Solis v. Dish Network L.L.C.

Filing 33

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint 16 is DENIED. by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 8/15/11.(msksec, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Honorable Marcia S. Krieger
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02009-MSK-KLM
HILDA SOLIS, SECRETARY OF LABOR, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Plaintiff,
v.
DISH NETWORK L.L.C., d/b/a DISH NETWORK,
Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint (#16), to which Plaintiff responded (#23), and Defendant replied (#24).
Having considered the same, the Court FINDS and CONCLUDES the following.
I.

Jurisdiction

The Court exercises subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1345.
II.

Issue Presented

Plaintiff asserts claims for injunctive relief against Defendant DISH Network L.L.C.,
d/b/a DISH Network (“DISH Network”) for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938, as amended, (“FLSA”). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that DISH Network has failed to
pay certain employees overtime compensation as required by the FLSA.
III.

Material Facts

At issue is the sufficiency of the allegations contained in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
(#15). Plaintiff alleges that DISH Network has violated the FLSA by requiring certain

employees, identified by name in an attachment to the Amended Complaint, to work longer than
40 hours per week without compensating these employees at overtime rates. Specifically,
Plaintiff alleges that DISH Network “permitted employees to work ‘off-the-clock’ by not
compensating them for work time spent, on a routine, daily basis, logging on to computers,
opening programs, etc., prior to activating the time-keeping system.” Amended Complaint, ¶ V.
Plaintiff further alleges that this violation was wilful because Plaintiff had previously
investigated DISH Network for this practice and DISH Network had assured Plaintiff that such
“off-the-clock” work would be eradicated. Id. Plaintiff alleges additional derivative violations
of the FLSA, including failure to maintain adequate records showing the “off-the-clock” work.
Finally, Plaintiff alleges the specific amount of overtime due each employee, as shown in the
attachment to the Amended Complaint.
IV.

Analysis

DISH Network moves for dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. There is a strong presumption against dismissal
for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). See Cottrell, Ltd. v. Biotrol Int’l, Inc., 191 F.3d
1248, 1251 (10th Cir. 1999). However, a claim must be dismissed if the complaint does not
contain enough facts to make the claim “plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is plausible on its face if the complaint contains sufficient
facts for a court to draw an inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. See
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing id. at 556). Although a plaintiff is not
required to include detailed factual allegations in a complaint, the complaint must contain “more
than labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” and
must “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. In

reviewing a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), a court should accept, as true, all well-pleaded facts
and construe all reasonable allegations in the light most favorable to a plaintiff. Smith v. United
States, 561 F.3d 1090, 1098 (10th Cir. 2009).
DISH Network argues that the Amended Complaint contains no more than conclusory
allegations and that there are no specific facts pled from which this Court could reasonably find
that DISH Network violated the FLSA. DISH Network’s argument is unavailing. Under Rule 8,
a plaintiff must make a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The general purpose of Rule 8 pleading requirements
“is to give the defendant fair notice of the claims against him without requiring the plaintiff to
have every legal theory or fact developed in detail before the complaint is filed and the parties
have opportunity for discovery.” Evans v. McDonald’s Corp., 936 F.2d 1087, 1091 (10th Cir.
1991). Here, Plaintiff has identified exactly the manner in which she alleges that the FLSA has
been violated, i.e., by Defendant’s failure to compensate employees for off-the-clock preparatory
work such as logging on to computers and opening computer programs. Although minimal in
description, this goes beyond mere legal conclusion and provides adequate notice to DISH
Network of the conduct allegedly giving rise to liability. Moreover, if true, these facts would
plausibly give rise to a violation under FLSA. Salazar v. Butterball, LLC, 644 F.3d 1130 (10th
Cir. 2011) (the FLSA generally requires employees be paid at overtime rates for hours worked in
excess of forty in a workweek; workweek may include activities performed prior to a regular
shift if they are an integral and indispensable part of the employees’ principal activities).
Plaintiff also refers to a previous investigation of such activities, which is presumably within the
knowledge of DISH Network and provides further notice of the factual basis of the complaint.
Significantly, Plaintiff provides the names of the specific employees who were allegedly injured

by this practice and the amount allegedly owed to each. DISH Network has fair notice of the
claims against it and of the factual basis of those claims.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint (#16) is DENIED.
Dated this 10th day of August, 2011
BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger
United States District Judge