Cristovao Flores v. Park West Parking CBD, LLC, No. 07-13833 (11th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 07-13833 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT February 11, 2008 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D. C. Docket No. 06-22055-CV-JLK CRISTOVAO FLORES, on his own behalf and other similarly situated, DANIEL HARDY, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus PARK WEST PARKING CBD, LLC, a Florida corporation, GREGORY MIRMELLI, individually, ANDREW MIRMELLI, PARK WEST PARKING, LLC, Defendants-Appellees, JUSTIN MIRMELLI, individually, Defendant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _________________________ (February 11, 2008) Before BIRCH, DUBINA, and HILL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Cristovao Flores brought this action against Park West Parking CBD, LLC, Gregory Mirmelli and Justin Mirmelli, alleging a claim for overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. ยง 216(b). The district court held that the record was devoid of any evidence to support Flores claims, finding that the evidence clearly showed that Flores was paid all overtime compensation to which he was or may have been entitled. In support of its ruling, the district court found the following facts, based upon the pleadings, discovery of record including Flores own deposition and documentary evidence submitted by defendants: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Flores began working for defendant on or about March 2005. Flores did not work in excess of forty hours during any week in 2005 because he only worked certain events and on weekends. In 2006, during the weeks of June 3 rd, June 17 th, and June 24 th, Flores worked in excess of forty hours. As of July 1, 2006, Flores was entitled to overtime compensation in the amount of approximately $120.00 for the three weeks in June 2006 that he worked in excess of forty hours. On or about July 1, 2006, Flores was paid all overtime compensation due and owing for the three weeks in June 2006. Defendant paid Flores by check, which was endorsed and cashed by Flores. Our review of the record reveals that none of these findings is clearly erroneous, and the judgment as to Flores overtime claim is due to be affirmed. As to Daniel Hardy s claim, the district court denied his Motion to Amend 2 Final Judgment and Reopen Case because, although he attempted to opt into this action by filing a Notice of Consent to Join prior to the entry of judgment against Flores, the district court never accepted him as an opt-in plaintiff, and Hardy had never filed a separate complaint alleging any claims. None of his alleged claims was ever mentioned in any documents filed by Flores, even in Flores Third Amended Complaint that was filed after Hardy filed his Notice of Consent to join. Any claim Hardy may have had, therefore, was never properly before the court and the district court properly denied his motion to reopen the case. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED. 3
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.
