Shannon Simmons v. Futo's, Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: September 3, 2024
• Docket: 24-11368
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 24-11368 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 09/03/2024 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-11368 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

SHANNON SIMMONS, ERANUS ROBERSON, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus FUTO'S, INC., NOMAN RASHID,

Defendants-Appellees,

STEVE ( JOHN) FUTO, CHARLES FUTO, USCA11 Case: 24-11368 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 09/03/2024 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 24-11368

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-03591-TWT ____________________

Before NEWSOM, LUCK, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: We asked the parties to address whether this appeal is moot in light of the district court’s order approving the parties’ settle- ment. In response, Shannon Simmons and Eranus Roberson (col- lectively “plaintiffs”) appeared to contend that the approved settle- ment did not resolve all of their claims. As a result, we issued a supplemental jurisdictional question asking the parties to address whether the appeal is taken from a final decision. Futo’s, Inc. and Norman Rashid (collectively “appellees”) respond that we lack ju- risdiction to review this appeal because the settlement related to only some, but not all, claims. Appellees argue that the district court did not enter a final judgment in this case because it did not adjudicate all claims made by plaintiffs against them. We agree. In their complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that appellees violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) by not paying them over- time wages for unidentified workweeks in the period of August 2018 to August 2021. The parties entered into a settlement USCA11 Case: 24-11368 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 09/03/2024 Page: 3 of 3

24-11368 Opinion of the Court 3

agreement which purported to fully resolve a portion of the dis- puted matters between them. The settlement agreement specifi- cally referenced workweeks in which the parties agreed that plain- tiffs were not paid the required overtime wage. On appeal, plain- tiffs challenge the district court’s summary judgment ruling, in which the court found that Futo’s, Inc. was a retail or service estab- lishment. This finding pertains to only a portion of the commis- sioned work exemption to the FLSA. See 29 U.S.C. § 207(i). The district court was unable to determine if the commissioned work exemption applied because it could not determine the number of hours that plaintiffs worked and, thus, whether they were paid the required wage. The district court’s summary judgment order was not a final decision because it did not end the litigation on the merits, and it was not made final by the court’s later order approving the settle- ment. See World Fuel Corp. v. Geithner, 568 F.3d 1345, 1348 (11th Cir. 2009); Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1245-46 (11th Cir. 2012) (providing that an order that disposes of fewer than all claims against all parties is not a final decision). Ac- cording to plaintiffs’ undisputed statements in this appeal, the set- tlement covered only certain workweeks in which they were not paid overtime, and there are other workweeks that were not cov- ered by the settlement agreement. The order approving the settle- ment thus did not dispose of the FLSA claims for those workweeks. Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdic- tion. All pending motions are denied as MOOT.