United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
OSCAR VALLE, et al, on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated
v.
BEAURYNE BUILDERS LLC, et al
RULING
SHELLY
D. DICK UNITED JUDGE
Before
the Court is a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss or in the
alternative Rule 12(e) Motion for More Definite
Statement filed by Defendants Galindo Z Construction,
LLC, (“Galindo Construction”) and Jose Galindo
(“Galindo”) or (collectively the
“Defendants”).[1] Plaintiff, Oscar Valle
(“Valle”), filed an Opposition[2] to which
Defendants filed a Reply.[3] Subsequent to the filing of
the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs amended their
Complaint. The Amended Complaint
incorporates by reference all of the allegations of the
original Complaint and adds three additional
Plaintiffs, Fred Reyes, Jose Gutierrez, and Edwin
Bonilla.[4] Defendants then filed another Rule
12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative Rule 12(e)
Motion for More Definite Statement as to the Amended
Complaint.[5] Plaintiffs filed an
Opposition[6] to which Defendants filed a
Reply.[7] The memorandum in support of the
Motion to Dismiss, the Opposition, and the
Reply regarding the Amended Complaint are
identical to those filed in response to the original
Complaint. Therefore, the Court will address both
below. For the reasons that follow, the Defendants'
Motions shall be DENIED.
I.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE
Plaintiff
Valle instituted the current litigation, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, asserting claims for failure
to pay overtime wages and retaliation in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, (“FLSA”).[8] Since filing his
initial Complaint on April 28, 2017, Valle amended
to include three new Plaintiffs.[9] Plaintiffs allege that they
were employed by Defendants as general construction laborers
who performed work on two apartment complex renovation
projects in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.[10]
Plaintiffs
further allege that “Defendants willfully violated the
overtime provisions of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207(a) by
not paying … employees one-and-a-half times their
regular rate for all hours worked in excess of forty in a
workweek from at least March 2014 and continuing until the
present.”[11] Additionally, Plaintiffs allege
Defendants retaliated against them for filing these
proceedings by contacting immigration officials in violation
of § 215(a)(3) of the FLSA.[12]
Defendants
argue that Plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed because
the Complaint (1) fails to allege the details needed
to establish that a putative class exists, (2) fails to
allege the existence of an employer-employee relationship,
(3) fails to specify the amount of overtime compensation due,
and (4) fails to plead facts to show a prima
facie claim for retaliation.[13] In the
alternative, Defendants move for a more definite statement
under Rule 12(e).[14]
II.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
A.
Rule 12(b)(6)
When
deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, “[t]he
‘court accepts all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing
them in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff.'”[15] The Court may consider “the
complaint, its proper attachments, documents incorporated
into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court
may take judicial notice.”[16] “To survive a Rule
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must plead
‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.'”[17] In Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, the United States Supreme Court set
forth the basic criteria necessary for a complaint to survive
a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.[18] “While a complaint
attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need
detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to
provide the ‘grounds' of his ‘entitlement to
relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do.”[19] A complaint is also insufficient if it
merely “tenders ‘naked assertion[s]' devoid
of ‘further factual
enhancement.'”[20] However, “[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.”[21] In order to satisfy the plausibility
standard, the plaintiff must show “more than a sheer
possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully.”[22] “Furthermore, while the court must
accept well-pleaded facts as true, it will not ‘strain
to find inferences favorable to the
plaintiff.'”[23] On a motion to dismiss, courts
“are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion
couched as a factual allegation.”[24]
B.
Collective Action Under the FLSA
The
Court will first address the sufficiency of the collective
action allegations. § 216(b) of the FLSA authorizes a
plaintiff to bring a collective action on behalf of persons
who are “similarly situated” to the plaintiff,
provided those persons who desire to become a party to the
action file a written consent with the court.[25] However,
courts are in disagreement about whether a plaintiff who
claims to represent similarly situated individuals under
§ 216(b) must plead facts to support the propriety of a
collective action to defeat a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion.[26] The Court finds that a challenge to the
procedural process employed in wages cases, such as this, is
best addressed at the certification stage. In particular, the
Court agrees with the rationale applied by the Eastern
District of Louisiana in Lang v. DirecTV, which held
as follows:
The Court finds that defendants' motion to dismiss is
premature because plaintiffs have not moved for certification
and have had no opportunity to develop a record. This
challenge on the pleadings seeks to end-run the certification
process by trying certification on the face of the
complaint.[27]
Addressing
the certification issue at a later time is further warranted
in this case as Plaintiffs have moved for conditional class
certification.[28] Accordingly, Defendants' Motions
to Dismiss Plaintiffs' collective action allegations
are DENIED at this time.
C.
Overtime Compensation under the FLSA
The
FLSA provides that “no employer shall employ any of his
employees ... for a workweek longer than forty hours unless
such employee receives compensation for his employment in
excess of the hours above specified at a rate not less than
one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is
employed.”[29] An employee bringing an action for
unpaid overtime compensation must first demonstrate by a
preponderance of the evidence: (1) that there existed an
employer-employee relationship during the unpaid overtime
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.[30]
Defendants'
Motions challenge whether the Plaintiffs have met
their burden under Iqbal and Twombly as to
the first and fourth elements. The Court will discuss each in
turn.
i.
Employer-Employee Relationship
The
FLSA provides that “[a]ny employer who violates [the
Act] shall be liable to the employee or employees affected in
the amount of … their unpaid overtime
compensation.”[31] The FLSA broadly defines an
“employer” as “any person acting directly
or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to
an employee.”[32] The FLSA's implementing regulations
specifically contemplate an employee having more than one
employer.[33] The Fifth Circuit has noted “that
under the FLSA an individual can be employed by one employer
or by more than one joint employer.”[34] To determine
whether a defendant is an “employer” under the
FLSA, courts use an “economic reality test, ”
which considers whether the alleged employees, “as a
matter of economic reality, ” are “economically
dependent upon the business to which [they] render[] [their]
services.”[35]This is a fact intensive
inquiry[36] requiring courts to consider whether the
alleged employer “(1) possessed the power to hire and
fire the employees, (2) supervised and controlled employee
work schedules or conditions of employment, (3) determined
the rate and method of payment, and (4) maintained employment
records.”[37]
Plaintiffs'
Amended Complaint alleges that Galindo Construction
supervised their day to day activities, determined their work
schedules, and maintained their employment
files.[38] Additonally, Plaintiffs allege that
Galindo is the owner of Galindo Construction, he had
authority to hire and fire Galindo Construction employees,
and he maintained executive authority over the jobs Galindo
Construction employees were provided, including the location,
duration, and rate of pay for those jobs.[39] Several
courts within the Fifth Circuit have found similar
allegations sufficient to defeat a Rule 12(b)(6) motion,
[40]
and Defendants have not cited to any authority to support
otherwise. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiffs'
Complaint and Amended Complaint contain
sufficient facts to defeat a Rule 12(b)(6)motion regarding
the employer-employee relationship.
ii.
Amount of Overtime Compensation Due
Defendants
argue that Plaintiffs have failed to plead with specificity
the amount of overtime compensation due. Our brothers in the
Eastern District have found that “a plaintiff
sufficiently pleads [the amount of overtime compensation due]
by alleging sufficient facts to put the defendant on notice
as to the approximate date ranges, as well as the approximate
number of hours worked.”[41]
Here,
each Plaintiff has alleged the dates on which he was employed
by Defendants, the approximate number of hours worked per
week, the amount of regular wage made per hour, and that each
Plaintiff was paid the same amount for every hour worked in
excess of forty in any particular week.[42] As such, the
Court finds that Plaintiffs have properly satisfied the
pleading requirements to place Defendants on sufficient
notice of the amount of overtime compensation
due.[43]
D.
Discrimination under the FLSA
Defendants
also argue that Plaintiffs have failed to allege the specific
facts necessary to make a prima facie showing for a
retaliation claim under 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3). The FLSA
makes it unlawful to “discharge or in any other manner
discriminate against any employee because such employee has
filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted
any proceeding under or related to this chapter, or has
testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding, or
has served or is about to serve on an industry
committee…”[44] In order to establish a retaliation
claim, “a plaintiff must make a prima ...