Valencia v. Bistro D, Inc. et al

Filing 14

ORDER denying 13 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. Please see Order for details. Signed by Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum on 5/14/2013. (bon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 13-60779-CIV-ROSENBAUM/HUNT
LUIS FERNANDO VALENCIA, and others
similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BISTRO D, INC., and DANNY SCARFONE,
Defendants.
_______________________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
This matter is before the Court upon Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint
[D.E. 13]. Defendants’ Motion, which is less than two pages in length, makes the conclusory
argument that based on Defendants’ payroll records, Plaintiff’s claims are “preposterous” and should
be dismissed. However, on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the factual allegations
in a plaintiff’s complaint are taken as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Defendants
cannot, therefore, rely on documents that do not fall within the four corners of the Complaint and
that, in fact, do not appear anywhere in the record to support their Motion. See, e.g., Bickley v.
Caremark RX, Inc., 461 F.3d 1325, 1329 n.7 (11th Cir. 2006).
Furthermore, Defendants’ Motion—which cites to no legal authority—violates the Court’s
Local Rules that require that “[e]very motion when filed shall incorporate a memorandum of law
citing supporting authorities.” L.R. 7.1(a), S.D. Fla. For these reasons, Defendants’ Motion is
insufficient on its face.

-1-

Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s Complaint [D.E. 13] is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 14th day of May 2013.

________________________________
ROBIN S. ROSENBAUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Counsel of record

-2-