United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
S. CARMODY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment. (E C F No. 40). The parties have
consented to proceed in this Court for all further
proceedings, including trial and an order of final judgment.
28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). By Order of Reference, the
Honorable Janet T. Neff referred this case to the
undersigned. For the reasons discussed herein,
Defendants' motion is granted and this action
following allegations are contained in Plaintiff's
amended complaint. (ECF No. 14). Plaintiff began working for
Woodland Turf Sports Center, Inc. (Woodland) in August 2006.
Plaintiff discontinued this employment on a unspecified date.
Plaintiff was rehired by Defendants in October 2011 and
maintained this employment until April 2014. During the
course of his employment, Plaintiff was paid on an hourly
basis. While Plaintiff often worked more than forty (40)
hours during a workweek, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff the
appropriate overtime wage for such work. Defendants also
“did not compensate Plaintiff his promised hourly wage
for all work performed” and “did not compensate
Plaintiff for all the hours he worked.” Plaintiff
initiated this action on February 17, 2016, against Woodland.
On May 4, 2016, Plaintiff submitted an amended complaint
against Woodland as well as its owner Duane Vander Ark
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and state
law. (ECF No. 14). Defendants now move for summary judgment.
judgment “shall” be granted “if the movant
shows that 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). A party moving for summary
judgment can satisfy its burden by demonstrating “that
the respondent, having had sufficient opportunity for
discovery, has no evidence to support an essential element of
his or her case.” Minadeo v. ICI Paints, 398
F.3d 751, 761 (6th Cir. 2005). Once the moving party
demonstrates that “there is an absence of evidence to
support the nonmoving party's case, ” the
non-moving party “must identify specific facts that can
be established by admissible evidence, which demonstrate a
genuine issue for trial.” Amini v. Oberlin
College, 440 F.3d 350, 357 (6th Cir. 2006).
the Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable
to the non-moving party, the party opposing the summary
judgment motion “must do more than simply show that
there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material
facts.” Amini, 440 F.3d at 357. The existence
of a mere “scintilla of evidence” in support of
the non-moving party's position is insufficient.
Daniels v. Woodside, 396 F.3d 730, 734-35 (6th Cir.
2005). The non-moving party “may not rest upon [his]
mere allegations, ” but must instead present
“significant probative evidence” establishing
that “there is a genuine issue for trial.”
Pack v. Damon Corp., 434 F.3d 810, 813-14 (6th Cir.
the non-moving party cannot defeat a properly supported
motion for summary judgment by “simply arguing that it
relies solely or in part upon credibility
considerations.” Fogerty v. MGM Group Holdings
Corp., Inc., 379 F.3d 348, 353 (6th Cir. 2004). Rather,
the non-moving party “must be able to point to some
facts which may or will entitle him to judgment, or refute
the proof of the moving party in some material portion, and.
. .may not merely recite the incantation, ‘Credibility,
' and have a trial on the hope that a jury may disbelieve
factually uncontested proof.” Id. at 353-54.
In sum, summary judgment is appropriate “against a
party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the
existence of an element essential to that party's case,
and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at
trial.” Daniels, 396 F.3d at 735.
moving party without the burden of proof need only show that
the opponent cannot sustain his burden at trial, a moving
party with the burden of proof faces a “substantially
higher hurdle.” Arnett v. Myers, 281 F.3d 552,
561 (6th Cir. 2002). Where the moving party has the burden,
the plaintiff on a claim for relief or the defendant on an
affirmative defense, “his showing must be sufficient
for the court to hold that no reasonable trier of fact could
find other than for the moving party.” Calderone v.
United States, 799 F.2d 254, 259 (6th Cir. 1986). The
Sixth Circuit has emphasized that the party with the burden
of proof “must show the record contains evidence
satisfying the burden of persuasion and that the evidence is
so powerful that no reasonable jury would be free to
disbelieve it.” Arnett, 281 F.3d at 561. Thus,
summary judgment in favor of the party with the burden of
persuasion “is inappropriate when the evidence is
susceptible of different interpretations or inferences by the
trier of fact.” Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S.
541, 553 (1999).
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Claims
FLSA protects employees through enterprise coverage and
individual coverage. See, e.g., Burman v. Everkept,
Inc., 2017 WL 1150664 at *6 (W.D. Mich., Mar. 27, 2017);
Guyot v. Ramsey, 2016 WL 2866403 at *2 (E.D. Mich.,
May 17, 2016). Plaintiff bears the burden to establish that
his employment is covered by the FLSA through either type of
coverage. See, e.g., Mendoza v. Detail Solutions,
LLC, 911 F.Supp.2d 433, 439 (N.D. Tex. 2012) (citing
D.A. Schulte, Inc. v. Gangi, 328 U.S. 108, 120
(1946)). Defendants argue that they are entitled to relief on
Plaintiff's FLSA claims because Plaintiff's
employment with Woodland did not come within the purview of
the FLSA. For the reasons explained herein, the Court agrees.
coverage protects employees “who in any workweek [are]
engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for
commerce, or [are] employed in an enterprise engaged in
commerce or in the production of goods for commerce. .
.” Guyot, 2016 WL WL 2866403 at *2 (quoting 29
U.S.C. § 206(a)). Enterprise coverage only extends,
however, to employees of enterprises that have “an
annual gross volume of sales made or ...