Vanderbilt v. Boat Bottom Express Limited Liability Company et al, No. 4:2018cv10261 - Document 37 (S.D. Fla. 2019)
Court Description: OPINION ON DAMAGES, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW ORDER re 35 Evidentiary Hearing re: Damages Only. Signed by Senior Judge James Lawrence King on 7/24/2019. See attached document for full details. (jw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Vanderbilt v. Boat Bottom Express Limited Liability Company et al Doc. 37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU RT SO UTH ERN DISTRICT O F FLORIDA K EY W EST D IVISIO N CASE N O.4:18-CV-10261-R K V ALERIE VANDERBILT, Plaintiff, BOAT BOTTOM EXPRESS LIM ITED LIA BILITY COM PAN Y,a Florida lim ited liability company,and JEFFREY PEER, individually, Defendants. / OPINION O N DAM AGES.FINDING S OF FACT AND C ONCLU SIO NS O F LAW TH IS CAUSE cam e before the Courtupon the evidentiary hearing it held on the issueofdamageson June22,2019 (D.E.35).1 Plaintiff Valerie Vanderbilt filed this case againstBoat Bottom Express Lim ited Liability Company (iiBBE''),abusinessin Ramrod Key,Florida,and Jeffrey Peer,alleged ownerofBBE,forunpaid overtim e violations,fraudulentGling ofatax return,and breach of contract(D.E.1). Afterboth Defendantsdefaulted,theCourtgranted PlaintifpsM otion for Entry ofFinalD efaultJudgm entasto liability,and setan evidentiary hearing to allow herto proveherunliquidated damages(D.E.30).Defendantsdid notappearatthe June 22,2019 hearing.Plaintiffcalledtwowitnesses:(a)herself,and (b)herfiancéGregoryKnippel. 1This Order memorializes findings of factand conclusions of law thatthe Courtarticulated at the June22,2019 hearing. Dockets.Justia.com Regarding Plaintifps claim forunpaid overtim e violations against both Defendants, theuncontroverted testimony show sthattherew asa vexbalcontractbetw een M s,V anderbilt and Jeffrey Peerunderwhich Defendantsagreed topay her$16perhourto perform various tasks for the business. For a total of four w eeks M s.Vanderbilt opened and closed the businessM onday through Saturday (working 8:30 a.m,to 5p.m.)and worked nightstaking callsfrom custom ersand handling othertasksforJeffrey Peerindividually and forBBE. She testiûed:iiBasically,1ran everything-'' The Courtsnds based on Plaintifps testim ony that for those four weeks,M s.Vanderbiltworked 63 hours perw eek,ratherthan 40 hours per week. Twenty-three hours ofovertimeoverfourweekstotals$2,208.00.2 The Courtalso tsndsthatPlaintiffisentitled to an equivalentam ountofliquidated dam agesundertheFLSA w here Defendants'actions in failing to pay overtime w ere intentional. Therefore,in total, Defendantsjointlyandseverallyowe$4,416.00forunpaidovertimeviolations. A s for Plaintifps claim for breach of contract against BBE, based on the uncontradicted testim ony,the Courtdeterm ines there was in facta second contractbetw een V alerie V anderbilt and BBE entered into about four weeks after the initial contract. Speciscally,on an evening in m id-N ovem ber 2017,Valerie Vanderbilt,Gregory Knippel, and Jeffrey Peerwere a11presentatM s.V anderbiltand M r.Knippel'sresidence in Big Pine Key,and had a conversation wherein Mr.Peer (acting on behalf of BBE) offered M s. Vanderbiltanew contractof$1,000 permonth plus7% ofBBE'Syearly grossrevenue (less the costs of labor and materials),and she verbally accepted the offer. According to testimony,7% of gross revenue portion ofthe agreem ent was m em orialized on a piece of 2(23hours)#($24/hour)#(4weeks). paper signed by both M s.V anderibltand M r.Peer. They then proceeded to i'whiteboard'' how they could grow the company following Hurricane lrm a,which had hit the area in Septem ber2017.The CourtGndsthatM s.V anderbiltcontinued to perform underthe second contract until she w as term inated in m id-october 2018. H er term ination consisted of a woman appearing ather ofûce (who,M s.Vanderbilttestifed,she eventually realized she had seen with M r.Peerashisfriend oracquaintance)and demanding herGles,laptop,and keys to the com pany car. The Courtfindsthatthe written contractentitling M s.Vanderbilt to 7% of gross revenue (minus labor and materials) was conûscated along with M s. V anderbilt'sotherwork materials. Atthe hearing,M s.Vanderbilttestiied thatBBE'Sgross revenuefortheyearwasSdrightin theneighborhoodof$650,000''(shetestiGedthatsheikdid alltheQuickbooks,everyday''),butshewasunabletoprofferanyevidencein supportofthe costof labor and m aterials beyond her own salary of $1,000 per m onth for 2018. A s the Courtruled atthe hearing,thisis sim ply insuftsciently precise to supporta dam ages award forPlaintiff'sbreach ofcontractclaim . Regarding Plaintiff's claim for fraudulentsling of tax return pursuantto 26 U .S.C. j 7434 againstboth Defendants,M s.Vanderbilttestified that,after consulting a personal acquaintance who is a i;CPA,''she told M r.Peertwice in the sam e w eek thatshe should be classised as an employee and notan independentcontractor. She testified thatin 2019,she neverthelessreceived through U.S.M ailan 1RS Form 1099-M 1SC for the 2018 sscalyear. Plaintiff subm itted this documentas Exhibit3,and itindeed liststhatBoatBottom Express LLC paidValerieVanderbiltiinonemployeecompensation''of$48,684.63for2018.Plaintiff argues that this evidences D efendants unlawfully giving false inform ation to the IRS indicating that sht w as an indepcndtnt contractor, when in fact she w as an employte pursuantto the $1,000 permonth vtrbalcontractdiscussed above. M s.Vanderbilttestitsed thatshe wasnotinvolved in the furnishing ofthe Form 1099 atissue,and did notsend itto theIRS,as she w asno longerw orking forBBE atthatpoint,TheCourttsndsthatD efendant BBE (listed on the form asSSPAYER'')furnished thedocumentatissueto the IRS,and as such,DefendantBBE isliableto Plaintiff for $5,000.00 in statutory dam agespursuantto 26 U.S.C.j7434, Therefore,based on the uncontradicted,defaulted testim ony,the dam ages in thiscase are $4,416.00 against both Defendants jointly and severally, and $5,000.00 against D efendantBoatBottom ExpressLim ited Liability Company. The Courtfurtherindsthatthefeesand costsrequested by Plaintiffand supported by thedtclarationsofcounstlin Exhibit4,totaling $7,550.25in attorney'sfeesand $593.12 in taxablecosts,arcreasonable.Atththearing PlaintifpscounselJordan Richardsrequtsted an additionaltwo billable hoursathisrateof$350 perhourforhisargumentthatday,and the Courtfound thisreasonable. Therefore,Plaintiffisdue to be aw arded a totalof$8,843.35 in feesand costs. DO NE and O RDERED in chambers atthe Jam es Lawrence King FederalJustice Building and U nited StatesCourthouse,M iam i,Florida,this24th day ofJuly,2019. * AM ES LAW REN CE UN ITED STA TES DIS ICT JUD GE SOUTHERN DISTY C OF FLORIDA cc: A IIC ounselof Record 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.
