Jimenez et al v. Reeder Medical Testing, LLC et al, No. 0:2011cv61817 - Document 12 (S.D. Fla. 2011)
Court Description: *ORDER REQUIRING CLARIFIED DAMAGES AFFIDAVIT regarding 10 Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Final Judgment. Plaintiff Jimenez has ten days from today's date to file a supplemental affidavit as described in the body of the order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 12/8/2011. (dkc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jimenez et al v. Reeder Medical Testing, LLC et al Doc. 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 11-61817-CIV-GRAHAM/GOODMAN CLAUDIA JIMENEZ and JOYCE DWYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. REEDER MEDICAL TESTING, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, ROBERT REEDER, INDIVIDUALLY, and FRANCIS REEDER, individually, Defendants. _______________________________________/ ORDER REQUIRING CLARIFIED DAMAGES AFFIDAVIT THIS CAUSE is before the Undersigned on the District Court’s Order of Reference of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Final Judgment and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of Default Final Judgment. [ECF Nos. 10; 11]. In the default judgment motion, Plaintiff Jimenez states that she is “seeking liquidated damages in the amount of approximately $1,218.00 ((28 hours x $7.25) x 7 weeks)) [sic].” [ECF No. 10-2, ¶ 8]. The FLSA is clear that liquidated damages should equal the amount of unpaid minimum wages. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Based on her affidavit, it appears that Jimenez claims she worked eight hours per day for twenty days without pay. Therefore, liquidated damages should amount to the same as her unpaid minimum wages during that period – $160.00 (20 days x 8 hours per day x $7.25 per hour = $1160; $1160 - $1000.00 in previous payment = $160.00). Jimenez is ORDERED to submit a supplemental affidavit WITHIN 10 DAYS clarifying her damages. In the clarification, Jimenez must specifically state the number of hours she contends she worked without pay during that twenty day period and explain 1 Dockets.Justia.com if paragraph eight of her affidavit is merely a scrivener’s error or, if not, clarify the origin of the components of the equation she used to calculate liquidated damages. Jimenez also states in her affidavit that she is “seeking an additional amount for retaliation in the amount of $40,000.00 ((salary of $400 per day x 5 days per week) x 20 weeks).” [ECF No. 10-2, ¶ 9]. However, Jimenez stated earlier in the same affidavit that she “usually only works three (3) days per week for a total of 24 hours each work week.” [Id. at ¶ 4]. Given that retaliation damages are intended to put an employee “in the place she would have been absent the employer’s misconduct,” Snapp v. Unlimited Concepts, Inc., 208 F.3d 928, 934 (11th Cir. 2000), it unclear why Jimenez is entitled to damages for five days per week, instead of only the three days per week she presumably would have worked if she were not terminated. Moreover, this statement of damages conflicts with Jimenez’ earlier Statement of Claim, in which she says she is “seeking her post-pay for the time that she is out of work, in an amount of $1,200.00 per week, due to the retaliation of Defendants.” [ECF No. 5, p. 2]. Therefore, Jimenez is also ORDERED to include in the same supplemental affidavit a clarification containing the estimated number of days per week she would have worked during the relevant twenty weeks if she were not terminated. DONE AND ORDERED, in Chambers, in Miami, Florida, this 8th day of December, 2011. Copies furnished to: The Honorable Donald Graham All counsel of record 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.
