Jimenez v. Rosa Bros., Inc. et al

Filing 23

ORDER denying 12 Motion to Dismiss; denying 12 Motion for More Definite Statement. Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 7/19/2011. (aay)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 11-21870-CIV-HUCK/BANDSTRA

RENZO JIMENEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROSA BROS, INC., and JAMIE ROSA,
individually,
Defendants.
_______________________________________/
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Defendants Rosa Bros, Inc. and Jamie Rosa’s
Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative Motion for a More Definite Statement [D.E. #12], filed June
15, 2011. In the Complaint [D.E. #1], Plaintiff Renzo Jimenez seeks recovery of unpaid overtime
wages and related damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The Complaint did not
specify Plaintiff’s pay rate or the approximate number of unpaid hours that he worked. On June 20,
2010, Plaintiff filed an Answer to the Court’s Interrogatories [D.E. #17-1], in which Plaintiff
provided his pay rate and the approximate number of unpaid hours he worked as an employee of the
Defendants. Defendants assert that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), because it fails to allege Plaintiff’s
pay rate or amount of overtime.
To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must “state a claim for relief that is plausible on
its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The “requirements to state a claim
of a FLSA violation are quite straightforward.” Sec’y of Labor v. Labbe, 319 Fed. App’x 761, 763
(11th Cir. 2008). “There is no need to prove intent or causation that might require more extensive
pleading.” Id. A plaintiff is not required to plead detailed allegations as to pay rate or unpaid hours
worked to state a claim for unpaid overtime wages under the FLSA; it is sufficient to allege coverage
under the statute, describe the violation, and provide a time frame in which the violations occurred.
Id. Moreover, Plaintiff has provided these figures in his Answer to the Court’s Interrogatories.

Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff states a claim pursuant to the FLSA. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion is DENIED in whole.
DONE in Chambers, Miami, Florida, on July 19, 2011.

Paul C. Huck
United States District Judge
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record