamatterof1aw thatscottéradleyisnotindividually liable with Epoca for any FLSA violations.Upon a thorough review ofthe record,the Court concludes thatgenuine issues ofmaterialfactremain precluding summary judgment on this argum ent.Underthe'FLSA : 5 For this reason,Defendaùts'reliance upon Van T Junkins is misplaced.736 F.2d at 657. Reddish's subsequent affidavit (DE 93-1) does not contradict any ttpfeviously given clear testim ony.''Id lnstead,the affidavit m ay help explain the confusion that arose from Reddish's seem inglycontradictory statem entsip hisdeposition. Section 203broadlydefinesan employerasCtanypersonactingdirectlyorindirectly in the interestofan em ployerin relation to an employee.''W hetheran individual fallswithin this definition çsdoesnotdepeùd on technicalortisolated factors but rather on the circum stances of the whole activity.'''The Eleventh Circuit has recognizedthatttgtjheoverwhelrpingweightofauthorityisthatacorporateofficer wijh operationalcontrolofacorporation'scovered enterpriseisan employeralong with ihe corporation,jointly and severally liable under the FLSA for unpaid wages.''Inorderto qualify asan elnployerforthispup ose,theofficer(Cmusteither be involved in the day-to-day operation orhave some directresponsibility forthe supervision ofthe employee.'' Gamev.Hospicecareofse.Florida,Inc.,09-21348-C1V,2009 W L 10699939,at*2,(S.D.Fla. : Aug.7,2009)(internalcltationsomitted).TheEieventhCircuitalsoturnstotheGseconomicreality'' oftherelationship between theparties,considefing 'twhetherthe alleged employer(1)had the powertohireandfiretheemployees,(2)supervised and controlled employeework schedulesor conditionsofemployment,(3)determinedtherateand method ofpayment,and (4)maintained . . ' employmentrecords.''Villarrealv.Woodham,113F.3d202,205(11th Cir.1997). In the instantcase,itis unclearw hether ScottBradley w as a ttcop orate officer''ofEpoca N forFLSA purposes.ScottBradley islistedasaçtcorporateofficer/director''in theççDetailby Entity Name''ofEpoca'slistingon Sunbiz.org,seeDE 93! 4,butthepartiesdisputethescopeofhis involvem entin Epoca'sdaily activities.Reddish statesthatScottBradley difected R eddish'sw ork, had the authority to hireand fireem ployees,m anaged theday-to-day operationsofEpoca,directed Reddishohwhichjobsitestoattend,signedReddish'spaychecks,andtransportedReèdishtoand from jobsites-Id !5. D efendants dispute that Scott Bradley w ould m aintain em ploym ent records, w ould supervise or controlthe work ofem ployees,w ogld m anage the daily operations ofEpoca,or had thepoWertohirearidfireemployees.8eeDE 83at20.AccordingtotheDefendants,ScottBradley wouldsimplypurchasematerialsnecessaryforEpoca'sconstrpctionprojects.fJ.Becausegenuine issuesofmaterialfactrem ain asto Scot' tBradley'slevelofinvolvem entin the daily activitiesof Epoca,Defendants'M otion shouldbedenied. Accordingly,itisORDERED,ADJIJDGED,AND DECREED thatDefendaùts' M otionforSummaryJudgment(DE 83)be,andthesameis,herebyDENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in ChambersattheJam esLawrenceKing FederalJustice Building and U.S.Courthouse,M inmi,Floridathis25th day ofOctober,2019. C A # -- ''- ,, cc: A llcounselofrecord 4M ssLAw llsxcs Itrxo , IJXJTED STATESolsax c'rJ/, E
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
