Jose Zamora v. Enterprise Rac of Maryland, LLC

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-2278
JOSE ZAMORA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ENTERPRISE RAC OF MARYLAND, LLC,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:20-cv-00478-LMB-MSN)
Submitted: September 27, 2021 Decided: September 30, 2021
Before MOTZ, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas F. Hennessy, III, THE HENNELLAW LAW FIRM, PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for
Appellant. Edward Lee Isler, Steven W. Ray, ISLER DARE P.C., Vienna, Virginia; Amy
E. Smith, ISLER DARE, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jose Zamora, a former non-exempt hourly employee of Enterprise RAC of
Maryland (“Enterprise”) filed the underlying amended complaint against Enterprise,
asserting a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-
219. Zamora alleged that Enterprise failed to correctly calculate his overtime pay.
After two hearings on Enterprise’s motion to dismiss, the district court dismissed
the amended complaint in its entirety, finding that Zamora failed to show that he was not
properly paid in accordance with FLSA overtime regulations. And, because it found that
Zamora’s attorney had unreasonably continued to litigate the case despite the clear lack of
merit to the claim, the district court ordered counsel to reimburse Enterprise $26,355.28 in
attorney’s fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1297. Zamora appeals.
We have reviewed the record included on appeal as well as the parties’ briefs and
we find no reversible error with respect to either order. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court . Zamora v. Enterprise RAC of Md,, No. 1:20-cv-00478-
LMB-MSN (E.D. Va. Oct. 26, 2020; Dec. 7, 2020). We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --