Sandoval v. Starwest Services, LLC et al, No. 1:2017cv01053 - Document 180 (E.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER - It is hereby ORDERED that judgment be, and the same hereby is, entered in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants jointly and severally in the amount of $25,508, representing $6,400 in back pay for regular wages, $6,354 in back pay for overtime wages, and an equal amount of each in liquidated damages. Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 07/18/2018. (dvanm, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Sandoval v. Starwest Services, LLC et al Doc. 180 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division ROSA SANDOVAL, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. l:17-cv-01053 (AJT/TCB) V. STARWEST SERVICES, LLC, et ai. Defendants. MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff has sued Defendants Starwest Services, LLC ("Starwest"), Ehab Khalil, and Tariq Algaily for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. ยง 206 et seq. ("FLSA") (Counts I and V), breach of contract (Count II), quantum meruit (Count III), and unjust enrichment (Count IV). Plaintiff seeks damages for unpaid wages and overtime pay, compensatory damages, liquidated damages, fees, interest, and costs pursuant to the FLSA. On March 19, 2018, the Court denied the parties' Motions for Summary Judgment and on March 26, 2018, held a bench trial with respect to the following issues: (1) whether Plaintiff is an "employee" or independent contractor under the FLSA; and (2) if an "employee," whether Defendants' classifying Plaintiff as an independent contractor was in good faith and with reasonable grounds for believing such a classification was not a violation of the FLSA.^ Based on the evidence presented, the Court finds and concludes that (1) Plaintiff was an "employee" for the purposes of the FSLA; (2) each of the Defendants is an "employer" under the FLSA; (3) *At the conclusion of the trial, the Court took the matter under advisement and the partieshave submitted their posttrial Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, as the Court directed. [Doc. No. 178] ("Defs.' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law"), [Doc. No. 179] ("PL's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law"). Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
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.
