# David Ojeda-Sanchez v. Carmelo Hernandez-Rubio > Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · November 29, 2012 · 499 F. App'x 897 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9501736 ## Case - **Full name:** David OJEDA-SANCHEZ, Florencio Cortes-Gonzalez, Alfonso Guerrero-Hernandez, Arturo Morales-Morales, Raul Morales-Morales, Oscar Antonio Morales-Ramirez, Juan Pablo Ortiz-Rocha, Javier Guerrero-Carrillo, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Bernabe Arcadio-Rubio, Saul Hernandez-Andablo, Samuel Rojo-Andablo, Bonifciao Sanchez-Cobarrubias, Ricardo Santos-Hernandez, Crescencio Hernandez-Martinez, Joel Rubio-Morales, Guadalupe Hernandez-Martinez, Zeferino Hernandez-Martinez, Pedro Hernandez-Hernandez, Domingo Hernandez-Hernandez, Samuel Hernandez-Hernandez, Luis Hernandez-Hernandez, Angel Hernandez-Martinez, Geronimo Martinez-Hernandez, Procoro Demetrio Medina-Hernandez, Juan Hernandez-Cruz, Pedro Victor-Hernandez, Israel Victor-Serna, Manuel Santillan-Alanis, Luis River-Padilla, Julio Rivera-Vaides, Reyno Antonio-Hernandez, Santos Marcelo Damaso-Hernandez, Anastacio Hernandez-Hernadez, Benito Francisco Hernandez-Hernandez, Benjamin Hernandez-Hernandez, Marcelino Francisco Hernandez-Hernandez, Nasario Hernandez-Hernandez, Oscar Antonio Hernandez-Hernandez, Ruben Hernandez-Hernandez, Santos Hernandez-Hernandez, Esau Hernandez-Martinez, Fidel Martinez-Hernandez, Jose Antonio Hernandez-Martinez, Horacio Hernandez-Mejia, Fidel Martinez-Martinez, Crescencio Medina-Martinez, Patricio Medina-Hernandez, Hilario Lorenzo Ramirez-Hernandez, Primitivo Ramirez-Hernandez, Santos Camilo Torres-Hernandez, Lorenzo Guerrero-Chavez, Santos Esteban Hernandez-Hernandez, Santos Martinez-Rubio, Bulmaro Elizalde-Neri, Javier Elizalde-Neri, Rosalio Elizalde-Neri, Elodio Rios-Chavez, Misael Trejo-Ruiz, Patricio Rios Chavez, Odilon Antonio-Camargo, Ramon Palacios-Paredes, Agustin Covarrubias-Hernandez, Esteban Hernandez-Martinez, Hugo Olvera-Gonzalez, Victoriano Manuel Campos-Quezada, Victoriano Manuel Salguero-Gonzalez, Reyes Carlin-Vidal, Horacio Ruia-Rangel, Obispo Cruz-Trejo, Serafin Fernandez-Vite, Juan Olvera-Ruiz, Aandres Hernandez-Hernandez, Mardonio Martinez De La Cruz, Filimon Solis-Velazquez, Omar Sanchez-Covarrubias, Ignacio Fernandez-Cruz, Abel Ciriaco Hernandez-Bautista, Efren Magana-Banales, Felix Mejia-Hernandez, Hector Perez-Carreto, Opt-In Plaintiffs-Appellants, Carmelo Hernandez-Rubio, Juan Jose Hernandez De La Cruz, Movants-Appellants, v. BLAND FARMS, LLC, Michael Hively, Individually, Delbert Bland, Individually, Defendants-Appellees - **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit - **Decided:** November 29, 2012 - **Citations:** 499 F. App'x 897 - **Precedential status:** Unpublished - **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Jordan - **Judges:** Jordan, Hill, Hood - **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9501736 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - affirming holding that defendant did not willfully violate FLSA because defendant’s “procedures demonstrated not only that it knew what its FLSA obligations were, but that it actively sought to ensure that they were met” ## Opinion text JORDAN, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I agree with the majority in all respects but one. In my view, the district court’s lack of explanation for the finding of 30 minutes per week (or 5-6 minutes per day) of compensable time warrants a remand. We have recognized that in certain cases a district court must explain how it reached a specific factual finding for there to be meaningful appellate review. See, e.g., Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1136 (11th Cir.1984) (vacating and remanding because “the district court did not explain how it arrived at the twenty-cent figure” and instructing district court to “provide a full explanation”); Mutual Serv. Ins. Co. v. Frit Indus., Inc., 358 F.3d 1312 , 1326-27 (11th Cir.2004) (“The district court offered no explanation as to how it reached the conclusion that the offshore insurers’ denials were reasonable. Without explanation, it is impossible for us to determine whether or not the district court acted within the bounds of its discretion.”); Imperial Residential Design, Inc. v. Palms Dev. Group, Inc., 29 F.3d 581 , 583 (11th Cir.1994) (per curiam) (“Before we can effectively review this appeal, we need an explanation from the district court about its factual and legal conclusions”). In Carmichael , for example, the panel remanded because the district court, after finding wage discrimination, did not explain how it arrived at its determination of the back pay to be awarded to the plaintiff. See 738 F.2d at 1135 (“The court did not explain how it had arrived at the 20 cents an hour figure.”). The panel noted that the plaintiff had introduced substantial evidence indicating that the amount should be higher than the 20 cent figure but the “trial court’s opinion gives no indication why this evidence was disregarded.” Id. As in Carmichael , a remand is appropriate here. The farmworkers claimed an average deficiency in recorded hours of 2.4 hours per day, but the district court awarded only 5-6 minutes per day. I recognize that the district court rejected some of the farmworkers’ evidence, but that rejection is insufficient, in my view, to permit meaningful appellate review. First, the district court did not provide any explanation for its finding that the farmworkers were underpaid by 30 minutes per week. Second, the finding was not supported by any citation to the record. Third, the 30-minute figure was not proposed by either of the parties, making it all the more difficult to determine where it came from. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9501736. Public record. Not legal advice.