United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
ZAINEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
(Rec. Doc. 16) filed by Defendants. Plaintiffs oppose the
Motion. (Rec. Doc. 21). The Motion, set for submission on
April 19, 2017, is before the Court on the briefs without
Cherissa Cabahug and Gina Ramos, assert claims against their
former employers under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(“FLSA”), Louisiana's Last Paycheck Act law,
Louisiana's Timely Payment law, and for invasion of
privacy. (Rec. Doc. 1). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants
failed to compensate Plaintiffs for services performed, which
Plaintiffs requested from Defendants following their
termination in 2016. On January 9, 2017, Plaintiffs filed
their Complaint against Defendants. Defendants filed the
instant Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State Claim alleging
that Plaintiffs' Complaint does not satisfy the minimum
standards to plead an FLSA claim. (Rec. Doc. 21).
central issue in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is
whether, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the
Complaint states a valid claim for relief. Gentilello v.
Rege, 627 F.3d 540, 544 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Doe
v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d 413, 418 (5th Cir. 2008). To
avoid dismissal, a plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to
"state a claim for relief that is plausible on its
face." Id. (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)). "A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."
Id. The Court does not accept as true
"conclusory allegations, unwarranted factual inferences,
or legal conclusions." Id. (quoting Plotkin
v. IP Axess, Inc., 407 F.3d 690, 696 (5th Cir. 2005)).
Legal conclusions must be supported by factual allegations.
Id. (quoting Ashroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009)).
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that plaintiffs give
a “short plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has
noted that the requirements of Rule 8(a) are relaxed and
minimal, and fulfilled by simply giving defendants fair
notice of a plaintiff's claim and the grounds on which it
rests. General Electric Capital Corp. v. Posey, 415
F.3d 391, 396-97 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing Swierkiewicz v.
Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002)). Additionally, in
this Circuit, neither the notice requirements under Rule
8(a)(2) nor the dismissal standards under Rule 12(b)(6)
“require a claimant to set out in detail the facts upon
which he bases his claim.” Williams v. United
Credit Plan of Chalmette, Inc., 526 F.2d 713, 714 (5th
Defendants assert that Plaintiffs' FLSA claims should be
dismissed because they don't allege that Defendants
failed to pay minimum wage or overtime. Second, Defendants
assert that Plaintiffs' Fair Labor Standards Act claims
should be dismissed because they fail to allege any facts to
show FLSA coverage. Finally, should the Court dismiss
Plaintiffs' FLSA claims, Defendants argue that the Court
should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
Plaintiffs' state-law claims.
Labor Standards Act - Minimum Wage and Overtime ]
assert that Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a valid
claim for relief, arguing that Plaintiffs' Complaint does
not allege that Defendants failed to pay them minimum wage or
overtime. Plaintiffs contend that their Complaint
sufficiently alleges a valid FLSA claim, and that FLSA
plaintiffs are not required to plead a precise amount for
unpaid overtime wages.
state a claim for unpaid overtime wages under the FLSA, a
plaintiff must plead “1) that there existed an
employer-employee relationship during the unpaid ... periods
claimed; 2) that the employee engaged in activities within
the coverage of the FLSA; 3) that the employer violated the
FLSA's overtime wage requirements; and 4) the amount of
overtime compensation due.” Johnson v. Heckmann
Water Resources, Inc., 758 F.3d 627, 630 (5th Cir.
argue that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for unpaid
overtime wages or minimum wages because their Complaint does
not reference unpaid overtime or failure to pay
minimum wage. (Rec. Doc. 24) (emphasis added).
Instead, “both Plaintiffs allege that defendants
reduced their salaries, withheld monthly salary, and deducted
wages.” (Rec. Doc. 24). Defendants are correct in their
assertion that Plaintiffs' response to Defendants'
motion alleges that they seek “all unpaid overtime
wages, ” while their Complaint only states that they
demand their “unpaid wages.” (Rec. Doc. 21, Pg.
2-3) (Rec. Doc. 1, Pg. 11). However, as Defendants themselves
state, at the very least Plaintiffs should be required to
amend their Complaint to adequately allege FLSA violations.
Court can grant the plaintiff leave to amend the Complaint
“when justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
15(a)(2). District courts have discretion to grant leave to
amend, but the federal rules favor granting leave over
denying it. See Jamieson By & Through Jamieson v.
Shaw, 772 F.2d 1205, 1208 (5th Cir. 1985).
Justifications for denying leave to amend include
“undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, repeated
failure to cure deficiencies by prior amendment, undue
prejudice to the opposing party, and the futility of the
amendment.” Id. Allowing a plaintiff to amend
a Complaint is “futile” when “the amended
Complaint would fail to state a claim upon which relief could
be granted.” Stripling v. Jordan Prod. Co.,
LLC, 234 F.3d 863, 873 (5th Cir. 2000). Here, there is no
indication that allowing Plaintiffs to amend their Complaint
would be futile. Plaintiffs' Complaint specifically
alleges that Defendants violated the FLSA and gave facts
detailing Defendants' alleged violation, but simply fails
to include the word ove ...