United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division
For Cornelius Smith, Patrick Johnson, Willie Caves, Sr., Zachery Cleaves, Jamarcus Sampson, Rex Dailey, Anil Muzac, Laquinta Lawson, David Foster, William Newton, Thomas McIntyre, Plaintiffs: George M. Keahey, LEAD ATTORNEY, Grove Hill, AL; Richard W. Fuquay, LEAD ATTORNEY Mobile, AL.
For Steven Taite, Plaintiff: Richard W. Fuquay, LEAD ATTORNEY Mobile, AL; George M. Keahey, Grove Hill, AL.
For Werner Enterprises, Inc., Defendant: Caroline Thomason Pryor, LEAD ATTORNEY, Carr, Allison, Pugh, Howard, Oliver & Sisson, P.C., Daphne, ALl; Meghan Nowicki Cox, LEAD ATTORNEY, Bricker Scott Daughtry, Carr, Allison, Pugh, Howard, Oliver & Sisson, P.C., Birmingham, AL.
WILLIAM H. STEELE, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
This matter is before the Court on the defendant's motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff Cornelius Smith. (Doc. 9). The parties have filed briefs and evidentiary materials in support of their respective positions, (Docs. 10, 19, 20), and the motion is ripe for resolution. After careful consideration, the Court concludes that the motion is due to be denied.
Smith and other plaintiffs filed this FLSA action on March 10, 2014, alleging that the defendant has not paid them overtime compensation to which they are entitled. (Doc. 1). On May 7, 2014, the defendant filed the instant motion, asserting that Smith is judicially estopped from seeking monetary compensation for any overtime violation because he had not disclosed
this claim in his Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings.
Smith filed his petition in December 2011. The plan was confirmed in May 2012, and it remains in effect until approximately May 2017. (Docs. 10-2, 10-4). On May 20, 2014, the plaintiff amended his bankruptcy filings to reflect his FLSA claim. (Doc. 19-2).
Summary judgment should be granted only if " there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The party seeking summary judgment bears " the initial burden to show the district court, by reference to materials on file, that there are no genuine issues of material fact that should be decided at trial." Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir. 1991). The moving party may meet its burden in either of two ways: (1) by " negating an element of the non-moving party's claim" ; or (2) by " point[ing] to materials on file that demonstrate that the party bearing the burden of proof at trial will not be able to meet that burden." Id. " Even after Celotex it is never enough simply to state that the non-moving party ...