Jorge Gutierrez, et al v. Cable Equipment Services, Inc., et al

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
__________________________
No. 15-12129
Non-Argument Calendar
__________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-24413-FAM
JORGE GUTIERREZ,
CYNTHIA RECONDO,
and other similarly situated individuals,
MANFRED ARAUJO,
RICARDO QUINONES,
YOANNY RODRIGUEZ,
JOHN C. AHEARN,
JIMMY VAZQUEZ,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
ERNESTO NUEVO, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
versus
CABLE EQUIPMENT SERVICES, INC.,
CHARLES F. APPLEDOORN, individually,
Defendants - Appellees.
Case: 15-12129 Date Filed: 10/15/2015 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
__________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
__________________________
(October 15, 2015)
Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This appeal challenges the District Court’s order of May 11, 2015, granting
defendants summary judgment on plaintiffs’ Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
§§ 201-219, claims on the ground that plaintiffs were not employees covered under
the Act. Doc. 61. Plaintiffs admitted many of the material facts in the case when
they failed to respond in any way to defendants’ requests for admissions. In
opposing defendants’ motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs filed declarations
containing assertions purportedly contrary to their earlier admissions, but they did
not explain why the assertions were contrary to such admissions or seek any relief
from their admissions.
Plaintiffs contend that they did seek relief from their admissions in their
response to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Their response, they
submit, “constituted a valid request to withdraw or amend any facts that had been
automatically deemed admitted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 36,” and the “District
Court ‘was required to analyze Plaintiffs’ request as to whether withdrawal or
Case: 15-12129 Date Filed: 10/15/2015 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
amendment [of the admitted facts] would have subserved the presentation of the
case’s merits, and whether it would have prejudiced Defendants.” Appellants’ Br.
at 12. Plaitiffs seek the vacation of the summary judgment and a remand of the
case so that the District Court can conduct such analysis. We are not persuaded.
We find no error in the District Court’s consideration of the facts admitted
via plaintiffs’ failure to respond to the requests for admissions. There is no
material issue of fact for submission to a jury in this case. Summary judgment was
appropriate and was due to be granted.
AFFIRMED.
Case: 15-12129 Date Filed: 10/15/2015 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --