Kelly Philips, et al v. M.I. Quality Lawn Maintenance, Inc., et al, No. 12-14346 (11th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-14346 Date Filed: 10/18/2013 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 12-14346 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-20698-AMS KELLY PHILLIPS, Plaintiff Counter Defendant Appellant, LUISA GINSBERG, CRISTINA PARET, YAHILIN CHIRINO, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus M.I. QUALITY LAWN MAINTENANCE, INC., MITCHELL'S LAWN MAINTENANCE CORP., ADRIANA J. IGELKO, as guardian for Mitchell Igelko, Defendants Counter Claimants Appellees, MITCHELL IGELKO, Case: 12-14346 Date Filed: 10/18/2013 Page: 2 of 2 Defendant Counter Claimant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (October 18, 2013) Before TJOFLAT and WILSON, Circuit Judges, and COOGLER, * District Judge. PER CURIAM: This appeal arises from Appellants complaint alleging violations of the minimum wage, overtime, and retaliation provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. ยงยง 201 219. On March 30, 2011, the district court granted the Appellees motion for partial summary judgment on the minimum wage and retaliation claims, and this appeal followed. 1 After carefully reviewing both parties briefs, and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the partial grant of summary judgment entered against the Appellants for the reasons set forth in the well-reasoned order entered by the district court on March 30, 2011. AFFIRMED. * Honorable L. Scott Coogler, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama, sitting by designation. 1 After the order granting partial summary judgment, a jury returned a verdict for Appellees on Appellant s overtime claims. Although Appellants Notice of Appeal purports to challenge that verdict, their brief makes no corresponding argument. We therefore deem it waived. See Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004). 2

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.