HUDGENS v. WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP INC et al

Filing 23

ORDER denying 15 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by JUDGE RICHARD SMOAK on 10/29/2014. (jcw)

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
WAYMON HUDGENS, on behalf of
Himself and all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 5:14-cv-200-RS-EMT

WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP,
INC., a Foreign Profit Corporation,
WYNDHAM VACATION RESPORTS, INC., a
Delaware Corporation, WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE
OPERATIONS, INC., a Foreign Profit
Corporation,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER
Before me are Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (Doc.
15), and Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition (Doc. 22). The relief requested in
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (Doc. 15) is DENIED.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
To overcome a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to
state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). Granting a motion to dismiss is appropriate if it is
clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proven

Page 2 of 4

consistent with the allegations of the complaint. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467
U.S. 69, 104 S. Ct. 2229, 2232 (1984).
The Supreme Court has clarified the specificity of pleading required to
survive a motion to dismiss:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need only
“‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47
(1957)).
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007). A complaint thus “does not need
detailed factual allegations.” Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. at 555.
On the other hand, a conclusory recitation of the elements of a cause of
action is insufficient. A complaint must include more than “labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
do.” Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. at 555. A complaint must include “allegations
plausibly suggesting (not merely consistent with)” the plaintiff’s entitlement to
relief. Id. at 557.
BACKGROUND
While considering a motion to dismiss, I must construe all allegations in the
complaint as true and in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Shands Teaching
Hosp. and Clinics, Inc. v. Beech Street Corp., 208 F.3d 1308, 1310 (11th Cir.

Page 3 of 4

2000) (citing Lowell v. American Cyanamid Co., 177 F.3d 1228, 1229 (11th Cir.
1999)).
In Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that from September
2012 to June 2013, Plaintiff worked as a licensed “In House” sales representative
for Defendants and was paid the Florida statutory minimum wage, plus
commissions in exchange for work performed. Although Defendants classified
Plaintiff as non-exempt and eligible for overtime under the FLSA, Defendants
required Plaintiff to routinely work off-the-clock to avoid on-the-clock hours that
exceeded more than forty per week. Despite being off-the-clock, Plaintiff routinely
worked in excess of forty hours per week as part of his regular job duties.
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and others similarly-situated sales representatives
overtime compensation at a rate of time and a half of their regular rate of pay for
all hours worked over forty in a workweek.
ANALYSIS
The Eleventh Circuit has held that to survive a motion to dismiss a claim of
a Fair Labor Standards Act violation, a plaintiff has to show that there was either a
failure to pay overtime compensation to covered employees, or a failure to keep
payroll records pursuant to the Act. Sec’y of Labor v. Labbe, 319 F. App'x 761,
763 (11th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that while Plaintiff was
employed with Defendants, Plaintiff routinely worked more than forty hours per

Page 4 of 4

workweek, and Defendants failed to pay him overtime compensation. Accordingly,
taking the allegations in the complaint as true, the relief requested in Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (Doc. 15) is DENIED.
CONCLUSION
The relief requested in Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
(Doc. 15) is DENIED.

ORDERED on October 29, 2014.
/s/ Richard Smoak
RICHARD SMOAK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE