Legal Translation Services for FLSA Cases
Legal translators and interpreters are commonly required in cases involving labor/wage disputes in some parts of the country. In Modesta Lopez-Santiago v. Coconut Thai Grill, Court No. 3:13-CV-4268-D, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas Dallas Division, employees of a Thai restaurant filed a lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards Act against their employer for unpaid wages.
Although the plaintiffs initially field the lawsuit seeking recovery under both individual and enterprise coverage theories, the plaintiffs later filed a notice stating that they intended to pursue only an “enterprise” theory of recovery. According to the FLSA, an “enterprise” is defined as an entity engaged in commerce or the production of goods for commerce whose annual gross volume of sales is not less than $500,000. 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1).
After the case had been pending for a period of time, the plaintiffs filed a motion to extend the discovery deadline and the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The defendants’ motion for summary judgment argued that the plaintiffs could not demonstrate that the defendants had annual sales of $500,000 or more, which the plaintiffs were required to establish pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 203(s)(1) in order to pursue their “enterprise” theory. In response to the defendants’ motion, the plaintiffs sought additional time in which to conduct discovery so that they could provide sufficient evidence to satisfy the $500,000 threshold.
English to Thai Deposition Interpreting Services
In their motion, the plaintiffs stated that due to difficulties locating and scheduling a Thai deposition interpreter, the defendants’ depositions were not completed until late in the discovery phase. The plaintiffs further claimed that during the depositions, additional witnesses were identified who had knowledge of the defendants’ annual revenue including previously undisclosed accountants with knowledge of the documents included in defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
In response to the plaintiffs’ motion to extend the discovery deadline, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs were not diligent in pursuing discovery. The defendants further asserted that they were not an enterprise due to the fact that they did not meet the $500,000 in sales threshold necessary for plaintiffs to pursue their legal theory. Nevertheless, the court held that the plaintiffs should be given additional time in which to complete discovery and response to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment due to the specific circumstances of the case.
In particular, the court found that due to the difficulties in locating and scheduling one of the defendant’s depositions as a result of his need for a Thai interpreter, the other defendants’ depositions were consequently delayed. The court also noted that the defendants had requested additional time in which to complete discovery due to difficulties in locating the Thai interpreter before the defendants filed their motion for summary judgment.
Accordingly, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for additional time to respond to defendants’ motion for summary judgment and extended the discovery deadline accordingly.
For assistance with deposition interpreting services in all languages, including Mandingo (also spelled: Mandinka), Cantonese, Russian, Tagalog, Farsi, Telugu, Romanian, Korean, Nepali, and more contact our legal translation service in Denver, Colorado, today.
This legal translation blog article is provided for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. You should always consult an attorney regarding your specific legal needs.