Andreozzi v. Syrgy Health & Fitness, LLC

MARCIANE ANDREOZZI, et al. Plaintiffs v. SYRGY HEALTH AND FITNESS, LLC, et al. Defendants v. THE TOP STRENGTH PROJECT, LLC, et al. Third Party Defendants

No. 1:17-cv-00129-MSM-LDA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

September 21, 2020

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Mary S. McElroy, United States District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment Against Defendants Synrgy Health and Fitness, LLC ("Synrgy") and Michael T. Owen, Jr. ("Mr. Owen").¹ (ECF No. 40). Neither Synrgy nor Mr. Owen have responded to the Plaintiffs' Motion.

The issue before the Court is whether the Plaintiffs², Marcianne Andreozzi("Ms. Andreozzi") and Steven Tripp ("Mr. Tripp"), are entitled to summary judgment with respect to liability for their Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), Rhode Island Minimum Wage Act ("RIMWA"), and breach of contract claims against Synrgy and Mr. Owen.

For the following reasons, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 40) is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

This action was commenced by the filing of a complaint on April 4, 2017 in which the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, §29 U.S.C. 201 et. seq. (FLSA) and Rhode Island's Minimum Wage Act, RIGL §28-12-1, et. seq. and §28-14-1, et. seq (RIMWA) as well as breached their employment contracts. Thereafter the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment to which the Defendants have failed to respond.³ The Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is accompanied by affidavits of both plaintiffs wherein they swear to the truth of the factual allegations set forth in their complaint. (ECF 40-2 and ECF 40-3).

It is undisputed that Ms. Andreozzi and Mr. Tripp were employed by Synrgy, which operated a health and fitness club in Providence, Rhode Island. (ECF No. 7).Synrgy was both owned and managed by Mr. Owen. (ECF No. 7). Beginning in January 2013, Synrgy and Mr. Owen employed Ms. Andreozzi and then in 2014, Synrgy hired Mr. Tripp. (ECF No. 1). The Defendants acknowledge that Ms. Andreozzi worked as Group Fitness Manager and as a fitness instructor, but they have denied Ms. Andreozzi's allegation that her annual salary was $52,000.00 (Fifty-two Thousand) dollars. (ECF No. 7). With respect to Mr. Tripp, the Defendants admit to his employment as Director of Personal Training but claim his salary was $26,000.00 (Twenty-six Thousand) dollars and not the alleged $30,000.00 (Thirty Thousand) dollars. (ECF Nos. 1, 7).

Ms. Andreozzi complains that in late 2013, Synrgy and Mr. Owen failed to pay her salary for five weeks, amounting to $5,000.00 (Five Thousand) dollars in unpaid wages. (ECF No. 1). The Defendants deny the allegation. The Defendants do, however, admit to Ms. Andreozzi's allegation that two checks, dated November 6, 2015 and January 5, 2016, totaling $2,800.00 (Two Thousand Eight Hundred) dollars, were returned to her due to insufficient funds. (ECF No. 7). Ms. Andreozzi continued working between December 2015 and February 2016, allegedly teaching thirty fitness classes for which she did not receive payment. The Defendants deny that allegation but admit that "Andreozzi complained repeatedly to Defendant Michael T. Owen, Jr. about the back wages owed to her and each time he assured her that he would pay off the balance owed to her." (ECF Nos. 1, 7).

Mr. Tripp makes allegations like those of Ms. Andreozzi. He complains that checks, one for $582.69 and another for $786.05, issued by Defendants in October2015, and two checks, one for $608.90 and another for $353.46, issued in December 2015, were returned for insufficient funds. (ECF No. 1). The Defendants admit to issuing the checks, but not to their return for insufficient funds. (ECF No. 7). Like Ms. Andreozzi, Mr. Tripp continued working for a short time after these alleged incidents of unpaid wages and asserts that Synrgy and Mr. Owen failed to compensate him for ten personal training sessions provided in January 2016 amounting to owed wages of $450.00. (ECF No. 1). Unlike Ms. Andreozzi, Mr. Tripp further asserts that Synrgy and Mr. Owen withheld $82.00 per week from Mr. Tripp's paychecks during a six to eight-month period for health insurance coverage, however when he attempted to use his insurance, Mr. Tripp was told that he did not have insurance. (ECF No. 1). The Defendants acknowledge the healthcare deductions but have denied that Mr. Tripp was uninsured. (ECF No. 7). Finally, Mr. Tripp complains that payroll taxes were withheld from his paychecks, but that Synrgy and Mr. Owen failed to submit those withholdings to the Internal Revenue Service or Rhode Island Department of Taxation. (ECF No. 1). In their Answer, the Defendants deny that allegation.

Ms. Andreozzi and Mr. Tripp claim they are owed back wages totaling $9,120.00 and $17,781.10, respectively, and that the failures to compensate violate FLSA and RIMWA and amount to breaches of contract. (ECF No. 1).

The Defendants answered the Plaintiffs Complaint and filed a third-party complaint against TOP Strength, LLC, and Mr. Tripp. The Defendants' Third-Party Complaint claims tortious interference and breach of contract based on allegationsthat Mr. Tripp operated his own fitness center while providing services at Synrgy and that he solicited clients from Synrgy. (ECF No. 7). Since filing the answer and counterclaim, Defendant Deborah Owen has filed for Chapter 13 Bankruptcy. Mr. Owen and Synrgy are not parties to the bankruptcy proceeding and have failed to respond in any way to Plaintiffs' interrogatories, this Court's orders granting the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Interrogatories, and this Court's order requiring Synrgy and Mr. Owen's response to the instant Motion for Summary Judgment. Attempts to reach Synrgy and Mr. Owen, both pro se, have resulted in returned mail and otherwise have elicited no response.

II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

In ruling on motions for summary judgement the Court must examine the documents submitted by the parties to determine whether there exists a disputed issue of material fact. The court reviews the record evidence "in the light most favorable to, and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of, the nonmoving party." Feliciano de la Cruz v. El Conquistador Resort & Country Club, 218 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2000) (citing Mulero-Rodriguez v. Ponte, Inc., 98 F.3d 670, 672 (1st Cir. 1996)). "[W]hen the facts support plausible but conflicting inferences on a pivotal issue in the case, the judge may not choose between those inferences at the summary judgment stage." Coyne v. Taber Partners I, 53 F.3d 454, 460 (1st Cir. 1995).Furthermore,

[s]ummary judgment is not appropriate merely because the facts offered by the moving party seem more plausible, or because the opponent is unlikely to prevail at trial. If the evidence presented is subject to conflicting interpretations, or reasonable [people] might differ as to its significance, summary judgment is improper.

Gannon v. Narragansett Elec. Co., 777 F. Supp. 167, 169 (D.R.I. 1991).

This case presents a somewhat unusual scenario as the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment has remained without response for many months. The motion was filed on November 25, 2019 with notice mailed to the defendants at the address that had been provided to the court in compliance with Local Rule Gen. 302. (ECF 40). Responses were due on December 9, 2019. Having received no response from the defendants by March 18, 2020, the Court, sua sponte extended the time for response until April 20, 2020. At the same time the Court mailed notice of this order to the defendants. That notice was returned as undeliverable on March 30, 2020. Since that time, almost six months ago, the Court has not had any contact from the defendants in this case and they have not updated their contact information with the Court. Having waited a sufficient time, the Court will treat this motion as unopposed.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment

Although the motion is unopposed, the plaintiffs are not entitled to an automatic grant of summary judgment. Aguiar-Carrasquillo v. AgostoAlicea, 445 F.3d 19, 25 (1st Cir. 2006). "Before granting an unopposed summary judgmentmotion, the court must inquire whether the moving party has met its burden to demonstrate undisputed facts entitling it to summary judgment as a matter of law." Id. (quoting López v. Corporación Azucarera de Puerto Rico, 938 F.2d 1510, 1517 (1st Cir.1991)).

When a non-moving party fails to file a timely opposition to an adversary's motion for summary judgment, the court may consider the summary judgment motion unopposed, and take as uncontested all evidence presented with that motion. NEPSK, Inc. v. Houlton, 283 F.3d 1, 7-8 (1st Cir.2002). The defendants' denials contained in their answer to the complaint are insufficient to sustain their burden of showing that there are material issues of fact that remain in dispute. (See Colon-Perez v. Dep't of Health of Puerto Rico, 623 F. Supp. 2d 230, 238 (D.P.R. 2009) "Once a properly supported motion has been presented, the opposing party has the burden of demonstrating that a trial-worthy issue exists that would warrant the court's denial of the motion for summary judgment."). "The adverse party cannot defeat a well-supported motion by 'rest[ing] upon the mere allegations or denials of [its] pleading.'" Data General v. Grumman, 36 F.3d 1147, 1159 (1st Cir. 1994)(abrogated on other grounds by: 559 U.S. 154 (2010)).

B. Fair Labor Standards Act and Rhode Island Minimum Wage Act Claims

1. Employer

Both the FLSA and the RIMWA require employers to pay covered employees the mandated minimum wage. Federal law includes "any person acting directly orindirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee" in the definition of employer. 29 U.S.C.A. § 203 (d). Rhode Island law has an analogous provision defining an employer as "any individual, partnership, association, corporation, business trust, or any...