Gonzalez v. TZ Insurance Solutions LLC
Filing
25
ORDER denying 8 motion to dismiss. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 1/10/2014. (KAK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
BARRY GONZALEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 8:13-cv-2098-T-33EAJ
TZ INSURANCE SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Defendant.
______________________________/
ORDER
This cause is before the Court pursuant to Defendant TZ
Insurance Solutions, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 8), filed
on September 10, 2013.
Plaintiff Barry Gonzalez filed a
Response in Opposition to the Motion (Doc. # 13) on September
24, 2013.
For the reasons that follow, the Court denies the
Motion to Dismiss.
I.
Background
Gonzalez
was
employed
by
TZ
Insurance
as
a
sales
specialist from June 7, 2011, through September 15, 2011.
(Doc. # 1 at ¶¶ 24-25). Gonzalez was paid an hourly rate of
$15.00
plus
commissions.
(Id.
at
¶
26).
TZ
Insurance
classified its sales specialists as eligible for overtime
compensation; however, Gonzalez indicates that TZ Insurance
failed to pay overtime compensation for time spent “open[ing]
and clos[ing] multiple computer software applications prior to
logging in and beginning their work shifts.” (Id. at ¶ 30).
On August 14, 2013, Gonzalez filed his putative class
action Complaint against TZ Insurance alleging violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act (Count I); unjust enrichment
(Count II); and declaratory relief (Count III).
TZ Insurance
seeks dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P.
II.
Legal Standard
On a motion to dismiss, this Court accepts as true all
the allegations in the complaint and construes them in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff.
Jackson v. Bellsouth
Telecomms., 372 F.3d 1250, 1262 (11th Cir. 2004).
Further,
this Court favors the plaintiff with all reasonable inferences
from the allegations in the complaint.
Stephens v. Dep’t of
Health & Human Servs., 901 F.2d 1571, 1573 (11th Cir. 1990)
(“On a motion to dismiss, the facts stated in [the] complaint
and all reasonable inferences therefrom are taken as true.”).
However, the Supreme Court explains that:
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. Factual allegations must be enough to
raise a right to relief above the speculative
level.
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)(internal
citations omitted).
In addition, courts are not “bound to
2
accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual
allegation.” Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986).
Furthermore, “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause
of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009).
III. Analysis
A.
TZ
FLSA
Insurance
asserts
Gonzalez’s FLSA claim.
a
two-pronged
attack
against
Defendant contends (1) that the FLSA
allegations are lacking in sufficient detail and (2) that any
hours worked prior to August 14, 2011, are barred by FLSA’s
two-year statute of limitations.
arguments.
The Court rejects both
The Complaint alleges that Gonzalez, a non-exempt
employee, worked for TZ Insurance for a specific duration and
was not compensated for certain overtime work (specifically,
opening and closing computer programs).
TZ Insurance notes
various ambiguities within the Complaint and suggests that
Gonzalez’s failure to provide specific dates and times for the
alleged overtime violations is fatal to Gonzalez’s claim. The
Court disagrees and determines that the Complaint passes
muster at this early stage of the proceedings. See Sec’y of
Labor
v.
Labbe,
319
F.
App’x
761,
763
(11th
Cir.
2008)(reversing the dismissal of a FLSA action and explaining
3
that “[t]he requirements to state a claim of a FLSA violation
are quite straight forward.
The elements that must be shown
are simply a failure to pay overtime compensation and/or
minimum wages to covered employees. . . . There is no need to
prove intent or causation that might require more extensive
pleading.”).
Along the same lines, the Court denies TZ Insurance’s
request for an order barring all claims that accrued prior to
the
expiration
Gonzalez
of
alleges
the
in
two-year
the
statute
Complaint
of
that
limitations.
TZ
Insurance
“knowingly, willingly, or with reckless disregard carried out
its illegal pattern or practice of failing to pay overtime
wages” and “acted willfully in failing to pay Plaintiff and
the class members in accordance with the law.” (Id. at ¶¶ 4344).
It is well known that the FLSA’s statute of limitations
increases
violations.
to
three
years
for
29 U.S.C. § 255(a).
claims
involving
willful
At the Rule 12(b)(6) stage,
the Court accepts Gonzalez’s allegation that TZ Insurance
willfully violated the FLSA. See Puleo v. SMG Prop. Mgmt., No.
6:08-cv-86-Orl-22DAB, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66582, at *3 (M.D.
Fla.
Aug.
20,
2008)(denying
motion
to
dismiss
based
on
application of the two year statute of limitations in a FLSA
case and noting that “a general allegation of willfulness is
4
sufficient.”).
The Court declines to limit Gonzalez to the
two year statute of limitations at this juncture and denies
the Motion to Dismiss as to Gonzalez’s FLSA claim.
B.
Unjust Enrichment
Both Gonzalez and TZ Insurance correctly recite the
elements required to set forth a cause of action for unjust
enrichment under Florida law: (1) the plaintiff has conferred
a benefit on the defendant; (2) the defendant has knowledge of
the benefit; (3) the defendant has accepted or retained the
benefit conferred; and (4) the circumstances are such that it
would be inequitable for the defendant to retain the benefit
without paying fair value for it. Baptista v. JP Morgan Chase
Bank, NA, 640 F.3d 1194, 1198 n.3 (11th Cir. 2011).
It is not
disputed that Gonzalez’s Complaint alleges each of these
required elements.
Nevertheless, TZ Insurance seeks dismissal of Gonzalez’s
unjust enrichment count on the basis that Gonzalez failed to
allege that there is no legal remedy available.
However,
“under Florida law, the requirement to plead that no adequate
remedy at law exists does not apply to claims for unjust
enrichment.”
Brett v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., No.
6:08-cv-1168-Orl-28GJK, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114462, at *24
(M.D. Fla. Aug, 29, 2008).
See also Williams v. Bear Stearns
5
& Co., 725 So. 2d 397, 400 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)(“There is no
dispute that under Florida law, the general rule is that if
the complaint on its face shows that adequate legal remedies
exist, equitable remedies are not available.
However, this
doctrine does not apply to claims for unjust enrichment.”).
Furthermore, “[i]t is only in cases where an express contract
exists that a party must plead that no adequate remedy at law
exists.” Brett, at * 25.
In this case, neither party has
alleged
contract
that
an
express
exists.
Furthermore,
Gonzalez explains that his unjust enrichment claim is separate
and apart from (and not covered by or preempted by his FLSA
claim) because there are some weeks in which he was paid the
minimum wage, did not work over 40 hours, but nonetheless,
worked hours for which he was not compensated.
The Court
accordingly declines to dismiss Gonzalez’s unjust enrichment
claim.
C.
TZ
Declaratory Judgment
Insurance
declaratory
relief
contends
should
that
be
Gonzalez’s
dismissed
request
because
it
for
is
duplicative of the other counts asserted in the Complaint and
because
Gonzalez
requests
“a
general
declaration
that
regurgitates the federal law on overtime.” (Doc. # 8 at 10).
The Court agrees that there is a possibility that the remedies
6
day of January, 2014.
Copies: All Counsel of Record
8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?