Nall v. Mal-Motels, Inc.

723 F.3d 1304 (2013)

From our private database of 46,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Nall v. Mal-Motels, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
723 F.3d 1304 (2013)

Facts

In August 2008, Candace Nall (plaintiff) began working as a front-desk clerk and night auditor for Mal-Motels, Inc. (defendant). Nall initially recorded her work hours using a time clock. However, in December 2008, Mal-Motels’ owner, Mohammad Malik (defendant), told Nall to stop using the time clock. Nall began verbally reporting her hours to Malik, and Malik called the hours in to a company that issued Nall a paycheck based on Malik’s report. As a result, no written records existed for the hours that Nall had actually worked. In early 2010, Nall retained an attorney and filed a lawsuit in federal district court against Mal-Motels and Malik, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Nall claimed she had periodically worked over 40 hours per week without receiving overtime pay. Nall sought $3,780 in unpaid overtime and $3,780 in liquidated damages under an FLSA provision authorizing double damages in unpaid-overtime cases. Mal-Motels admitted that Nall had not been paid for all of the overtime, but Mal-Motels disputed the amount owed. In May 2010, Malik and Nall met without any attorneys present to discuss settling Nall’s lawsuit. Malik offered Nall at least $1,000 to sign two documents. Nall did not read the documents, but Malik explained the documents to her. Nall needed the money, so she signed the documents, which were (1) a voluntary dismissal of the action and (2) a letter to Nall’s attorney indicating that the case had been settled. Although someone filed the voluntary-dismissal document with the court, the court refused to dismiss Nall’s complaint because Nall had not received permission to appear in the action without her attorney. Malik subsequently moved to enforce the settlement agreement. Nall’s attorney objected, asserting that the settlement was not fair and reasonable. A federal magistrate judge recommended that the district court approve the settlement, concluding that Nall and Malik had reached a fair resolution of their dispute. Nall objected to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, but the district court accepted the recommendation, approved the settlement, and dismissed Nall’s complaint. Nall appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Carnes, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 742,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,000 briefs, keyed to 986 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,000 briefs - keyed to 986 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership