Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Acosta v. Aimet Technologies, LLC

United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division

May 15, 2018

R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Plaintiff,
v.
AIMET TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Defendant.

          DEFAULT JUDGMENT

          THE HONORABLE LOUISE W. FLANAGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Upon Plaintiff's motion for judgment by default and considering the Clerk's entry of default herein on March 2, 2018, Defendant's failure and refusal to plead or otherwise defend, the affidavit filed by Plaintiff in support of said motion, and the Court being otherwise fully advised, Plaintiff's motion for judgment by default is GRANTED. The Court enters its findings of fact and conclusions of law, as follows:

         FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Defendant Aimet Technologies, Inc. (“Defendant”) was, at all times hereinafter mentioned, a corporation having place of business and doing business in Wake County, North Carolina.[1]
2. Defendant, was, at all times hereinafter mentioned, engaged in related activities performed either through unified operation or common control for a common business purpose, constitutes an enterprise within the meaning of § 3(r) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 203(r); and such enterprise, employed employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or employees handling, selling or otherwise working on goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for commerce; and having an annual gross volume of sale made or business done of not less than $500, 000, constitutes an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of § 3(s)(1)(B) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(B).
3. Between June 19, 2017 and July 2, 2017, Defendant willfully failed to pay employees employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, the applicable minimum hourly rate.
4. Between June 19, 2017 and July 2, 2017, Defendant willfully employed employees in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, for workweeks longer than 40 hours without compensating such employees for their employment in excess of such hours at rates not less than one and one-half times the regular rates at which they were employed.
5. As a result of the conduct described above, Defendant is wrongfully withholding back wages in the amount $43, 554.84 due and owed to employees of Defendant. The back wages due to each employee for this time period are set forth in the attached Appendix A.
6. Defendant did not pay the applicable minimum wage and overtime compensation to employees, who produced, packaged and handled plastic components that Defendant sold, shipped and offered for transportation to customers outside the state of North Carolina. Defendant repeatedly and willfully shipped, delivered, transported, offered for transportation, and sold in commerce; and shipped, delivered or sold with knowledge that shipment, delivery, or sale thereof in interstate commerce was intended, goods in the production of which many of Defendant's employees were employed in violation of Sections 6, 7 and 15(a)(2) of the Act, as alleged.

         CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to §§ 16(c) and 17 of the Act and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345.
2. Defendant willfully violated the provisions of §§ 6 and 15(a)(2) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206 and 215(a)(2) by failing to pay employees employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, the applicable minimum hourly rate.
3. Defendant willfully violated the provisions of §§ 7 and 15(a)(2) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 207 and 215(a)(2) by employing employees in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, for workweeks longer than 40 hours without compensating such employees for their employment in excess of such hours at rates not less than one and one-half times the regular rates at which they were employed as described above.
4. Defendant repeatedly and willfully violated the provisions of § 15(a)(1), 29 U.S.C. §§ 215(a)(1) by shipping, delivering, transporting, offering for transportation, and selling in commerce, and/or shipping, delivering or selling with knowledge that shipment, delivery, or sale thereof in interstate commerce was intended, goods in the production of which many of ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.