United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
ORDER & REASONS
the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss, R. Doc. 5.
Plaintiff responds in opposition, R. Doc. 7. Having
considered the parties' briefs and the applicable law,
the Court issues this Order & Reasons.
February 2015 to January 2017, Plaintiff Jennifer Trigueros
was employed by Defendants New Orleans City
(“City”) and Coroner Jeffrey Rouse
(“Rouse”) as a death investigator. R. Doc. 1 at
2. The position of death investigator was classified as
exempt from overtime and Plaintiff was not paid overtime
though she was often required to work more than 40 hours per
week. R. Doc. 1 at 3. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
misclassified her job position and that she was entitled to
overtime wages. R. Doc. 1 at 3. Plaintiff further alleges
that she was terminated from her position because she
complained about the lack of overtime wages on Facebook. R.
Doc. 1 at 3-4. Plaintiff brings claims for overtime wages and
damages for retaliatory termination under the FLSA. R. Doc. 1
at 4. Plaintiff additionally brings claims for overtime and
vacation pay under the LWPA. R. Doc. 1 at 5.
New Orleans City answers the complaint generally denying
Plaintiff's allegations. R. Doc. 6. City also asserts the
following defenses: failure to state a claim, prescription,
and failure to mitigate. R. Doc. 6 at 1.
Rouse has filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim. R. Doc. 5. First, Defendant argues that the FLSA does
not apply to Plaintiff's claims because she only worked
in intrastate commerce. R. Doc. 5 at 4-5. Defendant claims
that Plaintiff only worked within Orleans Parish and was not
connected with interstate commerce. R. Doc. 5 at 5. Second,
and in the alternative, Defendant argues that if the FLSA
does apply it preempts Plaintiff's Louisiana state law
claims. R. Doc. 5 at 5. Third, Defendant argues that
Plaintiff has not alleged a protected activity under the
FLSA. R. Doc. 5 at 6. Defendant argues that posting to
Facebook is not a protected activity because does not qualify
as “filing a complaint” under the FLSA. R. Doc. 5
at 6-7. Finally, Defendant argues that he is entitled to
qualified immunity and state statutory immunity. R. Doc. 5 at
responds in opposition arguing that she has clearly alleged
that Defendant is subject to and has violated the FLSA. R.
Doc. 7 at 3. Plaintiff argues that it is too early to dismiss
her claims based on the information in Defendant's motion
because she has made the asserted allegations in her
complaint. Plaintiff requests that if any portion of her
complaint is deficient she be allowed to amend. R. Doc. 7 at
LAW & ANALYSIS
Motion to Dismiss Standard
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit a defendant to seek a
dismissal of a complaint based on the “failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6). A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to
state a claim “unless it appears beyond doubt that the
plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim
which would entitle him to relief.” Conley v.
Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). Generally, when
evaluating a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the
court should not look past the pleadings.
survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007)). The district court must construe facts in the light
most favorable to the nonmoving party and must accept as true
all factual allegations contained in the complaint.
Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678. “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. A court “do[es] not accept as true
conclusory allegations, unwarranted factual inferences, or
legal conclusions.” Plotkin v. IP Axess Inc.,
407 F.3d 690, 696 (5th Cir. 2005).
the Court has been provided only the bare bones facts in
Plaintiff's complaint. Therefore, the Court finds that it
does not have sufficient information to make a determination
regarding Defendant's motion to dismiss. It is
appropriate in this case to allow the Plaintiff to amend her