Diaz v. Jaguar Restaurant Group

20 Citing cases

  1. Vital Pharm. v. Monster Energy Co.

    553 F. Supp. 3d 1180 (S.D. Fla. 2021)   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses

    The flip side is that "[t]he introduction of evidence arguably relevant to pleaded issues cannot serve to give a party fair notice that new issues are entering the case." Diaz v. Jaguar Rest. Grp., LLC , 627 F.3d 1212, 1215 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting Wesco Mfg., Inc. v. Tropical Attractions of Palm Beach, Inc. , 833 F.2d 1484, 1487 (11th Cir. 1987) ). The doctrine of "implied consent" only applies when the consent is "evident."

  2. Quinones v. United States

    Case No: 8:14-cv-164-T-36MAP (M.D. Fla. Jun. 29, 2015)   Cited 1 times

    The Court, therefore, declines to disturb the default rule that "[f]ailure to plead an affirmative defense generally results in a waiver of that defense," Latimer v. Roaring Toyz, Inc., 601 F.3d 1224, 1239 (11th Cir. 2010), and, accordingly, holds that the United States has waived this affirmative defense. Accord, e.g., Keybank Nat'l Ass'n v. Hamrick, 576 Fed. App'x . 884, 888 (11th Cir. 2014) (holding that the defendants waived the affirmative defense of notice by "failing to assert their notice argument in any of their three answers"); Diaz v. Jaguar Restaurant Grp., LLC, 627 F.3d 1212, 1214-15 (11th Cir. 2010) (holding that the defendant waived the affirmative defense of an administrative exemption under the FLSA by "failing to plead the defense in its Answer and by failing to move to amend its Answer before trial"); United States ex rel. Ragghianti Foundations III, LLC v. Peter R. Brown Constr., Inc., 49 F. Supp. 3d 1031, 1042-43 (M.D. Fla. 2014) (holding that the defendant waived the affirmative defense of release because it was not raised in the responsive pleadings and the plaintiff "demonstrated sufficient prejudice in its ability to adequately defend against [the defendant's] affirmative defense of release, due to [the defendant's] failure to raise the affirmative defense in a timely manner"); Britt Green Trucking, Inc. v. FedEx Nat'l, LTL, Inc., Case No. 09-cv-445, 2014 WL 3417569, at *12-13 (M.D. Fla. July 14, 2014) (holding that the defendant waived the affirmative defense of preemption when the defense was raised for the first time at summary judgment, because "[the defendant] co

  3. Swans v. OSP Prevention Grp.

    No. 19-12277 (11th Cir. Jun. 27, 2022)   Cited 3 times

    The employer has the burden of showing that the exemption applies. See Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188, 196-97 (1974) (stating that generally "the application of an exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act is a matter of affirmative defense on which the employer has the burden of proof"); Diaz v. Jaguar Rest. Grp., LLC, 627 F.3d 1212, 1214-15 (11th Cir. 2010) (describing the administrative exemption as an affirmative defense to an FLSA claim); see also Novick v. Shipcom Wireless, Inc., 946 F.3d 735, 738 (5th Cir. 2020) ("In a FLSA suit for unpaid overtime, the defendant employer bears the burden of proof to establish that an employee falls under an exemption.").

  4. Blackburn v. Shire U.S. Inc.

    18 F.4th 1310 (11th Cir. 2021)   Cited 24 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Using an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a denial of leave to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 because that is the Rule 15 standard, without regard to the denial of the motion for reconsideration

    We review both the denial of a motion for leave to amend a pleading and a motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. Diaz v. Jaguar Rest. Grp., LLC , 627 F.3d 1212, 1214 (11th Cir. 2010) ; Corwin v. Walt Disney Co. , 475 F.3d 1239, 1254 (11th Cir. 2007). A district court's grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo , with all facts and reasonable inferences therefrom viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

  5. Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co.

    No. 13-12932 (11th Cir. Jun. 19, 2014)   Cited 2 times   2 Legal Analyses

    III. Standards of ReviewWe review the district court's decision to grant leave to amend the pleadings to conform to the evidence for an abuse of discretion. Diaz v. Jaguar Restaurant Group, LLC, 627 F.3d 1212, 1214 (11th Cir. 2010). We review a district court's factual findings for clear error.

  6. Su v. Bene Mkt.

    Civil Action 20-4265 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 19, 2024)

    Having failed to plead affirmative defenses in their answer, Defendants have waived their ability to raise them now. See Diaz v. Jaguar Rest. Grp., LLC, 627 F.3d 1212, 1214-15 (11thCir. 2010). Defendants' summary judgment motion can be denied on that basis alone.

  7. Bancor Grp. v. Rodriguez

    22-20201-CV-GAYLES/TORRES (S.D. Fla. Jan. 3, 2024)

    That too is fatal to the legal theory underpinning the pending motion. It would be reversible error for us to simply ignore that failure to plead on the eve of trial, especially when good cause has not been shown. See, e.g., Diaz v. Jaguar Rest. Grp., LLC, 627 F.3d 1212, 1214-15 (11th Cir. 2010) (reversing judgment for defendant because “[defendant] repeatedly waived the [affirmative] defense by failing to plead the defense in its Answer and by failing to move to amend its Answer before trial.

  8. Myers v. Naples Golf & Beach Club, Inc.

    2:23-cv-13-JES-KCD (M.D. Fla. Feb. 17, 2023)

    The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are designed to “facilitate a proper ruling on the merits.” Diaz v. Jaguar Rest. Grp., LLC, 627 F.3d 1212, 1214 (11th Cir. 2010).

  9. Chastain v. Physicians Hair Transplant Ctr.

    Civil Action FILE 1:20-CV-1315-TWT (N.D. Ga. Jan. 3, 2022)

    , the Defendants do not contest the Plaintiff's claim of prejudice, and the Court thus finds that their FLSA exemption defense has been waived. See, e.g., Diaz v. Jaguar Rest. Grp., LLC, 627 F.3d 1212, 1215 (11th Cir. 2010) (holding a district court abused its discretion in allowing the defendant to amend its answer to include an FLSA exemption defense, where 14 months had passed since the filing of the answer and the plaintiff objected to the amendment); Sejour v. Steven Davis Farms,LLC, 28 F.Supp.3d 1216, 1224 (N.D. Fla. 2014) (“Defendants are not entitled to claim an exemption because they failed to specifically plead their exemption in their answer. Since Plaintiffs were not given timely notice of Defendants' intention to assert this exemption, to allow Defendants' argument would be unjust and would defy the purpose of the FLSA.”)

  10. Puig v. El Imperio Del Compresor, Inc.

    CASE NO. 1:19-cv-20738-JLK (S.D. Fla. Jun. 25, 2020)

    See DE 33. Thus, the executive/administrative exemptions are inapplicable in this action. Diaz v. Jaguar Rest. Group, LLC, 627 F.3d 1212 (11th Cir. 2010); see also Latimer v. Roaring Toyz, Inc., 601 F.3d 1224, 1239 (11th Cir. 2010) ("Failure to plead an affirmative defense generally results in a waiver of that defense."). Plaintiffs also move to establish as a matter of law that Defendants are liable for overtime wage violations.