Marquez et al v. El Portal Inc et al, No. 5:2013cv01395 - Document 77 (N.D. Ala. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - The Court GRANTS the defendants motion for summary judgment with respect to the plaintiffs fraud claim; the plaintiffs claims against El Portal, Inc.; and Mr. Marquezs breach-of-contract claim for unpaid vacation. (Doc. 49). The Court DISMISSES those claims WITH PREJUDICE. The Court DENIES the defendants motion for summary judgment with respect to the plaintiffs FLSA claims. (Doc. 49). The Court DENIES the plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on their FL SA claims. (Doc. 51). The Court DENIES the defendants motions to strike. (Docs. 61, 64). The Court SETS this matter for a pretrial conference on Monday, September 11, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. in chambers of the undersigned, Room 786, Hugo L. Black United States Courthouse, 1729 5th Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 7/28/2017. (KEK)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Marquez et al v. El Portal Inc et al Doc. 77 FILED Case 5:13-cv-01395-MHH Document 77 Filed 07/28/17 Page 1 of 4 2017 Jul-28 AM 09:21 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHEASTERN DIVISION OSCAR MARQUEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EL PORTAL, INC., et al., Defendants. } } } } } } } } } } } Case No.: 5:13-cv-01395-MHH MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On January 12, 2017, the magistrate judge entered a report in which he recommended that the Court (1) deny the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on their FLSA claims; (2) deny the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ FLSA claims; and (3) grant the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ fraud claims, on the plaintiffs’ claims against defendant El Portal, Inc., and on plaintiff Oscar Marquez’s breach-of-contract claim for unpaid vacation. (Doc. 72, p. 33). The magistrate judge advised the parties of their right to object within fourteen (14) days. (Doc. 72, p. 34). The plaintiffs filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation on January 27, 2017, and the defendants responded to the plaintiffs’ objection on February 3, 2017. (Docs. 73, 76). 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:13-cv-01395-MHH Document 77 Filed 07/28/17 Page 2 of 4 A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 636(b)(1)(C). 28 U.S.C. § When a party objects to a report and recommendation, the district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. The Court reviews for plain error proposed factual findings to which no objection is made, and the Court reviews propositions of law de novo. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n. 9 (11th Cir. 1993). In his report, the magistrate judge found as a matter of law that defendant Alvaro Salazar’s two corporations, defendants El Portal, Inc. and El Portales, Inc., do not constitute a single enterprise for purposes of the FLSA. (Doc. 73, pp. 3–7). The magistrate judge found that the two corporations had separate bank accounts at different banks and that checks from El Portales, Inc.’s account “were sometimes labeled ‘El Portal’ and sometimes ‘Los Portales.’” (See Doc. 72, p. 13).1 The plaintiffs argue that this alternative labeling is evidence that the two corporations commingled funds and operated as a single enterprise for purposes of the FLSA. (Doc. 72, p. 21; Doc. 73, pp. 6–7). The magistrate judge disagreed and concluded that, because El Portal, Inc. and El Portales, Inc./Los Portales, Inc. each ran a 1 Los Portales, Inc. appears to be the name originally intended for El Portales, Inc. (Doc. 72, p. 1p. 12–13). El Portales, Inc. is sometimes referred to as Los Portales, Inc. in the record. (Doc. 72, p. 12). 2 Case 5:13-cv-01395-MHH Document 77 Filed 07/28/17 Page 3 of 4 restaurant, and each called its restaurant El Portal, the inconsistently labeled checks do not support a reasonable inference that the two restaurants commingled funds. (Doc. 72, 21–22). The magistrate judge did not factor into his analysis the opinions of the plaintiffs’ expert concerning the commingling of funds. (Doc. 73, p. 6). Considered along with the checks themselves, the expert’s opinion, if accepted, would permit a reasonable juror to find that the two restaurants commingled funds. Therefore, because of the disputed evidence on this issue, the Court cannot decide as a matter of law that El Portal, Inc. and El Portales, Inc. were not a single enterprise under the FLSA. A jury must decide these disputed facts. Having reviewed de novo the record in this case, including the magistrate judge’s report, the Court SUSTAINS the plaintiffs’ objection to the magistrate judge’s finding that El Portal, Inc. and El Portales, Inc. are not, as a matter of law, a single enterprise under the FLSA. In all other respects, the Court ACCEPTS the magistrate judge’s recommendations. The Court GRANTS the defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to the plaintiffs’ fraud claim; the plaintiffs’ claims against El Portal, Inc.; and Mr. Marquez’s breach-of-contract claim for unpaid vacation. (Doc. 49). The Court DISMISSES those claims WITH PREJUDICE. The Court DENIES the defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to the plaintiffs’ FLSA 3 Case 5:13-cv-01395-MHH Document 77 Filed 07/28/17 Page 4 of 4 claims. (Doc. 49). The Court DENIES the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on their FLSA claims. (Doc. 51). The Court DENIES the defendants’ motions to strike. (Docs. 61, 64). The Court SETS this matter for a pretrial conference on Monday, September 11, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. in chambers of the undersigned, Room 786, Hugo L. Black United States Courthouse, 1729 5th Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203. DONE and ORDERED this July 28, 2017. _________________________________ MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 4
]]>
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.
