Brantley et al v. Ferrell Electric, Inc. et al, No. 1:2014cv00022 - Document 111 (S.D. Ga. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER denying 85 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 99 Motion to Strike ; denying 100 Motion to Strike ; denying 101 Motion to Strike ; denying 102 Motion to Strike ; denying 103 Motion to Strike ; denying as moot 107 Motion f or Leave to File; granting in part and denying as moot in part 108 Motion for Extension of Time; granting 109 Motion for Leave to File. The brief attached to the motion (Doc. 108-2), is hereby filed nunc pro tunc, effective March 23, 2015. The Court directs the Clerk to file Document 108-2 as a standalone entry on the docket. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 05/29/2015. (thb)

Download PDF

Brantley et al v. Ferrell Electric, Inc. et al Doc. 111 IN THE I'NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION ITOHNNY BRANTI,EY POU, Dlrihf ANd * M. ROBERT i Ffq cv aL4-o22 and FERRELL ELECTRIC, INC .JAMES N. FERRELL , Defendants. ORDER Plaintiffs :c,l- i nn its e.r: inel- owner and f.rr.mar l-hair president, wages pursuant overtime "the Brantley Johnny Act"), 29 to the S 201 and to support brief the 103) of Court with their summary judgment et 99) move to (Doc. strike D^rr any 101, 102, 103.) ,-T^a6?r have Lo submitted the strike this Tn. , recover unpald ("FLSA" Act now move or for Plaintiffs by reasons (Doc. and that in follow, 100,I0A, I02, motion for 85). TO STRIKE the Id:mc accompanying T h e parties r.i /- Fllc.f Defendants For to brought and DENIES Defendants' MOTIONS Defendants I Pou Standards seq. motions grounds on af} Labor evidence (Doc. M. Ferrell, opposition. DENIES Defendants' one exception F'erral N. Falr strike in Robert cmnl.rrrer James U.S.c. summary j udgment and declarations T.-rnr.a Rarnac exhibits. expended of a great Plaintiff and (Docs . deal of Martin 99, time 100, and Dockets.Justia.co filing energy and have described as at *5 cv 4o?-028, (M.D. Ga. n^qeihla iI .innqhin fo -n/'tf i.ns r \ r! r . t - L '/ \ yq .?o Moreover, ?(a) the terms make clear scandafous that Briefs attacked through Inc., e hh u uPl/ . 962 F. Supp. given in t-ha Supp. 2d L293, that opposition dal-l^ral- Federal Rul"e of i I n j-haf s'r.h knowledge, shall set Civil i^ytq Procedure or t.o a motion to v. Ga. 20L3); j-hF such 56(c) (4). "sha:l I facts 1 r,rith as Health Jeter challenged for summary gf rcrnrircmcnlg RuIe 56(c) (4) ha made would be v. 2007). the submitted motion Rufe may not be Gentiva nnmnlrz declarations forth and Defendants' mrrcl- ?On?) 12 (f) 1296 (M.D. Ala. Plaintiffs to a:r affidavits (N.D. I impertinent, subject 1316 MCNaif " n immateriaf, or no n r c i r r du n ]rt u e ir PIEJ /M Rindffeisch 2d 1310, have Procedure civil No. 2009) ef'arznrpd 1)q'7 may be mechanism. this Nevertheless, nr q r:rir y l Rufes of a pleading 480 F. irr,,lr'rmani- l ,)qn )A L9, marr "Lcry di cedars Ctrs., stricken :nd .tFnFr:11.r "redundant, only Montgomery Cnty., declarations :ra Travef matters or memoranda, objections, strike. Servs., the Twin 2012 WL 895599, Feb. Ga. (- ] o -n- f-r-o \ /-e r s-r- ' J y . - Federaf in (S.D. Lhat fhe F of matter" *1 e-r'ika l-.\ Pilot Purdee v. many courts Haynes v. ejg_:, 5:10-CV-321-CAR, 20a2); cfear is see, No- 4219'16, at 2009 wL rcl:l- . r tL-r hsa r u r ! a5, Mar. $ f . , r - r !rE^--- Lul r F-^{- Inc-, which motions,' these wasLers. " "time x ' ' F ' : m il r z q a r . \ r q . , v . \ r r th - to responding nn makes n . ^ ' l- u ]^d^ - - r1 .r IJL! admissibl,e in motions Defendants filed five separate to strike, to \a'hich Plaintiffs (Doc. 107) and amended request (1) a request (Doc. 109) responded by filing (Dacs. LO9-L, IO9-2, L09-3, LO9-4); (2) for leave ho file cured declarations (Docs. page limit protect.ion a request for five briefs with leave Lo file LOg-2, LO9-5, Lo9-6, I09-'1, r09-8); and (3) four additional briefs in the leave to file event the Court denied Plaintiffs with protection from the page (Docs. 110-3, 110-4, 110-6, 110-7). limits 2 and comperenr to = a authori ty to tesLify tI ri i - :r n/ r z Le r from nf this matters the ahiar'l- larcclrr 1. The decfarations knowledge; 3. The .l The sham affidavit rufe 6. The declarations requirements of do noL 28 U.S.C. .'ar'\ahl uql/g!rv a on each objectrion placed the .\f l rcrzi Cc) rf, cr^ri n.r to an Assurance Co. of 1 - t - 1 _ rl - ...\111^t- on e each rrr'lin.r l-hF rFl standard m :q l, rx 1 d+?i of nn and complaints set forth unnecessary, challenged staLemenLs i domenl- prridanna The binding nr 524, rliqrarr:rrl hrr precedent,2 process(5th imnrnncr Cir. is 1S thg without Nat'L 529 as Corrft rocnri-ad 1 in is srrmm^rv other 632 F.2d L6 the F\rnnl- exclusionary canada, the durinq verifications the ruling resorting 2 satisfy S 1746. A specific in the and of summary j udgment t- ha appl" j-es; notice emphasis imnl iciI on discfosed takes court 3. env conc lusory l,IIIy not were 5. through hrz ^^*^^-^ -virar Ps! conta in The declarations di scovery; The Fd l6-r1-i^hc. 4. the based not are decfaratlons Defendants foflowing: objections Paragraph-by-paragraph Federal Rules of Evidence; 2. is affiant rrnsrrnn.rrl- the incfude t.he therein." stated inne which circuit, thaL show affirmatively shatl Life 1980) (noting nnrii nnq nf For example, in this the law is clear circuit that evidence need not be presented form at summarT judgment in admissible as long as the evidence at trialsee Jones v. UPS cround Freiqht, would be admissibLe 6S3 F.3d J-293-94 (11th cir. zorzxaaffi i.2a3, hearsay) ; 1s84 (11th cir. McM4lig!__I__rl9blE9l, 88 F.3d rs73, 1996) {same) ; Prince \.r. glake varine s-a. crp., No- 11-053?-Ws-M, 2O12 wL 4'7I1,8g7, at *L ttotEl, (S.D. Ala. 2, 2012) (addressing n.5 Oct. consideration of unauthenticated Cooper v. S. Co., 2L3 F.R.D. 683, 5S6 (N.D. ca. 2003) (same). exhibits); in submitted declaration j udgmenl- and consider Lhe remainder As the in in declarations Plaintiffs turn. decfaration Mr. Mr. of at 1.) the Thus, Menefee's D rr-dh r{L frc y ^ r z , -D r -n^ decfarations because \\caaL l-^ radi Doc. 103 at l\, judgment. by using exist, the disracrarriad fL e s ri L L i m o n v t, r es,r in a court the p.\1r'q they "do /-h:n.ra,/ not "cham" manne- to the each addresses to ob'jections the (Doc. lt. withdraw Motion to strike to if l-haj- if 'new' address Plaintiff create strike nosf-mOtiOn' issues," issues 1.n , ) , - rather at 8; to escape summary fact where none affidavit to of an r:onfr.adi..l-q hv o v but /n^- may try allowed flailv .ann^l- fi .rn f- -.r] u t!-ri ,-v r - 'j ^-t parties has circuiL shouLd n.rsf -dcnnsi qr^r.\rn rrri.lr af f idavit.s Eleventh court GRANTS Defendants' Recognizing that 8.) the failed of RuTe orrinl-iff n.al statement)3; (Doc. 99.) that argue summary admissibility Defendants' have court declarat.ion. DefendanLs the affect contest The Sham AfEidavit A. for or testimony entirety, but Menefee motion a (same). their not do the of compfaints remaining supporting 108-2 *7 2072 wI' 895699, at Haynes, wiLh connection aar-iar a.rnlai16fl. Van v,!Y be dan.rgition T. JUnkinS & "rvrr Assoc. v. u.s. Indus. , the sham affidavit rule, 736 F.2d 656, 657 " lwlhen a party (l-l-Lh cir. has given 1984). cfear under answers to ' Ala., 661 F-2d L2o6, L20? (11th cir. see Bonner v. city of Prichard, (holding made on or before september 30, 1981, 1981) Fifth circuit decisions are binding precedent in Efeventh Circuit). BranEley on August 21, 2oJ-4 a13d Mr. Pou on Defendants deposed Mr. " They signed their supporting declarations on Febnrary Septernlcer L9, 2oa4. approximately three weeks after 18, 2015 and February 1,9, 2Oa5t respectively, Defendants moved for surnmary judgments. 4 questions unambiguous issue facL, materiaf of issue with Celotex Corp., careful 805 F.2d to l ifrz Accordingly, decfaration Agency or Irtd., a 2oLa) (citing Litig., 636 F. Supp. 2d 1333, Apptx 779 (1rth Sept. For aII sham affidavit in a chart unequi-vocaf direnj- lrz Court wil] search for - rufe which or .onfradi.'f not anv scour evidence 2011 \N at 953. sw. *3 (N.D. Prods. 2OO9)), a Int'f at Seal, Of exclude Hub WL 402665L, Stand iSSUe to v. must create Td. " burden (N-D. Ga. that they - objections question Defendants Pfaintiffs' statements the of evidence. v. afft Liab. d, 466 F. 20L21 . Cir. of The Court an Merritt re 1335 Tippens Cl.eate hea\,y sham. In district which f ha 1 : 09 - C V -0 0 05 6 - J E C , No- a '.'hiCh a as affidavit justify 1986). sham " [e] very discrepancies .\f bears movant The evidence." Cir. oc r " r e ic h l - 12, ca. (11th 953 Id. " not such "between i-hF l-r] the to without circumstances: does Ai c^ren>nni a-A .r.\ nr 949, distinguish qham< frAnsn^ranl- I-Lmited credence sucLr an contradicts, testimony. affidavit genuine any create thereafter merely clear in an t.o give refusaf .rodihi in contained court's be given of existence cannot that applies concept discrepancy party that previously the negate af f idavil- an explanation, affidavit which appear decfarations have answer ql-af FmFnF might to DefendanLs "argued" Defendant.s hund-reds that the of in in pages that the set of to point a label- to any that decfarations. deposition The testimony to argument. offense forth the depositions Defendants' most violate slapping Plaintiffs' bofster take by fail Dlaintiffs' sav in to sections qreat of detail- t'Catculation fu 29-35; [s] Doc. lln 26-32; 9o-r, 1-o2 at Doc. (Doc. Time. " compensabfe Unrecorded of Doc. 9i 89-1, 103 at 9.) Defendants argue that why they now make no mention af f .idavit-s Pl-aintiffs' of the number of provide estimates data driven detaifed, During discovery, worked. wages they unpaid overtime not come up with a they could swore that Plaintiffs number of hours for the reasonabfe estimate any specific coul-d not identify Pfaintiffs owed . yeE not been weeks they had worked more than 40 hours paid. properly (Doc. 102 at The damages v. the Mt. court Doc. fails t.o at see sufficient an FLSA case, relevance As 328 U.S. Co., standard the st.age. this Cfemens Pottery appropriate ^!^L^l 9.) 103 at calcufations presented in 9; for of damages to is and specificity not Anderson ( 1 ' 9 4 6 )' 587-88 whether determining evidence infra, discussed 680, precise Plaintiffs' of a sees plaincilf out has summary j udgment avoid required. 7\nderson further Fl^^r be heard to complain that the cannot [t] he emp]oyer and precision of measurement damages fack the exactness l -h : l - r ^ r ^ r r dl l - r c n o s s i t r ' l e h a d h e k e n f r e c o r d s ' in accordance \rith i-hc recnri rements of . And even where the Act. grows out of a bona fide lack of accurate records the whether certain activities or nonmlstake as to having received work, the employer, activities constitute cannot object to the payment the benefits of such work, possible for basis under the work on the most accurate the circumstances. rd. at 688. Moreover, sworn Plaintiffs' decfarations nFf pnd^nj- mininis. by st ^ r ( T r u rmvFrn i - r L r e Y 4! (Doc. 108-2 were that counsel's made Lhe aE I2-L3; in own admission, part to g L I a lfl g E r.rr a . l e v !n : Defs.' Br. attempt f ra\tal urrq at Plaintiffs/ 16 Lo rebut j. i ma ('The fe\r minutes lPlaintiffs] may have end of is a day constitutes see Ferrelf Plaintiffs' Dep., ten legitimate to on Defendants of the name was (2) not a to information (Doc. as an exhibit been produced by Plaintiffs t thereafter to that minimis.,,) each time of rarefy identified) raised is ; .) perfectly therefore, wilf not Discovery of arguments resul-t To in Mr. (1) initial- (3) at in Jasen have Adams, with initiaf and (4) as an 2- initial_ discoverable policy declaration. alI 1OO at plaintiffs' to 3-4);5 ignoring (Doc- Defendants, Barnes. purported discl-osures information included to Court summarize. conjunction (id. refated the likely 3); in de travef Court, discoverabfe at finds (reviewing Defendants During individual f01 as at. the basis. name was not an site Court worksite or Plaintiffs. have job a the that The shroufd in Lance Barnes' supplemented that number that that 2'7-75 address part. included as or at testifying issues from compensable 83, declarations. likely event not on this raise disclosures submitted is Eo DiscTose supporting the each rebuL violat.ions individual 3); for Pfaintiffs' FaiTure discovery it and Lhe declarations B. in Doc. mlnutes Such an attempt excfude work Limesheets exceeded driving de minimis; t.he time J. spent manual, shnrrld layg disclosures "plaintiffs' Plaintiffs contend. that the policy rnanual at issue - a version in place ..h/as produced at Ferrefl Electric before .tuly 2012 (many times) an (Doc, 108-2 at 18 n-15 (emphasis added) .) discovery," From Che record, this plaintiff pou,s contentron appears to be true. interrogatory responses incLuded a link to a shared drive on which the policy manual was stored(Doc. 100-2 at 9; 100-3 at B.) It is not proper for the Court, by its olrn investigation, to verify the functianalit.y of the link or the verEion of the polj-cy manual t.o whi-ch the link was attached, but at the very leasL, 7 d c n o s i 1 -i o n t . e s t i m o ni e s ..\n.lrr<.rr\/ estimafes provide" information 103 at the nnnnrlvyPv! 2 r r n i l -\ , ' f 6 ("This entirety until the genera]l-y .-^i -!jn_ .Le-LcrL.lrr9 u(Ju-t-t5c-L rule." held I CraRLEs that AI,AN ctrrr(,Lctvf (3d ed. Insur. Co., 251 F.R.D. Nation Worl-dwide, at *2 (s.D. F1a. 2010) L-, a!E R. aE and v. Cohl , Nov. 17, _^-_ared uuvErEu (N.D. Ohio No. 2011) to the -l 00 at its Defendants produced properly should in strike the Lhe Decfaration was of filing and "Recent cases have communications hy f !r f ha Fidelity 2008); 10-24144-CIV, Plaintiffs' two n.'r,,- the with r,r/1rk_nroduct FEDERAT, PRAcrrcE Randleman v. Least ,Jasen Adams in -) MTLLER, 2a4-86 Inc time the discovery."t (citing 28I , as entirety until WRTGHT & ARTHUR S 2024 n.23 court affidavits, draft !a L\J in its r/qaa of was not not \Y:" disclosed ('tThis 4 in produced did di s..\rrar\,' was not Defendants the previously was not I02 have at excfude they the Decfaration at Barnes to utvvvvv!]. [and] 101 to drrrino filing Lance of disclosed f ham Doc. discovery. ") ; not za Declaration of time Declaration irri shoul-d strike the as such (Doc. discovery geek because solely s..rrrf court now requested "repeatedly" Defendants matLer, declarations uurrtLl only Plaintiffs i-nformation and throughout or 3-7). As a threshold of the Defendants and liLigation before Doc. 4-7i damages, about not and estimates either contained AND PRoCEDURE Nat see aLso Live 2011 WL 5597348, and the non-parties' manual at issue as an exhibit during the Plainliffs also used the policy the owner and president of Ferrell Electric, depositions of James N. Ferrell, managfer, held on Decenber 8, Ferrell office and Andren Wilson, Electric's (J. Ferrell 2014 and Decerdf,er a0, 2Oa4 respectivelyDep- Ex. 16; wilson Dep., Doc- 81, Ex, 16.) The Courb concludes that Defendants cannot be harmed purported Lo produce a policy manual, promulgated -by by Plaintiffs' failure possession. in Defendants/ Defendants, that always has been I remained work products untif affidavits executed and file serve efected to exclude the declarations A faifure to "to wiLness R. FED. harmLess Motor co., is *6 at of Mr. motion disclosures at an Pfaintiffs do not in a fnr timely ^^** r .i --^^ u(JlLlur-!crfruc cnaai rPru f f! i n ra .l/ +!g + fheir same counsel, brought io Rather, r^^*1^-^ r-rcrrLllr,c-- Dl:inl- any failrrre fashion. wct > lrr offer iffs . 1 1 . \ in i an identicaf 111-106, ^-acahl- rannr^ i I which Plaintiffs supplement idcnfifv Rufe Mr against Resp. R:rnaq t.hat at or Barnes any non- 18-2f.) l -h r . ) r r d h Defendants afso 26 (e) (1) . Adams and Mr. argue in initial substantial P1s.' f h,rt- is It their to Mr. PfainLiffs suiL name rely pursuant (See WL 2013 the iustification, .\rt- Ford L.o disclose to time appropriate t-L6 v- (citation 2009) summary judgment. for failed Plaintiffs that justified failed upon Barnes undisputed a\n counsel Mr. and CV of burden MitcheLl Cir. No. Feb.5,2013) Defendants' to . \ l -h a f l ^ r iq F States, Plaintiffs' that Adams opposition Ga. (1lth triaf' harnless." *The party. " A24 82r, is was substantially nondisclosing united v. (S.D. undisputed the at or of that offering or added) . disclose to App'x F. 318 Thornton omitted); 443666, on rests justified (emphasis a faifure that establishing from a hearing, at Rufe by Federal party a bars on a motion, 3? (c) (1) P. Declarations as required substantiafly was faiLure crv. (e) and evidence suppfy un-Zess the or 26 (a) Procedure civil and l,ance Barnes' a witness idenLify to declines basis. on this t Jasen Adam.s 1. therefore The court them- counsef Pfaintiffs' the in April 2013 of Ferrefl 2013). In individual filed in suit an id.enLical 2014, Inc., No. courts vi-olation *6 supp. Rule of (citing 2d for v'^,,1^ (l) l-ra the ^f disrupt . the the /^i l)\ \- t l-.1-i^ne 20L2), ^-i a !h 4 r u ! i which to extent 1 i r rLr1 l-hel- [and] (4] v. KLosinski, aff'd, 523 F. the App'x folfowing f rr 580 evidence r-rrr. evidence importance 898 F. of Supp. 2d 1348, (11th broad exclusion whom the the F. violation] the na y u ! r t - r // L allowing 700 its 25 by against nf Co., 37 (c) (1) guided be party the 2013 WL 443666, lRule Rule a whether exercising a a Efectric, determine Gamble Mfg. "II]n of shoufd t-ha Abdulla ca. & Defendants FerreII Thornton, whether to triaf; evidence (S. D. 2009). court surprise f ato.l (3 ) surprise; Ga. Durposes district a factors: Procter determine harmless analysis, v. (S.D. I32o to harmless. Adams then 20L4.) discretion is 26(at Q) to is broad Silverstein 1312, discretion have L5, A' Adams as an Mr. against v. Swygert (S.D. Ga. Sept. 1:14-cv-00181 District ongoing. is v. April Ga. Mr. same counsel the through which (S.D. information. discoverable have Barnes aware. disclosed counsef Plaintiffs' to 1ike1y september aL suit, thaL are 1:13-cv-O0oo56 No. Inc., Efectric, and were surefy Defendants which Cir. would the L359 2013) t-l-a.l\ 6 party's explanation There is also a lifth factor: "ttre nondisclosing Abdul1a, 201,2 w' 4429L79, al ],6 for its failure to disclose the evidence." (quoting Inc. v, Res. & commercial Transp. co., Two Men and a Truck Int'1, No. 4 ;08 Cv-067, 2008 wL 5235aI5, at *2 (N.D. FIa. oct. 20, 200e)). This fe.r-r h^$ravar substantially inapplicable justification- nFrt-:ine .nlv 1-.\ whF1-her justified as opposed Lo whether it Plaintiffs have here because l-0 a Rule 26 was harmless. not argued violation was Thus, it is substantial The their fjnds court n L sq lr .L)ui u a v - Barnes' d e n n e ir ULIJV - i^kcn nn e. r vrr- - Moreover, the Mr. Barnes' at and and day 26 (a) Rufe therefore Barnes' during does approach to fine candor of is and Green, qgqLes, or in 549 F.3d s42 F. 1344, revj-ew I and pages of that own testimony L'l a.f Mr. 21) reveals ri 'jrnlng r-. non-compfiance to Defendants Adams' 1353 (11th conflicts way and of the Mr. of Cir. LLC v2008); toes Rules. willful Pfaintiffs 1337 (S.D. Ga. 2008) l_1 of arose Plaintiffs' which Federal" whatsoever L that condone decLarations, See OFS Fitel, Supp. 2d L331, 15, Lhree harm of any evidence Pcr! either. in of Pfaintiffs at partial many spirit h:rr exclusion I'crrFl the Barnes' the ffouts allegation no P.C., and Mr. close own questions. Resp. discernible of not does the 37(c) (1). Rule aware and Plaintiffs' in Plaintiffs' excfusion warrant welf Adams' Mr. aamnl i arna warrant not ^i no Mr. minimal. Plaintiffs' caused under is court discovery there (e) and and times of nlr-o compensation. declarations The ir is Even cursory repetitive -^l.i-ioq t--r----- Lr-^ -ne four 2L). 15, ,u, f-l ,w , - i { -L L ^ r r . rf { - c- - rJ( , L d r ^ ^),u ! with L4, Ada.as. befole (Pfs.' twice decfaration Mr. Defendants' of evidence only largefy citations work the and times m^nLhs content of are these s Adams Mr fifteen the declaration (id. l-han Mr. with ^"i rs c' v u u r a :o c . srrr nFFFnrJanf htr importance Mr. twenl-y-f our q_vPe! given marginal is DefendanLs history fess within often Adams' reference the no arose discovery cite Def^-^--ts-, name tui ! fe to Iitigation contemporaneous RrrrlFq surprise the Epstein, the But non- that woufd Becker vaughn v. united & Damages calculations 2. 't both requested before Plaintiffs that. ^rnrrirra l-ha na'Fnd^nts precludes domenf . , either (Doc. 102 , . 1 iq . ' F r n no 6; Doc. at -harefore reduced return travel parties' of sc .)- for moved sanction denosi-tiOnS conclusory estimates. court Plainfi ffs they by " nresent the e)<tent thaj- on the can a calculating timesheets (See Doc. and Google Maps. harm onfy 26 (e) (1) in issue any with Falt- sense. the of both 6 n.1; l-02 at in Doc. attempting discovery during l-L^.' ha.l effectively Defendants compel on the instead dispute judgment any more detailed to Ehat De€^hA-hFd avaifabfe. motions damages RuIe summary requiring this summary accomplished obiecf information with states Courc purporEed srrrn-i the time iffs' do so the To which to 6 n.1.) The this 6.) damages avoid to plainf only at damages, possession 103 at or this correcLly faifure now fhaf and affeged of and "Plaintiffs .nmnl:in Defcrdarfs estimate concisefy evidence estimates 103 to calculation this using l)ef an,,lanj- q l1d. \i:_:/ \ "contained their d i s r - o w a r w ." from them with in discovery They somewhat clarify 4.) [ed] repeatedly have throughout 103 at faif "repeated[fy] t-/r t-ha r-l nsa nf r-rrin- Doc. 4; lO2 at Defendants and litigation declarations Plaintiffs' that which information (Doc. matter[.]" i on based [are] contend broadlv Defendants never response record Defendants (Docs. had ,Judge, Magistrate L2 seeking 59, who 61) cure any nafandants harshest for an order interrogatory; do not opportunity held resolve the Couft specific every and errffarad moved the Lo any to Lwo speak to to raise telephone of which finds address rha An h^rrr of Abdulfa lasted that none the to Lhe declarations c. Lhe rrr'l i no pleadings, lqaa down Avl-ant- a1r - u'L",Ld! depositions, lu rh a itr, - aL sworn authorized 2OO9). to to effect an as language in ,,-a1.l_ F1,' i rreri foregoing frr .\]^ is true of excfuding is for my own personaf 89-1, n' ^! r : t i e S L 4 is the <f al-F) siqned nenalf do the perjury 90-1, for not nmiqqir1rr (10th the .\f with l-ha 1_3 ed. summary and and includes l-h:t the the who with S 1746. statement knowTedge of facts appropriate added) . ) nrenosifional supporting U.S.C. wit.h following Lhe (Signature)." the 28 start (emphasis 92-7 of n6r_irrr\,r striking and end with 9L-L, ^f (Name), that officer same force dated p. Crv. form: comply undersigned, knowledge" the on vrritten an purposes and \/ declarations states R- facts before Executed on (date) . ground they FED. of [usu] afly following rrndcr . aonsider BT,ACK/ LAw DrcrroNARy68 s iC Y- admissions declaration given if r'nal/ See may be supporLing .',,_rrnqal,q r-nrrrf f ha declarat.ion thaL the penafty jv-t th o - h\/ v I rra"Lcrv one S 7746 for final appeared fh:j- favor in S 1746, 28 and correct. "Personalfy ^r.rriF c.rr rrl- interrogatories, to oaths." substantialfy the Docs. r-ha U.S.C. to Specifically, ( ee \ P1^r-! J uqY'!'E1ru, declarant, the affidavit Defendants' declarations by unsworn an : u LJJ ud .ql l1 ^ a e e vofuntary " [a] administer Pursuant judgment, A4-Ac: weigh j"r-*^_t y answers is ArI affidavit and - c:A n^-c factors s r r h m i f j -F . l 55 (c) . assues Purguaat to 28 U.s.c. vetiEication WhFn ,4i qamrorrr n:rri nearfy to conferences are Lrue of signature. Defendants n rh!rs avs e I/ r p .'under penalty perjury" of S 1745 and precludes 28 U.S.C. anv probative declarations AlI ol rzarhal- irn response nf l-hp to nar-ttrtt" technical each court the qAp rl1- to strike witness's resubmiLted Hereinafter, decLarations. F a attorney an to identical- the court identified the with comply supporting the will witness' on preferred have s 1'129, witness's (N.D. appropriate to the cured as entries this v. AMerik 200e) Ga. was signed because the docket of the decfarations with cite the behalf, has penalty corrected which declaration, in counsel Inc. 1355 use, Indeed, "under Technofoqies, version will 1746, not. excfude 1A crlhh S Pfaint.iffs' Plaintiffsr strike, Insituform on the TJ,S.C. 2R Plaintiffs also by avoided in with decfaration see (declining .)rrf sFf Because defect, to from giving Court been motions l.--,,.da crrnnl ioe the have lanorrarra Defendants' fai lure complete effect. coufd this resubmitted the a constitutes the by witness signature) versions 109-l of . t.he through L O 9- 4 . ' No. CIV.A. 104-CVSee also Tj-shcon Corp. v. Soundvievr Commc'ns, Inc., LeBoeuf, 524-JEC, 2005 wL 603A'743, at ,,4 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 15, 2005) (findirg LaTnb, Greene & MacRae, LLP v. Worsham, 185 F.3d 6L, 65-66 (2d Cir, 1999), ----,,,-i-,t^r f r-a ^-^^rsitjon that 28 U.S.C. S 1746 does not mandate ..strict 's affidavit because tre "evinced the plaj-ntiff his compliance" and acceptlng intention and "signaled that he understands to submit sworn declarations" the for punishment legaI significance and the potential if he of his statements lies" notwithstanding to declare his stalement to be "true the failure and correct"). t4 II. The Work Dav A. on 20 , January rrnna t'morning .rrrprl- i d i-o da1/'q qrrnnliee. /?) r^Ff rrrn 2011 to reporting at ,J.uIy 2OI2 16, 9, Doc. 75, elar'j- rinal sockets, the (Doc. Pou Dep. or three 1; Pfs.' as an and Pfaintiff - emrinmenf at etc. River / p 7 : n 1 -l ^ . ' D e p . aL 22) to Ferrelf complete at Doc. nanal 16, 17, 8L-A3; employees j obs, and and same JuIy Iiohf were from Doc. Ferrell in Plaintiffs, 73 Pou Dep., to install fixfrrrFs Georgia worked rofe Dep., 24i the Electric approximately duties J. (3) tlnused Ferreff Ufl 2, of .-d progress and handfe service (*csRA") Efectric these job rFlevant el-'^h. (Brantfey 109-1, (1) supervasors ..arl- ain the hnr<aq sites Area in to wnrk' i ha l-ha 1. ) from May 201-3. r ' a l - r ' le f^ at Brantley residenLial savannah Resp. principaf Plaintiffs' lanl.ina day's electrician Decf., Brantley 13.) centraf ..r^rir: 52; the supervisors nf from <sfvn rr ri !n c ! Y i.e. lTanuary 2010 until 5I , at to nnl i nl-r -jfa l-ho a< slip and action this na-po^ri a sifes fr^m Pou Plaintiff approximately t-l'\166 ar..lriwi l-ies.,, team' s performance. empfoyed iolr rrr./al EvErrrrry and €^? ! v ! receiving assioned $^.,^-i-^ -r^.irF Ir\JrLsrrrrL brought Plaintiffs q v " 'e 'J ^ vo - i. e. l-he materials 2oL4,B activities", rsa r ru:trr rd i n c r ! Yq! Y -^^! BACKGROTIND walf calfs and in south Dep. at 94; teams of t\^ro as fead plaintiffs firsL inieiaLed Lhis action on septernber 6, 20].3. BrantLey " Inc-, No- 1:13-cv-00159, Doc. 1 (S.D. ca. Sept.6,2013). v. Ferrell Electric That v/as .oluntaxiLy dismissed on ,fanuary 22t 20L4, after Plaintiffs "aE€ (Id., Docs. f8, 19.) failed to Limely effect service of process. Plaintiffs proceed subsequentfy amended their Camplaint in this macLer as to an (Docs. 35, 39.) individual action as opposed to a class action. Thereafter, Brannon stuart and Gary Fletcher the Court dismissed as PlainLiffs for (Doc. 63.) failure Most recentsly, to prosecute. Plaintiffs dismissed (Doc. ?1.) as a defendantChristie C. Ferrell 1tr ala.fri.i:nc .6^rani-i.ad 1-rrrf di,.l (Brantfey ^^-i^n^r 1?.) {-^ Pou his tvTo of ? } Mr although Brantley Dep. at at King 7-8; Manuaf") 40, aL 5; 6.4\ Dep. at 39, however, "l-ate" 16; helpers or dock see arrived 20L2 Policy AM, time" the time," i1l 3; DecI' at ^,,-^y"i r^sul,c!vf,-v!, \\n^tYsu Manuaf") 5:45 ftl Electric 7:01 did A I v.l Dep- fu. v at aM because 7, (J- not 89-90 "iIt] Policy one Of Ferrell At the Dep. Brantley and Lhat a L t rr .P \t lvnJveFsF q sm ' o f . ,!) r !v 6:45." he saw nr r n Y y u r lrlri r rd (BranLfey Pfaintiffs concede, its employees consider (Brantley and 4.). Plaintiff after B. ) AM at or 6:45 arriving Decl. until ^ t l] v! 7:00 ("Pre-2012 warehouse. arrive property at Ferrell Mr. to tofd Brantfey at 92-93 e (Pou Decl. of 16 31-32.) Brantley pay { ,f. Ferrel-]" Dep. at 4I; at was d afso 5:50 37, Dep. Ex. Wilson ("Jufy Pou FerreII that afso the ficenses. began Dep. 4; aL 90; afl f.v- l-tccl at (Brantley the Electric Ferrell lerz Dep. majority and open arrive v a n Y ! r t vlri rnt n ivn, a r i ri e the 14 AM or he that inEo at at Ex. Dep. altf hori /Rrenf much ride. to Dep. at 8; n^-iria choose (Brantfey woufd testified woufd "a truck PM. id. 6; King the of Electric Ferrell- have Electric supervisors at J. Ferrelf 3:30 . a n n r n Y i m : l -a l \ , le-r rsrurJ/! -. k not did helpers s.)rv Ferrell 'tpretty truck hFlnprg 44.) day Dep., at the drove he / Doc.79, work concfuded - ^ "m v q^r nIr ev Lh r l-hpir srrner\/i aE 27- ) see also n Z; l-.\ Sifa .)f f i ci a l ^n\-. lL-r h sa r drove three sometimes The /lrirrA Rrantlev on Pou Dep. 109-4, Doc. Mr. hA\re 15-18; nr-l-FiF+d because { n.\l- r-ldIrIufL!> Pou Decl., Ex. at Dep. ct55-L911sLr 3; .rrridan.e nro\/idcd Dep. at 40; (stating that was just their Pou Dep. noL aII habits, " and ofhcr j-imc") : Fmnlovaes ,T- on the testlfied \'. mirrr,f A< and emaifs t^ ./ a f l -e - dal- arrirrino Mr. r-^mni I e ard at there was AM or 6:45 fhe g-g not 6:50 ) a fine AM. (Id. the shop fnr fhF at ntlur -r y ' him tL^ after af f i rmad 15; WOrk ,nS did wait.ing Ferrelf J. Lrrc d:.r-r'e empfoyees of took recelved frrrl-hcr Hp dq l r z u a/ have g6'|rcdrrla fhe on manager, it. AM, as nre\/iotrs may [he] work project 7:00 at to 28. ) residential fr.rm finish al- at began that nFn n-n. the nr 6 L c rs r vtL notes t-hem that work start t hri q lu l Lr r lK jn.f FerreII, r ^ ir 1 - ^ h get ever "coufdn't day empfoyees/ additional hnrrrc or Dock King, hand, the fate -+- 1nl ' De- other that fArr I Farrel ran to Dep. at r-02. ) Before \\airro f el fham at 60, 84; it is nrAarc they Lr I'arral King t-\ar6 5nd doing and - stuff" or van Dep. it ouc you c. A .\r1l- nrorli ded overnight be and 59, 84, took the teams ten ?. the ?n Fr^m end of 1-ha be focked for \^rha | own - up" use and Mr. or Ioad nor'\ ^l- \-/.]t I fess in lo\r 'tget up ?q the wcre crni n.r 94.\ but was stored on the Lo foad "tried to testifj-ed (.f . Ferrell up. tO be The "some truck (Brantley morning. both truck. t' \"w a 'gio a n -* / tools, Ferrefl nah whatever 42-43, hand the supervisor fP.r:nt- then truck."), their King minutes .\n the loaded Mr. King Dep. at At loading available 87). darz and lar/ the qhcal- facL pr:nt- t-hF coufd ^ warehouse" :lc.\ f,.'l. and " [w] hatever an premises, The employees Ehe coo woufd Aattt' 5,7.) of rl- l -i 1.hA at at aL L2i af Dep. na^ ^6t- emnl ovees F^- need l feave teams the that Dep. 11.) the i ^l-1 ci day, ia /' each team lRr:nt- l av l7 nah rt- qA load \ up TT^^- and feave - - - Jrnrng ?at-r r v . \ u r-r h a e , hrovn . I r e s v L- their out be Pou added Mr. Lo have ].ra !s n!rv yn o r ' l n ur y it for Ferrelf [he] " Brantfey .1rf r^rlra I i n for stand . t nr ir r : J- v : next rarr ^h v!r ("I to the shop that IebLing them getting in Mr. a meetingi F^ lrin orrarrr Pou Decl. Tn take there (J. that or Lrucks LaIk -nd after our to needed l.rofnra go that going be on and going tofd Migilionico rl:rr l-^h^ry^L? in could also management them know (Brantley people Brantley thac hr^ m " E r vL a f.rr to were at them leaving DecI. they t-ha fl 20 had to dat vqy t and we where Dep. talking there home"); d^ Jv unload day ended and we got because tu v -^ to let efectricians or ll u q r r i n n r r Y v r and supplies" | and "see would lhe] Supplies plan." know what's Lheir €^r I 7 !J 19.) help fl le.) could by nominic we Lo tl days would so they day 94 was told I T.l had also i c the : Electric's Decl. fefLover was (Pou DecI. Ferrell five of thaL anything Brantley 87; out because eanrrrorl Mrf i nd three trucks. [he] rr at - stuff employees' other (Id. " Irloughly the that truck the or fiIl rnust team on wire but worked unload day "every that weather," the that's Lhe stuff truck. on the stay that " [e] lectricaf the from 1-Fsfified Lulnload Iike steaf," damaged would tools 't Limesheets, somebody coufd could Rranl-lFv Plainfiff 88, back and and ("In report . " \ ,t t f 19. ) -^nt-r^<l- from the Mr warehouse shouldn't Ferrell be Dep. "when the no energy Farrcl or at guys work l what they He testified it to Lo the taking shop supplies 1,8 l-ha consume at up came back spent will fLhra L r sj put anything 101.) a ^ P nqlr:ai rn a d Ewr Eu at job the you when nrnrl}r r v r l c m n l . 1 \ ' a c cE r site, come "so back- " was a "fair statement" night there was little back out of a truck and putting in them things there you aL 94.) \\ f t-lh6r' rrcy , r ri rnY. r \ ^ r B. fhe of f ew Lo that /1r Ferrell those day." o , . f r rriI n rm r.ro n f e /r rv in items lPre-20l2 " [a] ny excess and not feft respect to prohibited, the fha / sr:nnl " for use and 1-hcir :nrz rrn a rn u e rd , Mr. fLh rF \) - t r L / in Klng 1 dvr sc ^ E '. ^ . vt l 1 h v J !l - L 'g a J " at warehouse, the to "Why tools 100-) at in f Td. " personal .erq \'if ies- inl- O !4e " the & Eguipment Policy a Electric, Inc. is to at shop at on the back at be pre-arranged must (Id.) 19 the manuaf provides fha the return end of each 8.) July purposes." for reqnnnsil_r'lo use olrirtiffg' Ferrell (Id. " [m] anagemenL d u r r r r Yn r r u r !f i about policy be put the place ELect.ric that " in Ferrel-L the Manuaf shafL were ^-'jnmanlE\:lufP"LErru nlnr/calq) trucks. cou]d business poficies same condition the the event company vehicfes, personal in Efectric 20L2, materiafs in rren teams returned .rcl- put responded, l-hc (Id. home. " [A]re and truck Lheir leave Lvlr!>' .fuly t'[i]n L\4u the I /r/-k V.)tl When asked ( Id. ) Before vehicfes \tar\/ j-rr/-'-- . .u \ m n :4n \ / r u ' trLp rr- provided that j.har/ \ 11 \/:n a Uee of compaDy vehicles tenure. of Ferreff when the 1 -- , , - L c t-ha A number l-.r.\'l e Mr. them take that overnight. warehouse ^f or fesl-jfjed ^f of a choice have overnight DPF n ls out rr.1i l-haf ^ a '! L . ^ y LLI back take then sometimes?" The employees similar'lw 95.) Y.rrr''.a ryz n r r d n vu truck at night r rv qrtre l d w n ' the (Id. warehouse. " that warehouse the a htarehouse (emphasis 10 2012 but policy added).) use According With manuaL outfined was otherwise approve shelves of to "stricLly employee's Mr. Ferrell, in was drafted manual this (J. 1995. approximatefy Dep. at Ferreff 91. ) Upon hire the policy to the provisions Tn addition at. 108.) a m n r n r z e ve s er e'L'yrvy :rrirra ^j- - . i n l a s . ii . . e , , lL -r rh a L 1-he shnn i . v"l rr rh eJi f LL J l-nnrranicn.c L rl/vrrJ was rra e for with require tell vr 1? (Brantfey a- to was in you charge going Dep. at 38.) "but if you (Id. at 85.) d a . \ '., , , to wanted 'L r euvJ hr ha.l Pfaintiff a at job f rrrnk gnfl " gather to dri rzart e I i-CenSe 4L; 20L2 employees were at 10. ) that that your get deemed was Dep. site, at their An\/nnc could \aY:/ (Brantley to Lo any desiqnated 7:00am {Td ) ueJ eringing 20 aL testified the the fr-lnmnanrr shop i,^1/ M^nrrr'l- independently permission, somebodv. " furrY pnl at not ,Ai however. E'la.t-'l^ic t hre Lr s .:r.q WOrk the lwerel /'\hm employee, for Brantfey rrvw are F.'-f Ferrefl !v! t. lhlelners fhair may to crew the company truck in faka l "All OI^,TI Car, your with July following: their tw. insurance." the whoever ride the 4D prp-)O f inat FFrrFl at i -1 under drive it l-ho the Dep. (see described drive ride one schedule \rcl l-^ a1.1^il'a least Plaintiff 4 -Llpufqlrvrr Lhere." --1 4 - At SimilarIy, to h.r "meet to . 'v."\L P n r, ra n \ / mu y v r-hav At drirri - r- Dnl i arr M^nrr^ l discussed .c <noni f.'nrr'l dl l l a l nyp !r, s v lonr' n^f shop or the rrsf covered and "were allowed at . reguired f he M^ra (Id.) * [^ r L E !] ^L cr LUiJ_r5, dri ee n!rvavf o ? y l just included Wilson Electric's (see .T. Ferrefl manual. 7:OOam and at 4\ A< . ' r c q n o r s i b l rvru he af. time." start 1r,v^u,r,s1 2 1 v Lo arrive required ! fhev {id. JvvrrLU ^F if , Mr. aL 7-9), 201-2 PoILCy Manual Ferrell wifson, Andrew overhaul-ed manager, office J:uLy 2oL2, in so time" long and own car you drive, Pou added "you and there material your as t.hat was toofs did had not to he was not allowed f l-a i^h to had a reason King at once (Brantley Dep. drove FerreLf Electric nnc 89-90; Dep. Dep. (J. Mr. ^^ Ferrell h^m6 t-l.ar, back his he all drove or but to the 703; l I van of at 103. ncn. job he fl 14.) which he straight car Tn fact, 32. ) or rode ten but in times Lo from the permission account from car of that job fast the during Pou estimates received home on than more company truck drove back on ) Plaintiff company truck than afso aL the s-lLe all more them suf fered of use Ferrell Plaintiffs site iob Pou Dep. that fast Decl . during the take Ferre the the week one Ferrefl from in rode Both 32). up Ithey] J. did Pfaintiffs at 'tif see also 4O-41i home from estimates (Brantley tenure. at an employee (,I to be picked vehicfes own which aL 22, refused company truck Dep- Pou Dep. Dep. .eLa^ thoia ^t- nrrinf q r^rhpneach Brantley Plaintiff ir 19), Lrucks Ferrefl "never" i f at 85; vpl/vv+er rr, Lrouble. at csner.i: l lr/ nr.na<ion. aar]" (Brantfey l-eave" the company van once after Empfoyees were free 17.) ^6^=11- sii-c.rr v 4 e ! - J v v to a job own truck (Pou Dep. at broke down. Fr.\m his to drive site Mr. trouble. (Pou Decl- . tl 13 . ) ?imeslxeets C. Efectric Ferrefl excfusively at 10, the policy did ^r 4. not employees each day- pou Dep. pnl i arr Mrnrrr'l pre-20L2 il-s on end of 104; & ComI)eneation at 34; to a time filf out (Brantfey Dep. Wilson D1-o-)c,l 2 manuaf, use Policies Dep. D/-\'i.'\' l empfoyees 2I clock, at were 7L; J. I2-I3, Mrnlral to af. be rather own paper the.ir at but 6. ) t.imesheets Dep- at Ferreff 19,2ti JDIy A..:ordincr "paid for relied 20L2 f.O the travel to job the travel is (Pre-20L2 evening. " ' ra f r - Poficy Manual i n l - r e i j -a l -h p when the was paid 'twill intr paid <ifc :nd nrhor their own lnrEa l h P E c5 rar! drive choose to ride work f uauf invofves it only the rLL r^E r a few minutes and n:id seconds, largely that is he Wilson n!r4a n t1v-q ri r - a l y vu in dispute. received Dep. manual at the 15-15 during Ft-^ EIIer-L his Brantley Plaintiff updated & Ex. 2), ,u,y- u q ufs u e d ^a policy but decfares and employment 22 it was added). ) 1-hF it tO I ime ends who on thaL the the 2012 policy for dO time any SO- If thiS leave (ld-) time." manrra l 's in tO whenever DoL regulaE.ions signed manuaf the be paid paid be the the back at Lhe JuIy rF.flleSted to a-Z-Z empl oyees whenever afso "wiff shop the for "will Second, this from (emphasis 4 and jobsite 1/.\rr ,ira or at home, " added). ) i f the home in drive to \\rr^l- e lrva q jobsite from drive Manua} the employees fL !? r r ./ L uu^ work, Lhe company truck of rL ^ time or to crew tamnhasis that job the the the with return travel up to you as to whether you want to record this rh6 one rrY '^- aLm L Il,n v lrLa c < s Ln r r Lr to not stopped, dramatically driver the 2012 PoLicy on (rd 'r^^r.i-^ --^-r wdgc;> with provided manual DPerrL "budL -"^ u for wages cars begins i.rheif c ' the that forth (,Iu]y day. " employee out-of-town job[;] the departed manuaf hr n r rl fr y] r r r wu the for the in (Id.) usuaf their to to chose way, an job the when shop if Thus, they same trjp paid." set and rhc'ir end of the it First, the poficy if shop on the not 2012 JuIy be In day is evening/next posture. the "only is the to back 6.) at PM, that 3:00 (Id.) truck. The at reached employee company travel NoT paid but day each nrorrisiOnS an acknowledgment August he 2012 (see only received pre-2012 version tRranflew Decl . if aver Pfaintiffs they that spenL hE Ya i rr r-irnr ar Y o r r r v 6; ^f see t-ho -t ^ru c hl J u r F L . Dep. at his time f f ! i- Lr d l ! non Similarly, his Mioi l ionico f olri him 27, Apparently, 2e) himsel-f r ta ! ae ! vrr A i n a r r r Y u sifc the "gave rrd j-hF of 3:30, time R a r r n rf u ) / l a \ / !! ra L f?,.?nl thaf his first " Mr. time job rrr'lc /Rr:nj-lav ionir:o records site, at and 4) it " Lyl nFn and his ,aj- to ) onfy incfude 23 L of did -^f were In nai y q l ud the return Pou travef l-ho -i .)Lr at their Pfaintiff a rn y /Llr-rh ri rn . r a r\ r Y after averred to initiate heading time. be h:Ck likewiSe of fltl Ferrefl councing him ) Mr. l:ef sum, to f v l! r !. point 11 woufd .tel-l- in.r instructed "n" Mr. 'lafl- the (Id. time. fnr fl 23.) 3cL tl Iempfoyees] F nFrlnl to supervisor meeting, \.'nrr time initiat.e to nF.l travel time the heading and plaintilf at he for him point lemployees] r-t! ufur hplnar A I q/ paid being r"rhan (Id. g4 ^r 7:00 not the meanc uu harrarlqa 4A-47.Rrenila1/ cndad timesheets." r_^- r rP , , u n return 'tfrrqsed and "never swygert that 6- thought he unspecified f.\r he befieved on their Mioil an !]tl Der":l r :amrp s u r L | the at that the include at naid wrrrkde\,." iha to Pou minutes it").) at ^f instruction aol-l-inrr because drive not q-1O: !]{ . about Jessie colleague they someone instructed Alvl, only i u r r rr nLi r- L a l ' R q r ll \ that supervisors r ^,,-,,1 asked AM, as 7:00 at c . - ! iufsa Jv! 7:00 AM and records i^h t'never" Brantley 6:45 rl-^ case, with T vF r - l lvl t be done about could know "anything between ..-ts l l r---r P4y I any timesheets (explaining 33 In on their communicating a !F rlrrL.r a-n f l F \ / \! q L I record the by anyone" informed incfude or or u v !nlr lqrJ d : r r wr r u I lL rl r.c a - r t Pfaintiff for in evidence Pou received. were "never trucks Pou afso r h r r Lr g d . r r y { - h r.-iL IrI ^ not the Loading no Pfaintiff any, rrTara qrrrrn.sed fcr he oaid is There 24-26). version, what about lll (Pou to the DecL. (( lll .t.t q t) tt a^^^r/li \ do not Ferreff Electric n c ! r i nt v u rt p a ^r rl{ re 2r. ral-rrrn l- impshaFf that "FerreII s qlrhmi f hpv tf ed tO f iIl l-ha lL- ti m pE L l.rrri l rli rrr (wilson i n Dep. rFt-urn Mr. they left everything in should up untif they D. over the back the ( L f. into work course of pl:infiff Rr^nj- l e1/ Fstimates (Brantley Dep. loaded the at truck 50-51.) in Rr:.fl morning tv l-hF DeCf. thej r the day" if that the the at 96.) get his his morning at to 't and arrive. Lhe shop and lTl heir start " foffowed "[f]rom the v/ere time loading 97.) & conErensation employment hours He could there (Id. shop. " time back Dep. when they they employees the be" entries. employees "when got they time the Vaughn "shr':rr'l.d timesheet that affirmed 413 omnlnrzecs on for scheduTes leave ^nd FerreII the manager, they time testified affirmed o' cfock Plaintiffs' the Lime time tiff between."e puII R(. office wouLd have been listing shop seven the nr it Y rrrrvh l - " r travel Ferreff the from be : luu their they instructions, from He furt.her "start 27.) at guys crFt- ha-k 24.) at to instructed (Id. t-ho ef Dan wifson, Mr. paying fu thsF \ / r / 15-minute cLiaflenged 54-55-) hand, is the (BrantleV Fjme D.u Tren at other rime l-ha include f rarrel On the his adlr' ^!vv!u!rrv!]/ "? not without with Ferrelf Efectric, arreracred 40 r'lFr week. likclrr testify any help to how many days he from his team, but e job of the day explained that Lhe first At Ehe same time, Mr. Ferrell as beginning at 7:00 AM no matter what time the on the timesheeL was recorded (,f. Ferrell Dep- at 15-16.) The employees' drove off the warehouse lotannr^-,aafL6 ^1ock2 until Ferrell ELectric sends 3:30 pM: thus, if in six hours, the team comes back to the out a truck and the team finishes have anything else for shop "until somebody releases [them] and says we don't (!!. you uaday." to the shop and has not at ?5.) ff the employee returns u.rka.l a frr'l I Fidhi h^rrre options [:] take [he] can either trucks to make the fu11 eight." I'FrrFl I the rest (Id.) 24 F:la.j-ri.. of the ".riwr Isl day home or him you ^t two can wash the arrj-ved at the day [he] before that 6:45 am to times few or lomnh:ci <r :rido,'l) t \ c"Lyr-a5 ) 5 would spend Dc.t {ltl IB- !/. Lhe at 19-) tJt was "on average Pou Plaintiff week. (Pou Dep. trucks with (Pou Decl. Iate site of the -_ because mention of that I to with his avf (Id. others. Tf 6hl- Dep. at is f travel L6 22, l each r r nrir Yn r r yvr hl1mF u +.) day but hours load AM and that he ran the the his udJ of he he and to ---"rd five on Lhe other made no back , job location vehicfes getting after last deposiLion, unloading three the 6:00 t.imes Although f , Tr per to from during spent on only own vehicfe, the 20 days would he two days he would fl 18.) rrndi srrrf Fd 6mh [h] e return 51.) no matter 23. ) aL his bet.ween - and team arrived arrived return the dav" plus" five about duties time supervisors (Pou Decf. for Dep. he anytime shop was 30 minutes (Pou Llef ore have to unload morning except "average srhv yn . ' r r o minutes. " assist the that He estimates traffic. the the 15), post-return communicating FFrrFl at fl 4). day of avers in 't40 + fl (Brantley that Dep. at worked He asserts errerrz for during DecI. his estimates he times so. time" (Brantley that lmnef doing fhe he 30 minutes." aL 22. ) (Pou Dep. AIvl of PM, 4:OO testified materiaf minutes maiori fv "fhe around warehouse travef 6:45 As t t' lal rrrl narl 70 Brantlley 60-61; [he] except trucks, than was fess filteen Electric, Ferrel-f loading at l"clncd of average an lll (rd. a l qn Ha start which late, empfo)4nent.' entire thisl ran [he] for worked " [e]ach averred Ferreff that f tl,'l i I 44. \ 25 Fll ecl- ri r: (J. naid Ferrell owerf.ime Dep. at co 104; the Pou (1) and issues: within the for of :ro t-La?aF.rra (4) fina11y, alen liahlc 'l tf irrrrid:l- of violation fiabfe are (3) ad 9ute4Lev claims "employer" FLSA; the f n-r! - Defendants' whether following Defendants whether under compensation overtime nAfoh/lant-q (2) FLSA; the the on was Plaintiffs' James N- Ferrell whether meaning unpaid summary judgment for move Defendants FOR ST'MMARY .I'DGMEI{IIT MOTION III. whether ^..r d q 'a m : r r5a e . u , L'qyc , arru, FLSA was entitfed to the "wif f ful . " The first as j udgment matter a r-r-rmnen f i nn sa cannot meet overtime f esj- if fL r i t r AL U Br. icri at Tlefendanfs facie not w a r l t i r tl r tr r : , wv! J r -'ars wcl^ 3.) exist, Plaintiffs' return travel 'I ^ -.. ^ - Defendants' considers of mL.q1 / rr / Lhe whether A. raqn for FLSA, sEand.atd. of Sltmmarw irrdomanf as to anv l rzc if qarrera is under the damages worked they hnrrrq "each if theif f tT '!^ E \ c - such Act. Resolution n a m a rll \ , ' , rraLrr The "willfuf." subject ' and whether and . unpaid activities issues other an "employer" Plaintiffs rer-.-\rdod morning l was any, al rr even that compensable Iiquidated Ferreff Mr. 9 g l l l l l l g ! - ) , J g g Y l l l v r r v dispute noL liability violation assert overtime because rEn n! l - c d L u u ! a yv r "off-the-cIock" are time l dl - L f that effort annrrref € Jr r \^ ? further Defendants wages ^-i.l PdrLr proving that and/or for thaL contend of for compensated . .r. r ln d - r claims Pl-aintiffs' burden j -r r r f h f r r ' l l w j-hpv fhFj- i< / L rh Llna rl prima were and on lw. v 9 + 4 ] i ' are Defendants faw of Snecifir-al their whether considers Court their Court to the then FLSA. Review ie :nnrnnri:l-a material fact .\nlrt and the if is "f.here movanL is no oenUine entitled t.o j udgment a as if "materiaf" governing of 1aw." FED. R. could affect the matter they u-s.242,24e 0986\ - most to v. favorable zenith 94I Prop., v. Fitzpatrick When the is City l ool \ to /^--r -ihihd met genuine issues as a matter Cir. the ^^ickes of its 3I7). fa.f v. initial law. 1-997) (per of ij- burden Jones v. of proof LLL5 (11th at of and that City curiam) . of an there (11th that the non- Whether there entitfed Cir. (L970') a44 can evaluate Considef is that 398 U.S. showinq . 1993). negating 606-08 the are no to judgment Columbus, I2O F.3d 248, 254 A mere concfusory )1 by trial non-movantt S CaSe. 604, first it - carry Che movant , showinq tO the Court How to trial bv or & co., mrrqf motj-on. Cir. case the court, at tvto ways Kress Before the for (1986). 929 F.2d s.H. fact basis proof nF.cqsar\/ Inc., nnnnqi fi.\n of material one banc) the burden of burden in showing of . LLL2, non-movant's Dr.t\ra : in 2 F.3d burden 477 U.S. h^rr.hl-, movant has the of (en 1991) 323 the co. Parcefs Four Cir. the 317, bears Atlanta, CoaLs & Cl-ark, v. and Cefotex, (11th of efement who has initiaf the no ewidence See Clark of non-movant may carry essential on Indus. Elec. v. burden file, light the and must draw "a11 U.s. omitted) 477 V.S. Catrett., depends burden on 477 in facts (1986), (l1th initial the materials v. Corp. has the the Inc., Lobby, are under suit Matsushita 5a7 1-437 L425, the Liberty favor, " Iits] and cibations party to reference this F.2d punctuation The moving Celotex in inferences (internal by 475 rJ.S. 574, FacLs 55(a). of view party, non-moving Corp., Radio iustifiabte Real the v. must The court P. outcome Anderson law. substantive crv. statement that the clark, 929 F.2d - If t.rial, which summary j udgment only aresenfs 'tmust directed ranerad ,/ absence of show by 2 the its carry conclusory Ross, a fe.j- F.2d movant must Federal Rufe motion for *'r^- materials in fact 1116. at If the fact, the "come forward with additional verdict viith in Cj-r. judgment : -r ^urr u s rdr.Yi n . r rr r f r iuhr e r E and at as annrnnri ate to be either or evidence triaf 1117. based on The non-movant by repeating or See Morris Rather, 1981). a "overlooked compfaint. or affidavits the non- provided otherwise v. by 55. .rarra Dl r i nl- i f f q opposition the (11th Procedure at on Lhe pleadings by refying 1,032, 1033-34 Td. :_=i non- shows an must was contained Civil j-hp movant non-movant motion movant sought that or at wj-thstand evidence of ; "uru-y* ^L cFr L -r LL J burden summary material the to on the F.3d respond 'l-ha cl ark sufficient evidence triaf mel-arial summary method by rf a directed movant allegations 663 the to that proof burden of the the lingJ precludes that burden. a l l a a o d a r r i . l a n f i a r ' , / d e f i r : i e n c w - '" cannot by "demonstrat fact nerratino contains withstand to burden, response on a material record the sufficient. fhe at r'il-?'1:irick, that ignored" motion evidence irralrz with initial initial its ef f irm:f respond verdict insufficient. its tai-Ior carried movant arli dence movant of issue must non-movant the its When the non-movant bears Td. the is trial at the movant carries a materiaf indeed judgment." - if and only is burden the 608. at non-movanL may avoid there meet cannot non-movant and informed riohlr rYrru the notice l-n file consequences 28 them of of Def endants' the affidavits of defauft. summary or other (Doc. 825 (1rth F.2d 822, m^l- i ^r|i ri ne < f or 1 9 8 5 ) ( P e r curiam) Cir. Under 207 S of receives overtime 495 cnty. / S 207(a) (1)). permitted j- ha f haf If amnlovee .Fh]1c fha the nl:ini-iff she knew or pAi^h 1081-82 (1lth ^n the have v Clr. l-ha - ^t initial without overtime shoufd if he aqk l- ha known nA^. t of L994)). of -ih arhnl performed has reason .\\rart- suffered or is not "It .l /"\ l- hc is mUSt wofk. not also befieve the that be ima COUnted," & Nat. and Res., (1) that: (2) work. .inr L r vrr, ^ ^ m "nt c s r pauf evL ,n< Lo demonstrate overtime Conservation to U.S.C. omitted) . compensation, the t-.\ work hOUrS ,u r r y s d u ,-^eir burden n\/aF Bibb for 29 is she the rddil-i^naI €v !? ! ^ Educ. a and one (citing or employee his than Pub. of his employ S 203 (q) ) . 29 U.s.c- n.\l- fess 2007) marks and citation t hcars worked t^:r:nd \"r.\rk fo n r a r r4: !i t p!Lv d Bd. not unfess not Cir. knows or employer quotation lL v -n di employee the v. employed (citing Id. .'onl- i nles (internaf f5!. is Fmr\'l ^1far that reason relevant. or work-" (1lth 1314 person "A to arr:nf 1306, F.3d rate Alfen rate." hours forty a at compensation may employer "an than longer regular his FLSA, the .for a workweek times Burden Facie employee The and the satisfied ravaew. Prima 1. ral are 772 wainwright, DiBcus s ioa B. haff v. requirements of criffith Thus, the notice e6.) the Id. 28 at he employer 1314-15 F.3d 1076, whether without worked Overtime PJ.aintiffs ComPensat ion "The it eml:odies which burden 'It and empfoyment, " it r r-Nh F ! amnl/-\1far L hae s"LP!v/ trusLed, performed evidence just fai show the . recovery extent nn hj-s an qrr on of . 495 amnl.11rFr,s p not by is l-.r it that Corr. employee unable nr.lr"\F"' labors without Lamonica v. prove in Safe of No. (per marks 64"1 him denying a premj-um norrformifv to any precise the place empfoyer paying Am., 2015) L, at would rar.r-\r.dq aLl-ow the 30 to of quotation by [he] a matter as Apr. be sufficient corp. U. S. would IFLSA]."); proving of cannot work Such a result kopr.r records the Cir. where situations that 32A the he in nature (citing 1314 aL 1316) (internal at work. faiIrrra the F.3d position the produces of (1lth that of an employee's contemplated *s at of lhe] Jackson v. penalize to !q+rvA duty; statutory extent Anderson, uncompensated s'L'Ptv/L! benefits L446904, ground the and E.3d burden if compensation afso is or [his] practices a superior reason, rer:ords satisfies Aflen, see that keen i-nference." 2OL5 wL curiam) (citing fo amount and reasonabfe solution Ied the concerning facts 495 "For of records and in Alfen, " 587). without work Lo 14-1101-0, vrr at is "who probative most keep to facie] 328 u-s- Anderson, conditions employer performed. employee the other and the the And.erson, 328 U.s. duty prima lthe employee." the employer's is work of amount for hours, and produce know and the is wages, employee's to hurdfe making against policy public great FLSA] and the lthe mifjtate impossible an 687 - at of nature remediaf keep With the due compensation as Hurricane Shutters '711 Tn/6rnL^ lt^ r ' 6 F e ' P uy show tr ?d F:i E! that Iad 1v ^ u she l z c l /a 6 ^c 6 worked \r f_tt-^ rrc n^^^*r.i-^t-- BLUU!ulrrYft, 1?1q 12g9 n ! v v !f prnn l .-rt r r v time 1. - . iL^s t r- records cannot Iha hlrr.len bUrden n^l- iS a28O, (S.D. 1287 rnc., Maint., L9, ".rrr<.)rr/ rarli reffects ar^' that (Defs.' j- ha\/ urr! Br. at 'tby barred in "that (Id.) Rehashing Defendants lit.tIe untimely lastly truthful the arguments contend these figures 6-7.) and improper work and that Thus, eX(.:eSS that Dr^h FIa. and and their to not assert that thiS CaSe in overtime Of were f orf the *did for the tesl-imony time to Defendants, to strike, " with so begin even depositions. enough sheets." forward not S. " are owed motions "came hnUf claims not of during V "consistent" in 31 ).1 demonstrate Plaintiffs' they Pfaintiffs to paid presented are I (S.D. They records after eV ^^ V r rY . Y ' TenDl *1 at D claimed E' t-- feCOrdS accurate according affidavits i n began" discovery" until v. unabfe properfy that Eleventh the q?n work. f ime argue own admissions during at was . 1316)). are snrrf ed r.?^?1-i r^ before at overtime They further evidence cafcufate Reply kept rrndi r.\^^'Fa-'l 1, morning they Plaintiffs Plaintiff 8.) their the that f hc each wceks 495 F.3d uncompensated .\f .fones LU o m"n lrru y-E^ - . EL y ^ . ! lu rh c - rE Corp., -^ the burden of worked 20L2 WL 163035, Affen, contend performed they (guoting 2013) 09-22027 CrV, (citing 2Oa2) he the "relaxed") F . , 1 , . if h a shift if FLmr nrlvo v ^ ^ c c u " J J is i nr,u l iu q a f r r j i n . r rr . r . . ur that and l-h:l- j.hc .)n rTrF^f & C Earthmovers I Ffa. No. Defendants f hnsa v. t h { -s r-L . r r r L L^/ hr'y L ^ F l . trusted in.r compensation without uwIL be Centeno time ln.\f 2n1?\ ra.'.-\r.lq overtime n !? a c - r - tr-r r y i n d y LJ! a L overtime." that |ima ^Lm L y tlvo E Ee e , s rr j w c L LLI C! i r !f has found an employee can successfully circuit Jan. {11fh \rrLrr Lo (Defs.' t'Plaintiffs' avoid summary ;, r,-l^n6n F i.rnq nrnr't:maf A,F beyond record PagE> (ro., " four identifying :nn judgmenL, Plaintiffs' not what Defendants defeat summary in state to wanL them t.he hundreds Moreover, in and related admissions to of citations containing rornrd< purported of the Court,s testimony when properly connote do viewed conEext. To do not timesheets "truthful judgment, the reflect j-hej- Ferrell mechanicaf time clock iimeshFAfs. whir-h in day and turn ,J. Ferrelf Dep. It 1"9, 2!.) of track is in Ieast the prepare the at 104; 10, afso morning, for the that timesheets supervisors minutes at 10; Pou Decf. Pou Dep. or that that (J. day. deparLed when empfoyees however, that they were supposed to be paid spent foading trucks of the workday. see also Pou Dep. at the beginning flU 5-6; the 3Z at the Electric they 9; paper Dep. in were 71; 12-13, not arrived but each at at did is or end of Wil-son Dep- engaged Dep. at Ferrell It employees home - for Dep. efectronic (Brantley 34; Ferrell - time" the fi l-f out at although 54-55.) an its each week. undisputed averred, they fhem fo the "clock use not their (See Brantley issued rather end of Lhe morning Plaintiffs anyc]e" but employees' premises in at did Electric that worked: they incompfete. are exner.l- d e if hours of t T f l1 2 , 2 1 r P o u D e p . a t Decf. rrn.li snrrf Fd respond Plaintiffs number they accurate,'t and aL 76-76, 85; Brantley to devoid exhibits na:Jrl . fr n t It l/ v erru era sweeping Defendants' apparent, t-hp\/ .onatrrqr.rflr F.i-^-r-^^!^ (J! is As keep on the aware/ at some activities King Dep. 11.) "never were informed for incLude on Lheir or or communicating (Brantley 33.) In oecl. facL, by wit.h !l!l o- to the contrary, - instructions time disnrrte or r ' \ A hr q6 .t- uLt/ se indicate o?. extent taken by 79, aL Ex. 14 5; 37, 4L; J. Dep. wilson ("July Ex. 16 PoLicy 20a2 t.hat however, sacf ion. worked Ferrelf for - instructed during times 6o-6Li that his he rrrc after 6:00 -u r,r'u^ .r.r . Y r . w r. nl-i .r> ffe that fl load he +.t the not but 7-8; King at AM - with "f'm account an exhaustive is only illust.rative. 33 at their work day As described or that fess (Brantley material working of the id. rebuttal htr at as ten 39, testified the that the AM - Dep. in before than Pou Plaintiff 5; da\/ 5:45 for Doc. in each before PM. presented Plaintiffs except fate. Dep., Manual") stated Similarly, A J v la n d 6 : 4 5 that at PM. trucks trucks undisputed Ajvl Co 3:30 began 3:30 ran testimony 7:00 4.) arrived the is of amount the deposition Poficy Rranflev he loading Decf. between at regufarly tenure to Pl ai they Electric, arrived h1. Manuaf") Plainj-iff start Brantley anytime hrreFnl-ad to ('tPre-2012 records are Dep. FerreII workday AM and ended the bar:koror:nd hours business the regarding It facts these be trusted. of in decfarations.r0 normal at Dep. evidence, 7:00 and Defendants (Brantley work Ferrefl J. LrUe, cannot accuracy the uncompensated their Electric's Ferrell records Defendants (See if BUt made statements Plaintiffs time, of time chaLlenging LL, 22, 23.) 27 . \ their (See Brantley time. .oSerLiOnS. )4 . Electric's to addition ^l express recording begin to travef return €:^f,1it r ^ r i1 e . ) n T t F n Ferreff working and F^r^^^i-^ d€.nv fhe that Tn their excfude received they 23, 27, 2B; Pou Decf . 'lltl e, tllf 7!, necl. sources - from muftiple 7:00 AM and to at t.hat declared boLh P-Laintiffs morning 30 minutes evidence or 15 material" r was foadinq breakfast. mean, I 7:00. before minutes on I cooking (Pou Dep. van" " [the] home at wasn't at 16- L7.) lL-vn T y \ nr^ r r !rE L - r r rrrn ri :n o clu!r r uTr r Brentl ev testi the 't fied hAr r 't or lpF^rr1a1' also tafk to in was obligated, them know where 1et (Brantfey at Dep. find vrL talking to people were Brantfey Yve Decf. efecLricians 'laarrjn.-T |/-, too out of five a Ff ar-n/-'.\n .r/-'l h.1ma personal l days their (( In 1J t L E he f hF they each D .u\ r r rv /') Ts a/ n u lt . they trucks and sce to also him f'||f 4, these el- 6-1 . D.)rr 34 no.'l {l ll Dep. 4. t \ = Lold day f 19. ) Here three truck, and on every Secure Pfaintiffs' took fifteen lL-rh ti ! r l - J r r u\ at before only unload activities . home"); own Based (Brantley going every r , v - ur rl.r r h l 1 r ! , \Y f y shop. there because DecI. his 18. ) in day on afthough to our Migilionico Pou unloading colfaboration the be and plan-" after to l p\,2 and go "see going in the Bran|' could that Mr. from Lomorrow what's q4y to so Brantley: estimated for on flke " Mr- to we needed meeLing time 12 - ) I L 9 . their Plaintiff Decf. tt by Dominic report dav spent Pou a ql day " tul nload damaged know in to Some way back 1, ! Jq . had echoed rcrrrri rcd minrrj- es making ("rn fr.'lr knowledge, f wenl- v na. Pou (see materials. 20 they thac Pfaintiff getting tl next them and .Ieaving be going is Plaintiff steaI, coufd efectrician, shrrn fhaf letting and them riaV. timesheet, f)pcl lead was told i-.r fhF anrtad :n,.i \"'o .rnj- hack lF\/ the for ("I 94 could what out we stand 88, Rr.nf as fhc somebody that Q7! nf his out that role his and fha fill truck ^u s f and management af anything n Ir , Ec / .- r \llarrLrLJ eh.'\n he had to the on wire [e] Iectricaf u'A.f Lhat that's stuff fh6 61; to minutes Brantfey rripn,i11.r l-hp Defendants Iack nreniqinr 1-ha on dates ^F that work which precise, than weekly time sheebs that document the cofh tFsfificd for out -,-l ^ L ^o p , sn - ^- r u n r o a.o 'ri n^g information 'I imi 1 -a r l preparations, reference some such discrete appointments. See Allen, could find, reasonabl-e that jury hours a issue, motion Al1ser.a whether Du'LtrLLq! by nf y is r..r-nenf J - uuY"LsIL, Lo anrr rrcnrrine or i i the excnangrng basis with by car trouble or L3L7. time chalfenged Pou worked for to "triggered" Plaintiffs' at site. summary is compensable, more than judgment on forty this DENIED. i s Def materials iSsue afio were job back on a daify Knew or Whether: Defendants ime Work of the Overt reference actual the motion therefore, b. dL F.3d Plaintiff DefendanLs' week. threshold if did Pou compensated traveling exceptions 495 and Brantley Plaintiff they such as events, to Plaintiff not m.^ ! ^ t err-r1 l s , - .a ' _ a rrnrrqod which were thus that contains on each and the evidence record completed ci^ritl.r inrrc The and morning's - d a-n L and with Brantley record not wJ-th supervisors, ovnonr- met and tasks spent did the be Plaintiff both with possibfe is documentation. hours worked they on state to It may ultimately from fhev carrying l-ours performed. was based inability and ,,-^^mhanert-od Plaintiffs, iudqment summary written burden other to to favorab-Le trial at Plaintilfs' m.)si- documenLatj-on of mhar n I i.rhj- entiLled not are Pfaintiffs' i1.1 l-ha r^a,,-/rrd of Fndant-.. on material of constructive, 35 file Should l.\11r/l6n that fact Plaintiffs' as Have known r-^ r11h-^,t demonstrate to its the Lhe knowfad.rF overLime work. Defendants 'l'horc the f ^ro element any liilf court i Ffs' Dlairrf of present not do not nrima or argument on this merits of the the address fn-le evidence issuesecond case. compensabi f itv Inherent in compensat.ion which r:omoensaL)l FLSA is the under reasonabfe a e. .qee dl-'t- Khi 7340, (citing 7344 S 254 (a) , I'l.qA dn \r / n l :na / nf activities perform. activities r-^ aan'rr d-i'l conclude ^1Ie1- .r n-f . - r u l ir-r- j . ! a r l norf r'i 1.ad ^f amnl i nrrY r r fL v ^ such nni employee 't '7 t - Jo 29 U.S.C. under the f nr the ^.^f is NO. t 4A7 Act, f rom nr'l is Nov. Inc., ar.'ao : n r u1 qr ,. nri r -h a Ffa. compensation l- .1 .i1^ r-r:rral nrmrnao which Tr^ (M.D. const. from activities ral"fl *5 from work M.{-6riild at overtime the The Portaf - t o-Portal 2007)). due evidence that El.id concrete Baker certain i q arror wcrt^trrY v. Cir. exempts amhl a' are they 1-o present burden 2009 WL 3837870, Bonilla (11th the thaL could iurv 6:08-cv-45?-ORr,-22DAB, 2a09) cfaims Plaintiffs' aCtual i r r i r -i r empLoyed ^r to and which preliminary are h ? i nf ^ r r^u- l _ ' - P d J i P! aifl-\ar ^r'i^r ^-lf^ iviil' t-].ia to .-t- iima ^n postliminary or if il- 5rrr i^- ,.'r.l ^r- h.11-i-r,l.r at employee commences, or workday which such workday at subsequent to the time on any particular principal he ceases, which such activity or rcl- t t'For purposes of this subsection, and act.ivities travel by an employee incidental to the use of such vehicle ne].i ^f fhr Fmrll^1rFF,s nrincin:l the use of an employer's vehicle for performed by an empfoyee Lrhich are for commuting sha11 nat be considered . e ^ j -i l r i f ias if the use af such vehicle travel is within the normal commut.ing area for the employer's business establishment and the use of the employer's vehicte is subject to ag'reement on the part of the employer and the etttployee or representative such employee./' 29 U.S.C- S 254 (a) (2) . 36 for or an of previously As n=i-onnri ac . vo tm unr e4 n s a f evd q v L L Ly ! p for thr^^ acLivities", j.e. receiving a s s- i oY r e d e u L ! n i v vb o ) a- ^^^F-r-.i and chat.ting ard to l-hF faam'q nerfnrman.e. (Pfs-' shop. the matter law of each j-heir to 2009 WL 38378?0, Knight, q i - z l -r r .rrcars h:rra af l-amnfad j-n introduced courts, iu-l hga v 9 r v :r ^ i] i r] L ir rr r r l L l q u v i < is for necessary \\'Fha omitted). t-1r as rrirrc a mufti-factor " the rather employee and indispensable Boni1la, 487 Act, for ^lrar perform "principal See 'l "inf his considers urhaf or ha? her however, is not test, (internal F-3d at L344 v. aE 7344i the In example, like /t\ and Steiner 487 F.3d w.rrds that merely "integral Cl-ainar fhF engaged not omitted) aja..idad fl) Ahnl to are Boni1la. test FhA that (citation meaninr: ltr were el ectricians. ar-\rrrt- spent but (L956); *I2 qrrnramF raatt)raA i hr-adYr'1 na^-cei drrties The Eleventh circuit, indispensable." l j-hc sinnp as a - to- Portal above tasks those aE siite cfaim Pfaintiffs t.he time activities, 24'7, 252-s3 -iob ihe seek a judgment Portal that identified embraces 350 U.S. Mitchell, prove postliminary progress liability. must activities which " indi enene:hla" ^-rld: from the under rrnused day's from which for hours the f.raval Defendants time Defendants and activities, work the about (2) rerfain sl-nrin.r e re1-lrrn 1.) the Plaintiffs of preliminary at {i) not exempting To prevaif in end Resp. i day's about a\/enl- rl.l fhe the srrT)nliFs: supervisors supervisors that are compensation thereby wiLh no / a.'l-irrii-i6e PUJLDlTf!L materials .'nl le/-ii not '.morning (1) activities: from were they assert nF a sfip rnri si f.es $^a,^hird ff Plaintiffs described, near .\u7ar aOUftS F.rrAl and many other (1) 1-l-\a whether :-1-i-'i duties,1z a but-for quotation t-'- and test of marhs (3) the whether 181 Ffa., 20O6); rnc., 527 F.2d determine .r-r.i rrrur radrr't a- u,ark "not af whether the hra.l^min.ht- e.g., c L " y t v nurLr c c s =mnl / v. fha Farms, Mountaire Deceftlcer and "integral mnr.a rpqj-rir-f Rr1<L 1?q the one focus nf .-.rrrrsc F.3d 650 and narf rtf the l_lrrsin^-- relaLed krttsi ness") ): " to the ^r-^ see (4th 365-66 350, these q1? whether in factors, of court are was designed to (emphasis qlratleahl activities a" if r'^rk l- h^l added) . 1-.\ it l-ha is an and r/prv An . i d is activity riarf.)rfl:nt-c .lf intri,nsic efement r-a-t-d an they activity or See id. focusing "sweep the -mh7^r:^.t only emr)l of that to the on into Portal-co- "test 1-^ is arl"/eet q tied ^^/FOfm.n "integral Lhose V. like in that Instead, cmnl.)\.zFe albeit employer. threaten of TnC. exLent erred acf iwi t.ies address") f hF the the Appeals of "overbroad" Portal u ii v a the 'aia^t-ad particufar benefit fhF ^ y !r ^ . 1 ut u u v' ^1 to for a.ti\rifiFs' t-L6 Bonifla a rnrinninal Act /-^rrrt- t:equired Circuit which and precise, s.1llrl- i ^ne S-affin.r ThF meaning the more a employer is Ninth r/ (2.l1 4\ Burton an activity the Tnf a.trif ' ' , - - @ . . . qlq revisited Court offered and rri ar^r articufated (finding ih.li "integral uniquely fhc Tnc., Supreme indispensable" r-f the Lhe 2014, irrc S on whether Id. nf to tn 11 \ In t-^ are test the and Cir. Efec., City (defining 4 o!r d q t r jr n !a a ^ 1 r v J fhe arl-irritrr v. ncrfnrrne,.l question in ^F fr; in (11th 835-37 'tprincipal" :.Ta Burton employer. Dunfop I976) Cir' l- hF\/ activities rcl-irri Perez rli r l- - -h a - - 829, (citing are \ \ r ^ ? h o t -h a r ! ^,/ App'x F. (5th activities whether ^-^-^^l^l !PcrrDdrr 4oo-01 394, the L344 at 4A1 F.3d Bonilla. benefits primarify activity nr'i activities and nr"i nal and principal employee f1-1 11erform ^nl1l-har fo thF (Sotonayor & Kagan, 'fJ., I ^ 1 L a 1l-- ' 6 ? : a n:rl-inrr'l:r under the Inc., 604 F. Supp. or city is there no 487 F.3d . the to the iF f va rrr r r r t ! s e determine jury to wilf if rrnne.id a set determine of wnrk \\inl- a.rr.nl ie :nd of court t'he of if Portal plainf indi gives those facts addresses .iffs. enanqahlF" ..nrincinal,, l-^ l-ha activities. 39 se fo that BonilIa, however, sets liabilifv is It to though ('.Certain 808 ri not," duties, for is of under the liabiliLy; viofated whebher Act are not. claimed -to-Portal Birdwell it. court is for exist.") Defendants Plaintiffs' at rise Farms, actlvities di\/F will facts Perdue L992\), employees' ,.?j1r facts whether each The of at lrrut>Pc clr. that 97O F.2d , Fj -/r^, sets other consider S 254 (a) €-^t- 1- - \ r , a v l assessing turn. Birdwefl :T d . " between those the an ability 2009) (citing (l1th distincLion of irrclw v. Anderson 807 and wh^n his 4rru (M.D. Ata. 802, F.2d The nature fanf FLSA whife fn in af 97o lrrLEV!4f law, L349 analyticaf 1344. at L339, fi re of indispensabfe and tr,oqf ian €.^1-c 2d "cLean integral are a nnlrr effer-t- is activity impairing :nd his . concurrlng) quescion Gadsden, v. is FLSA qa'elrz a v Ll f- vi fr u fi r r z r Gn Pa!u!vuta! 'tan t.' :,-Firri without it with to perform he is words, I']! ar'firrirrz nrincin:l other n r i nr r! - i n taql + r v t dispense nor coufd rn Td. activities." t.ind.i enencahlc' 20 if which the employee cannot dispense one with FLSA, catesories such by the time asking dn+:,,: is of nFrf.r1^m:11.'c ^r nf Court unpaid exempted whether t-r. the if the t-t ^ <rr.'h work under claimed ,.,,-\rk nrinninr'l iS A As ^ . r uer l ' P! f a -D a " t P tl v y z a a e E o cmn nr E ^Fr^^e lardad Te]1 , n , a. 'I f .'\..r ^f is I(J! a" req Ld L.I.I a the -LII J.fTLCqI-LLV of the To be sure, al- 1'l them i q n.\ ^-t activities, to .rf I these fact Thus, a l ar1d ah^11.t the appfying the LhaL COUrt Can test set the finds how of activities Plaint and necessary work assignments *_--:r hl-adr^ belore Court and out, , - li a n r r f fe.iII; respect aE hand. \\i l-rrfa 941 n ! i y qa r t sL r E r ^ -^rql-i ..^r^ 14 f ha nf carry to l-riar Plaintiffs' activity to empl-oy warehouse delivery nan the i ffs' supplies is --r a matter of law. t'principa.I employed l f hrlrql- DLCIIIITIq day's ^nal imna.'f with ].xr fhe mta v nr irn r r Y L rrl r.t fhp rtr'Pqu l- har.p rt l-h^L commenced these 1 -h a r r question legal uu'L'Pcrr-a!ts to l-hcsa encnsahl efectricians: or perform. " its sites those in the activit.ies" "morning which activities 29 workers foad and efectrical indi rw^ r th ri rn h rr u duties d a j - e r m i n e f i aen v L L L coflection not Pfaintiffs qirnnl\/ \n.t1V in j-hF d i q r r r r 1o rof !'Frral ". Plaintifts ^F nnro icc ,t p^ihcr required Pfaintiffs' of address iqF: \::A time what qrrnnl urith \ dn nafFndanis interpretaLion, enene:l.r'l r e r4n rr! i L\ u ! at Acf i wi f.tes ^nc -l'l t-.).)k statutory nature FrrrrLc E-A Defendants fu r hva \ , ' r ] v-r:t i ndi t-l-\a -,^-.7.r-i disaqreement wheLher mal-l-ar imin,ar., n^^^-d---, r la ri rn d r t Y Mornind retrieve to implements fiefd, but FerreLl- sockets on to not empfoyeels] Ithej S 254(a). V.S.c. were and Lhe [are] Electric the trucks for service, instalf, from Electric Ferrelf wire did and repair equipment. l-^ske a" f.\ l- h.)rllTh l-ha intrinsic rrrpn^r.aj-.lr]'r nFrfr1rman.-F in of plainti installing, 40 'tinl- wFr.c ffst e.'r:l nrorJrrr-l- irre servicing, and and wofk aS repairing (1) is efectrical- equipment obtaining instructions -^t :nzl ta^Fira .i ql- ^ 'l ! r L a !F f! l r r v . r , filling l-h,nl- alcr'j- rir:ians' daify out rornriqitinn accumufated trash; nf .r ^ r rr rl Y i n n i r P n v urf ]L l jt,r v y^r because the waiting such e.fi\/ifv .)n 2L, the plaintiffs' absence of \ \ r a ^ r rql q! . r ' 1 1 r '+ ! !Y +-t occanriat /hr)l di n.r l. i ma undergoing screening perform qncnj- rPvrrq Federaf hrr indispensable" work, to the a i rn.\rl- Aviation noncompensabfe, Eheir nl:inl- principal 141 necessary screenj-ngs activit.y 4I time Ysa! lt AZteC (finding 2006) personal -'^ safety in the rrEeeD-4! y the well- site" or their drnn ni.k o^rilla, Admini strat such cir. v. l-.\ iff< formi al"though because . Inc. productive qmiFh \rrar.pi work at --^a,,-^?L,/\ F.r,linmanl- \ rrvrurrr:J fha and the noncompensable t- ha\r to their IBP, the their - and r /) lrv u u v tu r v e l ote. ti vL :dded) Ioading ' | -h i t - . cf from (10th L289 vehicfe feader's ronrrir.^d e f.rUCkS job; day's rion removed - acLivities related f o {emnhasi L274, evidence instructions amnlnrrar I inF") frrlm noncompensable watctrt9 " E I a T os t e p s 462 F.3d their particufar the and cash materials standard (holding sPErrL assemhlv into for - activifieS ramnrli ncr innc' with truck AM and supply sheets, Frhca L r pre-htegrit.y nrc-R.nO locaf (2005) 42 morning equipment inh (3) cVo L L }Dr !l e t 6 u c L Lm / (finding, 400-01 (2) do fL o v I so; and work; ./"\mnansabfe); was co., servicing such n e . r e s s a 4r! w r material needed c m "nyl r v- y - e s - n -c eL hl:ht- 4uLtvrLI wefl tJ.S. 546 A.Lvarez, of n^rfs nl er l! v ea r - l - r i t^v a l v ! rrn sP to helners' the loading materials additionaf and crh va J ! k4i Y r r v r l nr n <hFcfs: i. 394, sheets, time -LYurrrLrvrr any F.2d 527 order scope the qncr-if l-hc Dunfop, see work. on 1nr^inzr the obtaining of rrn 48-t ,end F.3d construction were the not construction) 1345 workers i on-mandated for at nff security employees "integral . to and Ferrel-lactivities fhai? l ifa' f ^ :4r !f !i /r u residential nv trrn L t. v razl r h t r r r n la i r/ a a u rr lu t uvr r morning t.hei-r nat.ure the tasks range --A expfained d in de mininis the thrat e l-hair Ferrell future does principal the at' 15-15.) r, not .1f change activity so fittle i ^d Electric such acl-ivities, required rufe rr'rf -^--:f Lhe to work, Br. .'.imnlFl- morninq preventing, not LU whether is l\/ fact wdy so compensable (See Defs.' if crr...,accFrr'l The remaining of de minimis. Anderson ^n,,1 relationship their Pfaintiffs' efiminated debilitating, may do and issue have - .-r^,.i lr -r ra=vrE - or The onfy within .rrrt- electricians these be fL^v not without altogether rt-\i as could El"ectr.ic in decidedly time as to The Supreme Court in as follows: when t.he matter in issue concerns only a few seconds or working hours, minutes of work beyond the scheduled such may be disregarded. Split-second absurdities trifles are justified not of working conditions by the actualities or by the policy Labor Standards Act. It is of the Fair give is to only when an employee required up a substantiaf measure of his time and effort that ^ v " L ^ a nrc .qh! t L v^ m yLr s t 328 U.S. a 580, otherwlse recording (1) the ^^mn6hd.r.\'r a F.2d (1946). compensable appropriate: Burton, 692 181 F. L057, 1063 time, the l?) App'x at (9th Cir. the following pracLicaf the -rd ihr'^r!r^/l "when appfying time; addit.ionaf t-ih6. .i d t- im^ rw e !^ r t '^i h t^r r Y ,7 f'ha 838 de the rarir'taril-rz (quoting sf Lindow 1984) (internal rule considerations administrative (2) minimis the v. are difficulty aggregate United quotation of amount addit.ionaf to of work.,, States, marks omitted) 738 ); s e e a l s o 2 9 C . F . R . S 7 8 5 . 4 7 1 3 ( ' A n employer may not arbitrarify to count as hours worked any Part, or fixed aF rima ho i < time rocrr'l . ar - l r r cm: l I practicalfy or rarrrri working regular hnrrorror rad lu v - ^ ^F l- ha fail amnl nrzco'e period ascertainabfe c /v n u r rh F r rd .\n .lrrl- -D i au q - dD t : r r E r a d fL v a that i a< any him. ") . First, nh:l urra lan,rad f BurLon, aL Ferrell that which l .ErY r c ri rrrn ri rn d ar v l Y the workday ^ !F v additional work information dq: 1 r s r during compensabfe second, there in morning' AM pr/prlr fLi! ' r lun A c J f rh L l . ( . ' r ^ n L r a Pou DecI. fl s \\j- n l^l-c the was or erl- sf . averred I.\a,.1i / lR q r: rn ll - J r u e \ r There is that n.r l F1/ no of opposed a time regular they j- r-lr/-k< nrn ,:l- Plaj.ntiffs parL of such F^r in . time as spenL on or 5 workday. before record nsa . . 1 , er. Of .l I A. a, refuting TLre interpretive statements issued by the Department of Labor are reasoning to the extent controlling, but may guide the Court's Lhey persuasive. Skldmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. J.34, a40 (1944); Bonilla, '7a5-2, '790-L(c). F.3d at 1342-437 29 C-F.R. SS 775.1, 43 6:45 ]' :n/lfl.lf R r : n l - l c \! /r ) / the the activities"). their at qc-61 of spent. engaged avdahl- " of exchanged time social nf minutes and recording to at. 738 F.2d because pre-shlft time hcr:inninrr 7 Eo I book an as the Lindow, arrived evidence 13 1og and the cf. the suppfies l-ha minimis de amount as that activities a monitoring in no question 4.) was and for claim ctrrrrf record l-hal- 839; counLing f ha orders at read they activities testified .t.a\r of variance It-hese] Plaintiffs which f .\ d ri e et4-ea+lr-r iYn . r u .' plaintiffs' the from simply their 181 F. App'x difficufty is nLf v co-workers was a 'twide the ir -L su r r rc l -La e d them instead up argued even nlrrreil_r'la could picked al. with administrative there f h ra Lr s z:00 is annF^rs Electric (concluding 1053-54 Tl- efecLrician each r ll - r a L rE at j- imo mnrninrr :Err:sv or prevented impracticality adminisrrative shown - not have Defendants not are 487 to a is There nLrd --L.r ri L-- rI . si F r ^ rl I ^--rarreri a amount of time measure. Mr. hr^Ffar by rnrr fifteen receiving presents most day id.) At process \\team hras a his affect fifteen-minute 60.) The Court Dtrin1- iFfd c i rL r y l\ ra t r f minimis, Ft-iurrr o 1O af weeks 52 in c r r y q ya c d Lr r c r : su in if are l-ha not 103 at minutes fifteen in not at cestified explain the mt.r'v ! rnr . i] - 9 ' L lr r t- entitl-ed of - to how that Lhat (BranLley aI]. as a matter find truck, 5.) most same (See 325 uncompensated hours. did estimate, his Doc. engaged Brantley but weeksra law that this woufd Dep. the ac time -^f i,.it-i^d oreLIvrLIE: summary j udgment on . Lraal. limitations of " cannot Defendants and --^,,-,l Y ! vurrs thus (See 11') a fuf l- 118 hours. Pfaintiff effort, of course he spent at he spent that and loading that resulting same time, the the ^^t_^r asNsu Dep. aL 1-2; King not did c u t tJe svt ri ro n r Y L Lr ru supplies, estimates course but minutes, however, over day uncompensated compensable activities, Dep. precisely to such activities that st ir nY l e ' r o LO exacL own, the their j-hF time amounts impossibfe is j-rr evidence, coflectjng the over Ferrell everv Porr likewise Plaintiff every 737.5 in of the wheLher aCt ivities maybe ten or recnnn<c (J. instructions, resulting in nrrrrhar counsef. minutes mv.! \ rrt nYi n q , S ,,, r rr to King testified minutes ten nrcr-iqe Brantfey Plaintiff and Mr. Ferreff Plaintiffs' f rhLa L r were shorted Plaintiffs than less required as Through no fault "trifle." more than in lrr crrYa:Ev DyELru needed. they however, dispute, factuaf up whal t-hey appeared which with frequency and load assignments their obtain the about assertions Plaintiffs' d for "wil1fu1" period cornmensurate with the three-year statute violations of the FLSA. 29 U.S.C. S 255(a). A4 Evening Activities b. do Defendants t'evening Plaintiffs' to reporting /.'I.l.ar6 for it- the of an ("Even if r au t u r n r f t u! de the to the Accordingfy, the paid from qi fa nor merits, that rnc. fhF trucks da_y uaw WaS it because it not address threse for wifl responsive Plaintiffs' Lhe commuting"); [sic] l1f recover court was not (stating L2 5 \rrai+i-- performing Electric, Ferrell- cannot Plaintiffs on law. ") , )ep in of of be loading spent acts at Br. Lhe facility to (the a matter as Dlail1fiffe )y- j t , ! back activities from .) activities qt /n er n l r er L l-ime and materials (See Defs.' compengable. seeking time , nininis"\ work rea]ly n r r ri r r : . t compensable ihe electrician) are "Plaintiffs are unloading open and traveling principal to duties - l-h:f to facility integral 15 .,la:r - whether about argument any activities" supervisors ic present not is arguments thereto . c. The for t' al-l [T] he FT,SA work-refated r':c)verac.e are rccrrirad narf^rmanno OnlV ----- Lrl(Jb h\r fha nf fL ra iLrL' lll r r [ ! y v r r p q v +n .n :c 'tg-, . Lnv r o' . . i .^ ! j ! Lv E/ :< Icmnl eliminate BurLon, fn the other words, employees' :nd nruapq'l n.\f drrl-i cq r.\n-.^mnanqaL)lF " 45 employer 181 F. intended *-cdr\mi c for Time IS zS+1 was of emnlnrrcr 1-ha not see travel. own interests. undertaken did Act language excepting empfoyees' issue - to- Portal Portaf Ttavef Return App'x the at 834. exclude to n:nl-ll/ where from fr) Td fhF al. R?7 the activities not nFaassarrr cmnl tn qnarrl- own convenience, hcinar liability being fnr .lrzar lr-if at t-har/ inr: the erF nrrn l.\'\ . E Arf hm^\'ars 2QI3); (first at- 398) 527 F.2d 29 work on l-he premises Fihi <hoc rt- R arriving However, if .end the argue job site which is fast Lravel, j--J_p.)rfAl to to return Defendants to job the job site, cnd or the shop otm n rl v lr r z e ess L E rLIr . w^rk fhaf ze at b time. to home-to-work his trave] hAd l-ha so." free to drove f.1 reLurn each fhair site. work, Defendants cfassify the considered but Br. LL-t2.) Plaintiffs f renqn.rrf.ation the last home at trucks argue rather at thaL Even Portal- plaintiffS re home from Electric fhe the d"y, .1I,m directfy Ferreff from renrri testimony fakc work-to-home of (Defs.' with ri.Ihf nnf of end do to language did f.hev from travefing extended merely the dar,. di rer':i lw commute is return e! (m D lr oJ- ' ^ e-! ' e t, y returning spent plain the assertion this and on occasion fhp + chose were site, is under e m 'n rh q s' i s 'L P r a support .rj- hFr he which working is is Plaintiffs shop the to exempted simply "Plaintiffs ^rrd back time the that Tr hve w r r r A.f his his worked.") hours Defendants f o of instead R n.m. job & Ff a. finishes another time l - h a l -r . a \ / a l e f i - F r c m n l . r r u! e r . r< nLrver mvi, s e s . s I/ I rr , not the of home employee E'L'P f v/ and is alf (S. D. normally rel-rrr-n to I CC4!e4e L. 1290-9L , to sent recn|i red goes I28a empfoyee and is p.m., 9 at the is ?.1 an 5 p.m. at rr m premises ("If S 785.38 c.F.R. q,,n'.r !' o?n r..]rn see afso added) ; alLernation the Pfaintiffs' if that such time was de minimis. Pfaintiffs company were facility trucks attempt as transportj-ng for work to time Defendants' safekeeping instead they spent time travel of materials and Defendants time because back needed the to the Ferrell in the "they Ferrell vehicfes to be concerns, fence a chainfink .T Defendants in light the Efectric a Ferreff F6rra t t nra h. ! P ^u st Labor, (1st Cir- tn Prrrl- r\rr public works Rlrrf a .\n 4 v. ..r11nt\r 5.) They security at night" f ha\/ h:d and evef (citlng 6 n.9 at has \ cite Field, E.R. nol ! v q r r ! J iF being facilit.y [] (fd. plaintiffs Eleventh the lock l-r^1rhla in aL Ferrelf's can (l 1 4 \ ll t=t./ Resp. "commonsense a jobsite." r \s e f l u ^- Labor of which L974]' , . r . \ i -l - F r nosifion. thiq Dep't U.S. r r ^ u, r(,, Ferrell at Lruck A - 1 ./ t w Tn srrnI)ort- of of harzc wnrrld L'tryrvJ had that fact which it around a m r r l r ' \ vUcLe s J "Farrall feft infer to opposed (Pls.' a jobsite." could especially as facilicy at jury a that Ferrell the night the abandoned for argue to returned i r-rr found rerrrri 495 F.2d fnc. , circuit red and sec'v Burton persuasive enoineers f .)I. 749 in the department personal site vehicfes to a county parking their to drive going vehicfe before to the first to retrieve a county At the end of each workday the work site of the day. a^,,-1- v veliicfe rarnri t- ho the to A 'n h ll J f v 6 o c r s L' ^r' 1ul pmnl rod parking nrraaq siLe, h66/16.l n ll v rr r\ r iunD , - r - . v . , ,r-y l- .) +-^ LU raf not ^^P YcL r |r^r only h 4n k ! v: er l- hc .l1rrrrl- because l-hcir the n L lr rqvn n q r ye rr al because the county required vehicfes, but afso in secure locations overnight. vehicl-es to be stored vehicles feft did not want its County understandably overnight as they woufd work sites unattended The county or vandafism. also vufnerable to theft n^l- narmi I ii< amnl,-)vFcq i6 sought home because they potentiaf abuse of with use. unofficiaf Id. at l-rrlzal begin fhF t.he to avoid the vehicfes .-.\r1nl- 1/ rrchi its The at be did r'l cq costs associated personaL for or 837. In 1 -h a .lr^irre \t affirming timo amnl ^"6ae r^r:e the n^mnanq:l-'l Lrh^ and end their rrqad court's district l- hF F t-hF ..r)nj- ./1rrrl- r/ work day not a'7 at rrchi decislon that had a work site, return \\ frrl Il-im:j- Fmnh:qiTarl r-IeS che nO ChOiCe but at but al1' tO a councy hirLinn I il- \r . ' f:.i from benefitted rtctvcu ^^rrnt-' rrchi nl a hanafil-l-ad fe h eF rr hnma // "not merely n f! v a desi the and part nars.\naI dnafed of an nrr L)rrf r^j-her fl - eS,, detour could drive dri to commute ^f asnect fsl not rri n.r f hc for the directly \reh.i c l es were principaf the thaj- the " ' -l v rlu r fe l w o inconvenient :nd money StOIing Pc1!^frrY workday the empfoyees' the VehiCf c o r -n f - y - - --- as duor r v ! ir r r r a r i t u ,uryn , of r a.fpd end p .rie .r kr.Iil n d ! ! 4a7 F.3d Thrrq i rh vn ul rd ri Y c r \ r r r n iob place nerformance." the the because commute performing In E.R. f^ r'\Frfr^]'l.mcler]j-rical rf ?qn tL-!? r u ^ t^: ,u 'I"h a Ah^l - ^ n r L-q r r. ri t- ri rnY d uur 1 ^1/AA 1 -^ ^ r Id. seeking overtlme ^ -n/r site back truck. The First f-i l^.{ of l-lr -, I^ J - u r , I^ ll t e > i 6 ^ circuit for the .)rrcrt ,,-^..1 the time shrop to held 4A that < qhnn the off y\'i.k l- ' r -. lr,' against spent drop 495 sj-tes. .cr-:qi.\nel an FLSA suit brought to amnl during the dog) . construction f hF simply a master electrician empfoyer hired a.l work time a police handling of ^ntire ! 4rr t/lvvv of amount 1995) Cir. compensable nominal see Reich But (2d r-^ ev ^i!_ - ' Lc h7in.'in:l Id. 65r-52 546, various compensaLion construction Id. at rarr.\rl- The empfoyee sites. a the work hl-ihFifr-, l/tqtrrLt!!- F}.^ App'x n^rkinct P4r^!rry concept duty Inc., fhF T,abor of spent actuaf Fietd, F.3d statutory employees f.\ rrchi.lc t-^ 181 F. Burton, works projects. n aqn Le Lr' ^ i - m e n f !uP ! ' commute satisfied a/, 45 Auth., jL -r rh F L fhaf - v r rrn lu- )\ / l.u r public inspecting Transit N.y.c. fuh' a u r i n r. u f - j L rhr A q v r t - 1 t fr l P d snci --r dll(-l of (distinguishing 1345 n.7 at r a - - r l r ] tr rnr iY o n - f lr \\.r".ts^-e-r IIlLcgld-L activities v. fhFi the including "'q a??\ wds qF c . r r r n jq-j \ u n a r f!^!r m a n . c v Boniffa, .r f ^ - a v !r l - u c ti r r1 _. _ ve rl y Fmnl.ll/cFs "j-ha vehicles county vvqrr Td Ps! of :t- who at employees fL r r .uru Y. r r h rl th use the nr^ t sL Lr-q .v. i f r - r \.r r , rY !y q\ran TtAr . r - aL 4i the driving the ----lL r r F -h e F.2d uP a i.rh J v! empfoyer from the employer's empl-oyee was entitLed to overtime sil-e f o t -r h e er e explained used were ln shon was own vehicfe truck the performing and guotation was "at for parL in fha :nd did note, of f r.^ fo F. 181 App'x rrnl 1-^ ^^t^r'-^_i--qlc^eePfrr9. to l, - he a r -- , O\^lTt, iLa ]-ha rorntirerl attempt narLihd j-.r return \usl-- that genuine t6 P r ! r rrfl \ / r!a, was issues an employee's than Burton l---n ) materiaf 49 aL t r P t v y smnl Rrrj- j-hiq urrrs fact Circuit in employees the time added) . requfar driver." l-hoi s! those r.,->(J.r.rcrr ^ \rahi^l narkino sij-c r E rq na lrsn q a l c yv . E remain The "wou-Zd arguing d - -i r r o *r fhe qn:rqa hc nake by such See id. position the truck and as that to the that f.) (emphasis 838 fo of fact at vehicfe 4-c F.iald enough fequl.r€-* : d of Eleventh iL-rh a rs ef fact purpose" business." in rat- ria\ra the use employer" the distinguish <il-a in t'essential the rather Wefe was citations " [t]he that however, " [t]he (internal - ^c c r D i h r r r r y ! - - - h vr n vehicle the toofs with defendant that have the fnstead, employee's a fhori t\'. inferred coufd Id. of the had he been a rider Defendants reveafs the It employer truck's the benefir Fi-n- return Eg:qton, be different wFrA C^rrrt- to compensabJe. " rrphinlac As function itself required omnlnrroae . 751. whether Id. job the employer." the for .i faj. i.\n Field court of and equipment, Alt- h^r,dh Fiefd benefit the of or (employee) the the at ld. employee site. excluded) was an "indispensabLe were iob \,/hether is approval feast analyzing the tooLs convey dFnl-h site marks was to in iob at stocked services knowledge the reach e. the whether from the travefing spent /rr-\mnAnv trehiCf i-hF irrelevant to or question crucial and it the time 1.al-,,rn f o vrrvI/ that hls for compensation --r for m aurr a r tl t 'L, ul about the e L L ir \vrr iLl y 1 r 4 .f af .\F fha I'arrFl l -iohr sil.e J u! fr i! r r arl ng Earral I Fla-t-rin want and are 1-hai r d1-^11- i nd * !-u^v,t ,- .r r r r - r ^ - ^ ^ y u i- employees must matter FL^ of course and with is FFc, truck clear no line an of employee's acLivity. t af il:.ni nd "essentiaf purpose" plaintiffs' I vrork as electricians part of the dav's Burton, 181 F. C. F.R. S 785.38. poinL, whether FLSA is an issue App'x that - is tfavel r as certain Electric them, progress day's to and as a work at 834; - tne h E.R. of the ni an Field, the iury 50 alz i nn to the Act and rla - - l *i, vehicles non- lverlng, have an indispensable to "not mereLv part. of S counted 1nq., conffictinq time ..rmmrrf F activity ioh r I la f i nn *l - be employee's and and are travel for principal Fl a-1-ric' must and Plaintiffs' fact of Portal-to-Portal the integral Ir om f l .o m Because of thev .rnnn<irc. Ferrelf end the Tf Farral L v v 4 L 1 1 1 4 t J .'.\mmr1f a" l-ha unload the that equipment well that is wherc\rFr a' mP r v . l ,. l \ - /ea F t s L u tr n l postliminary emnl r':r-zecq' ic materials, between lanquaqe between :nrl nafand4ntS/ any as about supervisors cr.r return -aveaI and f.J nncitinn m a n r r at in wol.k head.ing home. the distinguishing rri rrrr or h L Y r i f n r rrt r r Y Uor rr- is principal t.he before l-hF touchstone n/ n ttti' . r r } v r return When there wnrk .^,,1 " out i.)n.f testimony, f rFF' decfarations, and zwtL jrr.l.rmanl- by ej- cl\/ check Dl.in1-i nr information ..mnl to required nni supported arF .-omr'lFf fhe afl-or crrmmarlr nrer-lrrda position, testimony exchange amnlr.)r/aF< oLmt n+lv. -rl \ / F Fu ' v q e " / not Plaintiffs' rlri f h:l- Defendants' favor. ri,^ Flanl- was sitr as f.) hours 495 F.2d s-l . i o p - - as worked. at evidence compensable decide. fhF the 75Li on under 29 this the In one from a job return is Defendants' materials of the de to The statute R a rcq -JJ of wilffuf /i\ \4/ burden at viofation the l-hair nd his l-ha done the Af.varez Perez, if ri-hts this Act of travel is time, r-^n11r1919n. a rufing that DENIED. case the Br. was willfuf eiLher nrnrzc 515 F.3d at l. ha in hw and to 1152-53 (citing F c f a ^ F .L. E ^ sL Lu assertion cannot Ithem] meet establish about the Of that assertions thus extend oul U.s.c. deceived' conduct disreqard 51 29 conclusory nraoonderanCe its it. f ur/1-1raA1^ )/La! their To order e to overtime "arising and 19.) at one I'T,qA on forth FLSA" is added misled knew that showed reckless is based "set unpaid seeking claim ts]r-r than under (Defs.' the year 'intent.ionalfy amnl /-i\/FA mrrcf or cfaims ,,,1in^ luftlrY no more employer statute ^ ct in trial. of but another ^^^1. Defendants rcrrrrrtinzr seek for years, applies have issue applicabilit.y I ecal it to of Limitations violation," limitations that that two nAFandrntc Plaintiffs ncri is : de before, qenuine return l-hen is reference any on the was de minimis, time by of Defendants extent limitations of absence more it discussed motion Pfaintiffs' noj-hi no. Plaintiffs' if compensable, court issue. rrverr+rrY travel- Statute wages generally a Lhe return 3. of n! r Fss L r rnLfua . i o F L I/ the their the to exception hqe r vrEF II Plaintiffs' support on each challenged minimis Accordingfy, As demonstrate that fact nafandanfc 15.) to burden on file maceriaf at even a day is end of the Br. (see Defs.' minimisit at site that contend Defendants sentence. that the limitations the eVidenCe was prohibited whether Mclaughfin their v. it by was. Richland Shoe 486 Co., rul lrIrI^ rd . s (-J l t \ lzu e -^h h li Ly under FLSA, the and the 495 r ,hJ, u jL- h (, I I^ r L at irr of i -atiOn will-ful considered Allen, " determination "The and a r':l-. s ulrrY be applied. should faw emnlover tEyat be omitted). guestion a mixed r!^ tL- not shoufd fimitations of an d c j - e - - . - .- frr-r-f r r v rmr acLions (citations L32+ is wil-f fulness iLs st.atute two-year F.3d -r a-.-' ,k- l-.-A - s l v -c then 'Tf (1988) ). 133 L28, U.S. of Id. (citations IegaIIy required and instructed fact." omitted). paid notices, Dl:i nl-i ffs .t Lav frrcy f6 f r , !? + h 6 r !u \\arA fhFV rel (rd.) jury which a sand" to was not 10; is records Wilson t'o allow correct testified that he fo keen atror:f how at time to records time did noL their (Q: have as the in and 52 Mr. opposed Ferrefl any it "I was employees j-ha to 19.) to that merely Dep. the at 9- employer we are keep Mr. t.he quote, know that company. ") . ) the at keep, as A: from Ferrefl Lo opportunity know who gave time Resp. "Do you know that records?" or'n'I in head (.f . employees. heCaUSe however, (Pls.' from lu hras\ . | / -r ,) fheir his supposed time" lL rhr,q u ef , renrlri "buried was [he] 26 guys our l. f9-20. ) F:{nns]]rc evidence, testimony his keer.r accurate - time Dep. FT,SA Ferrel-l employees' by i al FLSA duties. that lhisl ,rrl-h.\r'il-rr presented Mr. at Br. er q nr1J, / natant- elicited submitted srrnnoseri fn supposed of fL v ^ Pl,ainl- i Ffs have "legalfy record see also fhF that Pfaintiffs aware ^f company's and the insLance, saving rrlr.ln infer (Defs.' ^ f t - r r r jY ^ r ju r.a./ Plaintiffs could his accurate t-h j r/l r reported, worked. hours ,.,.ir-t\^,,f enf irelrz ied hours. " he f rn.n P! afl j-6n.t ^^h n l ^ ^v - e v o . ' l - e ! o d tu s!L For rFnnrf- the hours alf for Plaintiffs posted they that claim Defendants equal WiLson instructions e m n Tn t r e c q ' i n^ b J" 'tto whofe the oversee accurate Mr. Similarly, relied ^t-r-a- / r \.r lir n ^ Y \ l t 1 . 1 / - r rM r tti ro supp.Iies in his But 11.) 5-6, id. the left at 15-16 Lhree Mr. . v r m nE F j r. L"yr l F uc o'clock. Ferrelf return Lravel Dep. at not issue her for first Nnl- the of policy on entirely course Ferrell Dep. 't cf. It]hat they are - f hc\/ wifson the it'S and Mr. substantially manuaf the at Lime Whan how time added); day, the Mr. explain Electric's the nf f Finally, or Ferrell until- l-lr,orr drirre added) .) (See J. time. 7:00 of the "from (emphasis 95 at entry at r,rhFn recollect reversed 1179, Defendants j udgment willful-ness emnlower investigate -" 1l-85 (11t.h Cir. entered of that concfudes Court --r^1^tr^- when it Dep. foflowed came to be compensability 86-87, of Wilson 108-09; t9-2t.) The F.3d Ferrell, with Dep. at King employees onfy Ferreff trucks 94; time recorded them starting i ol.' versions which have aL the amongst Mr. the if that neifhFr rI, 2'7.\ substantially loaded Dep. explained ") (emphasis could of (,J. Ferrelf (J. shop. " an'nl .)vecs L3, instructions ona l lw. Adrji li f hF would they that seven one l -h e f lexplaining wjth different 6-) Ferrelf includes hours at Dep. at Electric such along" vras an there that (Wifson Ferrefl "pass morning. instructions, they to ner1 r i i s n r r t -c the that suggested employees make sure to worked-" Lime actualfy King its on ^-^!r of record system timekeeping (1) whether they reasonable (finding nf of the plaintifi 1- o h hrn r r!r l r r r vu ry complied with 53 the for law those a Menendez, v. 717 court district the empfoyer introduced tw d 9-E -^- find could. iurv see Davila here. as a matter where lrpaw 2013) a -rctw-, laws; erred on the evidence rJuL (2) did '-=':d not that tO sign a with contract qt'Lvrry plaintiff; the ca,^f q) vurrs! qr"ran v aL *7 1713-wSD, 2013 wL 5200508, l- hc emnl nrrar, e wiflfufness was aware ^ - - r i ^ ^ r ^r 1 r ! - - dI/PtfeavfffLy the paid The willfufness determlnai:.ion reserved until occurred"). his F.3d or t issue the is it. of the her 1185. Act F.3d aE statute Defendants' of on some of the requj-re set the forth issue the that lthe its underfying of (concludinq of FLSA is because p] laintiffs' compensation fimitations whether to as violation without of determined to the showed Defendants' L324 as overtime statute to that not decided Moreover, Defendants' remain[ed] \^/hich a to limitations appfy violation motion for . must of the summary a be FLSA judgment must be DENIED. 1.; mrid^--r empfoyee compensatory But 495 Accordingly, 4 An of as Of investigate evidence but i c<]rrg concfude make a determination of worked they the f hF (denying 2013) to working 1.1I-CV- .)n not hours) . exist issue See Allen, that their cannot the where some employees fact Court chose N\ /v r. L 13, could iurv FLSA and record j-ssues of. fact "triable on the to of until determined. (N.D. Ga. Sept. reasonable her T !n / ,!! v. u!y., ;r,/l.fmonf the overtime record not rir^l.l NIi.k nl a.inf i ffs questions liability. cfaims a of to did F^r LU plaintiffs herein, i ^- because employer empl-oyer mnf (3) and is ordinarily employer violated By statute, the provides by a the "good 54 ho minimum an award of damages assessed afso entitfed liquidated wage damages laws - liquidated Davila, damages equals jury. 29 faith" defense U.S.C. S if 7I7 the 216(b). whereby the I i c n r i d a 1 -c ' t the that in good faith R lr amnl/.rr'er l^As l-hc .'lf r-l.\rr.a.f tL-r 1s. \ a a"h - lr n ]rL !a r r r c Lv v /nitina Ul u+lry . r .utu^ d yv nirh:-h \ of vjolation nd nf F is in F-3d aE 1186. 1r- u a \) / L rh , s!v ^r.l 7L7 1186; at determination liquidated Defendants' of hFre. irrr\,- jury 1qq1\ *If \ --r c u u lJ ^ r iLe ne i r r o rr ee rv i .\rr/ drru Id. " i nrrnkinrt Alvarez Defendants' m,aki nn that i-ha are ^ Perez, \'.rood for 55 overtime is rcrnrired acted yet be 7I7 See Davila, purposes to tO because 1166. claims tO willfully, defense at aS lavi]a, exclusive. good faith FLSA iq dFl-arminati^n faith" F.3d the three-year damages. 515 Pfaintiffs' empfoyer's che of Defendants mutually the .'.rrrf liquidated finds of Fla. whether distfli.f liFfr)ra t'dood faich" violation or state man,.l^l- purposes for of damages as to with hl1fh :rF intention accordance r-ir about fhe context frnm \ t n ' iI I F , , l n a c c z dispute "wilfful" fhF honesL in wifh the 1q67\ 2s the nranlrrdarl F.3d ^r an /lll-h r^-^.TAq 29 v.s.c. ^^-^^-^-l_, v. enl-ad that vvltil/vrrvrrv Dybach uaL"eYs- a factual the If ha was befieving lFLsAl ." act 156A ff(lqtqaLeu 2a ^E rrY L562. of action Lo such action had and to of award satisf f:ifht it (citing tLh r: a u r t- I/lvvu limil-el-i.)nq faith" afa h1..\\ra f - fhaj- 1186 F -2.d Lhe FLSA is ! f rruf "good 1-^ c)42 there Where 942 f^i I :.J:::::!:: !vv i^nq- rd^^.1 requires at rise of the i\ra nr.\rrino Act F.3d Fli1c i r rvc L nf hrrrdorr 7!7 cr_hio^l- the an grounds for he had reasonable what the Davila, iL." nl h i a ncf u L f v j giving omission r-ho deny etrnr,,rs to "Fml.'l.\\'ar or act and that t-o ascertain ncvi the tt'a .'"Tt-} qal- jqT\r rv -qLr-!/ ?e6 .n z v yu! if or reduce or omission was not a viofation act nAri.f to discretion dama.fcs court his has court district Thus, of is any deciding premature; determined. Accordingly, of .fames N. Ferrelf's 5. FLSA who 29 V.S.C. viofates ..,^r'r -^ of v! an eIIy (citinq F.3d 1292, Based on "a alono this arrnanri cinn nF (internal quotation purposes controf for f.\ either some nrzea marks order must have emnl I<l and citation individual continuous. falls within Id. -^ad at this n^f 131-3-14. definition ha v. is rii rea-f Accordingly, 56 not 8O3 F.2d as an in . controf F.3d at lv n.\r depend on the 632, employer the day-tofor The " [ w 1h e t h e r Lhat r r rn E l. F r ur u . 515 F.3d Perez, 652 held responsibifity omitted) nrnrzed 'liahla wargo, at an empfoyer frq!ts qualify Iiability does l \ )-/ r . is be involved Alvarez " 3d 203 (d) ) ) . s has . 7]-L r.^r.,^r,6, ^^rt-y^l u.s.c. aS inferests F Circuit to direct amnlnrreo-nl l-hF of 29 -orreral Patef t'[I]n an officer rho --.r (citing Id. fhe R.s-gSnge_ SepCllE_._lns:, control Jvflrury workS "11 Eleventh 1986)). or in to broadfy T:r..\ni.: (quoting inint-rr, any provisions. di rer'j- lrz indiracflv WalI to against "employer" Frnnl.}\/ce operational wages. " operation day overtime the cornor-r-.i^n purpose, or 20L1-\ Cir. with Cir. or e m n l r ' . ' ' ' t a e' " an WaLl uv!yv!ctLrvlr, unpaid (11th 637 38 fr) lw action term r^rh^m _ha definitlon, officer tLhr e r L v. (r1th broad this i^rr relal- L298 wr.Lir f h w r FLSA for for in the defines di-ar-f au ,.fosendis corporate 4tvrrY a r . u r i rn o f r : DvII of right minimum-wage fnr u'tLIr ye! u-'Lyrvl 1309 e m r r l n r r a! r v f vl fhF emnlower srr its The Act S 215(b). 'tb.rj-h inr-lrrde issue Liability rndividuaf private a creates "employer" on the damaqes must be DENIED. l-iouidated The summary judgment for motion Defendants' the aL 1160 "relevant in relation 1313. mttqf Such i-t be an individuaf technical or 202, F.3d (1rth 205 inquiries rn.4 work schedufes and f ira method (citations Fho an because of was he did Ithe not or /cmnhas.is :.lded) matters 515 majority sharehofder F.3d did of he had not even visited rsl compensation) r 1s issues lF.l to Fmnl.)vaF rate the records'") emplo)4nent It it-i^n have because the considerabfe j 6 rn v e- p - - !i rr*r + r r Y 6 vv r after control, more officer than -h/l firi the the a once lncluding, 1s a legal one, with such a determination of fact. Patel", 803 F.2d at 534 & n.l-57 an suffering 322 F.2d @, See in 259, subsidiary afSO and day-to-day heart attack, a year and his alia, inter ncr of ld. empToyee.' omitted); role was aspects compensation that a concfusion significant an narks an active facility r.irin^ to (finding 1151 that the of stockholder, inc]uding ^,,^f not of relaEion thac vice-president reached controf functions, held circuit and in at racetrack operations exercised deLermined and a principaf operationaf (iht-6rh5l Perez, a power the (3) Eleventh FLSA purposes. day-to-day other Afvarez rr'l l- im.el- F the president the "have company's] empfoyees sons aL 658, both for employer had .^nj-r.)l maintained as weLl- as a director corporation, includes test . 803 F.2d who quotation and emplol,'rnent, (4) and (1) whofe Woodham, l-l-3 reality employer srrnerwisad of conditions pa)ment, of PaLel, defendant, not or (2) , v. Viflarreaf ("Thre economic the (internal 1160 at also alleged e .m, rn l l, . ) \ / a aus !r r} v v , omitted) rn the of circumstances F.3d see ; 199?) Cir. whether into: hira 515 omitted) citatrion and the on Perez, Alvarez activity."ls marks rather but factors lsofated der:isions 263 (8th findings the and Cir. being (finding 1963) ^ nr r /l \ r vr r-rr/'r ^r of hiring I,hF the i rq L ryr rr J t-hFm of fix f- - h-A - l-hal- lu-rhcF r ntla:yr r y the for FLSA." v au rE r the had .'h^qarr thaf 803 F.2d ^l-JeFn^6 that dictates -^,,r1- he ^€ s ru r ,n v ! r r vz ri r rsv ir r ,o n . e r r Furthermore, ewcrri qed 5yn11m6ht- present job pl:irl-iffc there drrrincr i.nf Ofm o nefiOd they defendant would in Patel role in On the role Lhat onal .Ontfol oneral-i as 'employer' an =h^ citation to summary for is r^rhn Plaintiff, who directly Inc. Ferrel-l Electric, no the he under the record j udgment Dock King, Drew that managers who directly .r^\rF fhFm d*arr z * - ^- ^---rtiona1 vP=Lo d i rcr'i- to sites f o that no Fr fhF motion their and e n r\,/ I 4r minority f ind 638. testimony showed [T]he deposition Wiffiamson, or Kevin Hink were the t-ha an orFaf f^CUSed IiabiliLy the (finding 1314 state: Defendants < rn e urP U ! a r r ; i <ra v u v ed a " lackerl of at the that !.ti th e L ' L y r v Jo r z e e s L mn l u j-ham company was not were employees nl aira,'l 1-L- imposition -hF a.ra.in qYerrr, promised acknowledging . . h 'hvie rrr'i evL r r Patel, Defendants be denied. r -h F lL. r la^ua n21/ f.r d.! visited boLh rrn:hlp and while he ha at they though -,j rh v r . \ r r ' ld avn r un l rr r r 'slrirnY q r o e rn in rrr necessary . .i f r " fl ' i nr]s because instability, harrc .)npr^j- even l- /-\ to baSis P!uy!c>>, . v L L L P \ ar r t ' , ! -mr.ar / problem) the ^,.f €i -i --{- the hours" F.3d 7rr Lamonica, ^,^dv^d - -F^t 5 nrn l L r Mir Yn r r r v- h wages or their month each weeks a .m. n -l - . ) \ / F - . - l, financial .'nrr'ld dliud u two \tL -'l r14u liable individually than nhqarrra cf. ^ I e ^ 4 f- r 't r , . y r 9 a q --'r 4rrs /e4! fixing FLSA) ; the hF,.t shareholders more or employees under empfoyer ^^ lL ri- t-r L r - _ D < 1 - lu r rrl6 a - h ve who visited stockholder a majority that evidence rlnar^f reported 58 thal i r"\nal to these d*:- r r * I controf. .tames N. ..\ntfOf j-r: over Ferrefl eithef managers for must (Defs.' 17.) at Br. qi.rnef .)rips on Dep., BB-1, Doc. reflecLed Ferrel I for Policy Manuaf for responsible According he rzohinla ^ ^ - . - . 1 ^ . 1- Ds!vrufrrY tri Ferrell or price Mr at shared, ctet 'tI to Brantley in filling testified (Brantfey Dep. company-wide empfoyees meetings should Adams Decf. .i-rmi\:n\/ rrahinlps record u fnr 6; ir at off an (Id. at of and that Mr. Ferrelf addressed, among Lime Barnes Decl. 16 pay under his "guys --1- how l-ham other not ^nIrr with El-ectric, Mr. Ferrefl held issues, nn zz, Permission nersonal Can Pfaintiff Ferrelf Decf. flfl 30-33). and system" 104. ) with need He further occasionafl-y presenEation o f evidence is Again, the following presented but is meant to be ' i I I q t - r : t - i r r F by Plaintiffs, 59 15. ) f.ha 1-. fworf] honor at (Brantley nrrrrlnsas so L3-L4.) frequency their at explaining In .k. started narsrlnal on and or does your truck first that was overtime \T and 471 Dep. quoLes 25.) lTd. we work when he rate at \'^rrr timesheets. that his discussed rrn P're-2012 customers E'arr--11 horrrs." employees] fthe respect ala:r eiohf fvourl LeLl j-^ r':rf reject FerrelI Mr. keep to Dep. 5; Ferrell Ied] estimates rnairrfanan.F ^ - , l ^ ,u v , , ,^ v! /vu r-onfinrrc fo also (C. manual or at builder do you want to go ahead and knock off okay, he (J. time." regular m:nrnan his Manual with contracts. "we approve minimum, conLracts those based very the Ferrelf, Mr. and " making ha for to At securing prices control, 7.) at to Policy the two Ferrelf policy of authority (2012 (C, account. versions the recained was one of Ferrefl nawroLf Both !4.J Mr. hand,tt trlc.fric's reimbursement. claims setting at he that other on the how 23; see to use wehi r':leS exhaustive of for that company purposes Viewed ^t F-^r tha in ^-i-f -^mn^r11'' most fiqhL the ? a ^ r-url ^riY o n !eYq r e^tDL fLhra r v c. d:\rr-l- .\-da\r frrncti suDervisors ons. mav have exercised court ic.iec see rule cannot judgment 7LL respect rv. Before the as comment zeafously advocated this case, ! 1 ^ . i^ rl ^F-l mandates cooperation ccunsel's opponent ' s and has ,,-r 'lr-3 ^F decorum attorneys on behalf however, or overstated arguments its Certain Ferrell is not Ferrell is motion or fha is for not an summary issue- Lhe performance.lT nof modef i sm, it goes unnecessary Both Their a Inl-al rrrle that tha! the costs ro in saying without in have Although worded criticism sllgnts the behavior civility. themselves sharpfy '' of further DefendanLs n! v l /osnsn r r n d e d r v 4 !s I/ conduct mot ives; for cfienas. their reduce positions; s aLLo-rneys a holdings, refevant the has should and Over Aannrdinalrr 1314. Mr. Lhis been not to That than Mr. at that to profe ssional order COntrOI ACt. the Defendants' of of hers. fitigants in Iaw counsel' and Pfaintiffs issues coNcr,usroN about warranted for aLtorneys 22l ^-d F.3d summarizes Court Plaintiffs, Ferrelf'S -v.t iu^ 4 - t e r f and FLSA, the Mr. more controf of as matter DENIED with is Dep. at it-s cr-Lrc9sr.rry Ll T,amonica, under "employer" of -r'r ^-^r'ri- ! 1 ^ ^ tLsLd nol irrp Ferrefl the to favorabfe ea.tFnf l-imakear-rin., diqnoqif (J. Ferrefl ].'7, 32.) Pou Dep- at 103; Mr. through went E.ne spirit and of of delay ' their wl tnesses i using excessive, singleThe court hereby cAuTIoNs Mr. Batson against for motions filed in this courL, the 25-page limit spaced footnotes to evade in this manner, his If he conLinues to use footnotes See ],R 7-1(a) , SDGa. as unacceptable discretion, either be rejecLed will, at the court's briefs in proper fofln. or dismissed with Leave to be refiled for filing 60 q-^r.i lu-y\ / Lf are! .\F "kitchen - oi mnrrr /'\f nr-r best I8, Judqment the reasons on accuracy whether wheth.er it is case Act.r8 apply must of of the whether SIIAIJITproceed decfaration Court FLSA has issues exist to further Martln triaf is anr/ such travel- (2\ an t'employer" for which is and the be statute of determined determination reserved was "wilfful Motlon violation (1) are it must availabfe as to time of until summary records; time and return occurred, that See id. MoLion for Defendants' resenzed be heed to the DENIES Defendanl-s Ferrell's Fact (S.D. al.e courtroom. determination damages are liquidated Court 85. ) the the of the mutual rFsnpct parties the into activities" Afso. determined The 13 the a viofation of ^n.l (3) whether James N. Ferrefl to of Iimitations (Doc. "morninq compensabfer and DurDoses law herein, and trustworthiness whether Pfaintiffs' advises James N. and qrounds alf Paqfrainf only staLed Inc. Efectric, Court the ies' 2014 WL 7272598, aL *32 J.) in merits ex rel . schaengold v. U.s. Court Lhe litigation narf "'fhF lO the addressing \rra\/ 4:11-CV-58, and bring forward the the rFs.]rj- unacceptabfe than holnfrr'l (Edenfield, acLion; of maxim going Ferrelf No. 20I4t course For moment to an raEher arr,.l ^n.l nrFaadan-' reflecc aspersions fnc ., nr1. only IL-rlr-v ^ , r r u 1 - fIr r ' !l , ' u : , ^h u i < Dec. mandAl- approach Mem'1 Health, ca. l-.t i.ln casting '1- --^,,^r-\ ulru!uuYII' aari f:j- sink" sLrategy a .i to ." untif This . GRAMIS Defendants' Menefee (Doc. 99), but DENIES the Strike the remaining (1) whether Defendants had The did not decide actual or court PLaintiffs were working overtime without constructive kno'^'ledge lhat t'evening activities" (2) Plaintiffs' postshifb are compensable; compensation; (3) vras de minimis return travel time because Defendants did not and adeo-uaLeLv address these issues in brief. Motions to (Docs. Strike GRANTS Pl-aintiffs' (Doc. First AS MOOT. IN Out (Doc. 107.) PART Plaintiffs' Brief (S.D. Lwenly-six pages Defendants' motions motion March (Doc. 23, The (Doc. Time." ^s ^ sf and^].\np Court for Ga. L.R- that it is The Court to File, Leave 7.1) to As FiIe File the motion cured DENIES Court the ProtecLion Alternative one brief substantive that thus superseded the with may file DIRECTS the to Court PART and DENIES AS MOOT and in the The which brief HEREBY FIIJED nunc cnl-rv on the ORDER EMTERED at Leave amended Pfaintiff strike. l-03). GRANTS IN addresses to for This Leave 108.) 1-08-21 , 2Oa5. for "Motion Pase Limit of r09. ) Motlon L02, 101, Motion Amended decfarations. Pfaintiffs' 100, Clerk to is pro from FiIe to of up arguments attached tunc, file to in t.o the effective Document 108-2 docket. Augusta, Georgia, t r= tftAuay of May, 2015. STATES DISTRICT DISTRICT .fLIDGE OF GEORGIA

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.