Brea v. Heartland Express Incorporated of Iowa

Filing 17

ORDER that Defendant's 12 Motion to Dismiss is denied. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 04/08/11.(ESL)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Heartland Express, Inc. of Iowa, an Iowa)
)
corporation,
)
)
Defendant.
)
Rafael Brea,

No. CV-11-00042-PHX-GMS
ORDER

15
16
Pending before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12), filed by Defendant
17
Heartland Express, Inc. For the following reasons, the Court denies the Motion.
18
BACKGROUND
19
Plaintiff Rafael Brea filed a Complaint (Doc. 1), on January 6, 2011 asserting that
20
Defendant did not compensate him for overtime wages. Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime hours
21
that he worked from “the week beginning January 5, 2009 through the week ending February
22
26, 2010” (Doc. 1, ¶ 13), totaling “at least $37,253.48.” (Doc. 1 at 6). Defendant then filed
23
a Motion to Dismiss alleging that Plaintiff did not state a claim upon which relief can be
24
granted. (Doc. 12). Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s ambiguous Complaint appeared to
25
request payment for overtime wages dating back more than two years since the filing of the
26
Complaint, which violates the statute of limitations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
27
(“FLSA”). (Id.). Defendant contends that “Count One of Plaintiff’s Complaint seeks unpaid
28

1

overtime compensation under the FLSA for the time period from October 13, 2003 to

2

February 26, 2010” even though Plaintiff is only entitled to relief dating back to January 6,

3

2009. (Id.).

4

ANALYSIS

5

The statute of limitations for an FLSA action has been codified in 29 U.S.C. § 255. Under

6

§ 255, an action must be commenced ‘”within two years after the cause of action accrued.”

7

Plaintiff has conceded that he is only asking for overtime pay dating back to January 6, 2009,

8

which is within the two-year statute of limitations prescribed by FLSA.1 Therefore, the Court

9

will construe the Complaint as limiting the FLSA time period to between January 6, 2009

10

and February 26, 2010. Although Plaintiff refers to damages in the amount of “at least

11

$37,253.48,” he is still limited by the two-year time period.

12

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12) is

13

DENIED.

14

DATED this 8th day of April, 2011.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

In its Reply, Defendant raises for the first time the issue of whether Plaintiff, in his
Complaint, is requesting overtime pay starting on January 5, 2009. The Court need not
address this issue both because Defendant raises it for the first time in its Reply and because
Plaintiff has already conceded that the period of overtime pay he is requesting begins on
January 6, 2009. See Bazuaye v. I.N.S., 79 F.3d 118, 120 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised for
the first time in the reply brief are waived.”).
-2-