[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 6, 2008
No. 08-10618 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 07-21014-CV-AJ
EUGENIO NAVARRO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BRONEY AUTOMOTIVE REPAIRS, INC.,
STEPHEN ROMNEY,
TILDEN TOTAL CAR CARE CENTER,
ANTHONY BROWN,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(June 6, 2008)
Before MARCUS, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Eugenio Navarro appeals the summary judgment in favor of Broney
Automotive Repairs, Stephen Romney, Tilden Total Car Care Center, and Anthony
Brown and against Navarro’s complaint for unpaid overtime compensation under
the Fair Labor Standards Act. See 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). We review a summary
judgment de novo. Allen v. Bd. of Pub. Educ., 495 F.3d 1306, 1310 (11th Cir.
2007). Navarro argues that he was individually engaged in interstate commerce
because the automotive parts that he transported and used to repair vehicles
continued to flow in interstate commerce until they reached the customers of
Broney Automotive Repairs. We disagree.
Navarro has not established that he was “engaged in commerce” under the
Fair Labor Standards Act. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). To receive overtime
compensation, Navarro had to “participat[e] in the actual movement of persons or
things in interstate commerce.” Thorne v. All Restoration Servs., Inc., 448 F.3d
1264, 1266 (11th Cir. 2006). Navarro’s responsibilities “merely affect[ed]” and
did not implicate interstate commerce. Id.
Navarro was hired to collect motor parts that had been ordered by the
owners of Broney Automotive from local auto parts stores and to use the parts to
repair foreign and domestic vehicles. The automotive parts were removed from the
2
flow of interstate commerce when they arrived at the auto parts stores. See id. at
1267 (“When goods reach the customer for whom they were intended, the
interstate journey ends . . . .”). The later transport and installation of the parts into
the vehicles of Broney’s customers by Navarro was purely intrastate activity and
“not covered under the Act.” Id.
The summary judgment in favor of Broney Automotive is AFFIRMED.
3