Enriquez v. G.D. Barri & Associates Incorporated et al

Filing 31

ORDER: The Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (Doc. 29 ) is denied. See order for details. Signed by Judge Michael T. Liburdi on 11/14/2023. (LMR)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Enrico Enriquez,
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

G.D. Barri & Associates Incorporated, et al.,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

No. CV-23-00611-PHX-MTL
ORDER

Defendants.
Defendant moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint. A reply brief is not necessary,
nor is oral argument necessary. The Court finds as follows:
1.

The Amended Complaint does not impermissibly rely on the previously filed

case, Gardner v. G.D. Barri & Associates, Inc., CV-20-01518-PHX-ROS. The Amended
Complaint makes a single reference to this case by way of background. It does not, as
Defendant contends, attempt to invoke the case as favorable precedent or ask this Court to
give it preclusive effect.
2.

The Amended Complaint satisfies the pleading standards for the Fair Labor

Standards Act, Rule 8, Fed. R. Civ. P., and the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Landers v.
Quality Communications, Inc., 771 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2014). For example, the Amended
Complaint alleges several instances where Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours per week
without overtime compensation. (See Doc. 26 ¶¶ 57-74.)
3.

The Court reaffirms its prior holding that the Amended Complaint need not

anticipate affirmative defenses. See Thompson v. Eldorado Coffee Roasters, Ltd., 246 F.
Supp. 3d 697, 703 (E.D.N.Y. 2017).

1

Accordingly,

2

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (Doc. 29) is

3
4

denied.
Dated this 14th day of November, 2023.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-