White v. Garcia et al
Filing
36
OPINION AND ORDER denying 31 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 3/6/2012. (ir)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 11-60771-CIV-MARRA
THELMA WHITE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
INGER GARCIA and
LEGAL SEARCH SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant’s, Inger Garcia (“Garcia”), Motion to
Dismiss (DE 31). Plaintiff Thelma White (“Plaintiff”) filed a response (DE 34). The Court has
carefully considered the briefs and is fully advised in the premises.
Background
The complaint filed by Plaintiff in this case alleges that Defendant Garcia, along with
Defendant Legal Search Solutions, Inc., violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29
U.S.C. § 216(b) (DE 1). Plaintiff alleges that she worked for the Defendants as a paralegal, and
they failed to compensate her for overtime and regular hours that she worked. Id.
Legal Standard
Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief’ in order to give the defendant
fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is . . . and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). “To survive a
motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Therefore, “only a complaint that states a plausible claim
for relief survives a motion to dismiss.” Id. at 1950. When considering a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, the court must “accept[] the allegations in the complaint as true and
constru[e] them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Am. Dental Ass’n v. Cigna Corp.,
605 F.3d 1283, 1288 (11th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Discussion
Garcia’s motion asserts that Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for which relief
can be granted, that the Court lacks subject matter and personal jurisdiction in this matter, that
the action is a fraud on the court and “a form of harassment” against her, and that Plaintiff has
failed to include indispensable parties in the lawsuit (DE 31). In response, Plaintiff contends that
the motion to dismiss is actually a “legally deficient Motion for Summary Judgment” (DE 34).
In her motion, Garcia does not contend that the allegations in the complaint are
insufficient, but rather she argues the merits of the case. The Court, at this stage of the
proceeding, must accept the assertions in the complaint as true as the Court cannot look past the
four corners of the complaint to determine whether the FLSA applies to this case. See St. George
v. Pinellas County, 285 F.3d 1334, 1337 (11th Cir. 2002)(“The scope of the review must be
limited to the four corners of the complaint.”) The Court concludes that the motion to dismiss
contains arguments that are premature at this juncture.
Garcia also argues that Plaintiff failed to join indispensable parties. Pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(7), courts may dismiss suits where plaintiffs fail to join
2
indispensable parties. In order to determine whether an action should be dismissed for failure to
join an indispensable party, courts must apply the criteria set forth in Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 19. See Challenge Homes, Inc., v. Greater Naples Care Ctr., Inc., 669 F.2d 667, 669
(11th Cir.1982). Moreover, the burden is on the moving party to establish that parties are
indispensable to the action. Ship Constr. & Funding Servs. (USA), Inc. v. Star Cruises PLC, 174
F.Supp.2d 1320, 1325 (S.D. Fla. 2011). Garcia simply states in her motion that “Plaintiff failed
to include indispensable the [sic] parties under Rule 19; specifically the subsequent employer
AFS and the law firm of Garcia, Ivy & Miller, P.A., in her complaint” (DE 31). Defendant
Garcia clearly failed to establish that these two parties are indispensable as she provides no
explanation whatsoever for her contention.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss (DE 31) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County
Florida, this 6th day of March, 2012.
_______________________________________
KENNETH A. MARRA
United States District Judge
Copies to:
Counsel of record
3
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?