Knight v. Beall's Outlet, Inc.

Filing 24

ORDER granting in part with regard to Plaintiff's non-breach of contract state law claims and denying in part as to Plaintiff's state law breach of contract and FLSA claims re Defendant's 8 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood on 8/22/2016. (ca)

1n the aniteb stafto )itrItt Court
for the boutbern flitritt of georgia
36runsibAck flibiion
SANDY KNIGHT,
Plaintiff,
CV 215-166

hw

BEALL'S OUTLET STORES, INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant Beall's Outlet
Stores, Inc.'s ("Defendant") Motion to Dismiss Complaint and
Memorandum in Support Thereof. Dkt. No. 8. Plaintiff Sandy
Knight ("Plaintiff") filed a Response in Opposition to
Defendant's Motion. Dkt. No. 11. The Motion is now ripe for
the Court's review. For the reasons set forth below,
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 8) is GRANTED in part
and DENIED in part.
FACTUAL

The following facts are taken solely from Plaintiff's
Complaint. Dkt. No. 1 ("Compi."), pp. 1-4. Defendant is a
corporation with multiple stores located throughout Georgia and
the United States. Id. ¶ 2. Plaintiff worked as a store
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

manager in Defendant's Wayne County, Georgia store. Id. ¶ 4.
Occasionally, Plaintiff traveled to work to Defendant's other
stores, which included those located both in Georgia and out-ofstate. Id. While employed by Defendant from March, 2009
through March, 2015, Plaintiff worked a substantial number of
overtime hours. Id. IT 4-5. Plaintiff alleges that she has not
been compensated for her overtime hours. Id. ¶ 6.
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that she "should have been paid
the regular hourly rate for all [overtime] hours plus an
overtime premium of one-half of the hourly rate for each hour
worked in excess of forty hours in any given week." Id.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's refusal to pay her
overtime wages violates the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et. seq.

IT 1, 3, 7. Specifically,

Plaintiff contends that she is owed "liquidated damages [in] an
amount equal to the total amount of unpaid wages and overtime"
and that Defendants are responsible for covering her attorney's
fees, as authorized by section 216(b) of the FLSA. Id. 191 8-10.
Second, Plaintiff pleads a breach of contract claim in light of
the fact that Defendant failed "to pay [her] for all of her
hours worked." Id. ¶ 11. Finally, Plaintiff makes reference to
unspecified "state law claims." Id. at p. 3, ¶ B.
DISCUSSION

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

1

2

Defendant challenges Plaintiff's Complaint under Rule
12(b) (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. No. 8,
pp. 1-6. When ruling on a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to
Rule 12(b) (6), a district court must accept as true the facts
that are set forth in the complaint and draw all reasonable
inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d
701, 705 (11th Cir. 2010) . The court must also limit its
consideration to the pleadings and any attached exhibits. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 10(c); see also GSW, Inc. v. Long Cnty., Ga., 999
F.2d 1508, 1510 (11th Cir. 1993). In order to state a claim for
relief, the pleadings must contain "a short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (2). The statement required by Rule 8(a) (2)
is intended to "give the defendant fair notice of what the
plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests."
Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 319
(2007). A Rule 12(b) (6) motion to dismiss should only be
granted if the plaintiff's complaint has failed "to raise a
right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Ati. Corp.
v. Twornbly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
In support of its Motion to Dismiss, Defendant argues as
follows: (1) that Plaintiff's Complaint fell short of the Fed.
R. Civ. P. 8 (a) (2) requirement that a complaint contain a "short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

3
3

I

entitled to relief,"; (2) that Plaintiff merely set forth
conclusory statements as to her breach of contract claim; and
(3) that Plaintiff failed to properly plead her state law claim.
See generally Dkt. No. 8. Plaintiff responded by arguing that:
(1) she adequately pled her breach of contract claim; and (2)
Defendant could have filed a Motion for a More Definite
Statement to clarify any confusion regarding the breach of
contract and state law claims. See generally Dkt. No. 11.
Plaintiff's Complaint clearly sets forth facts, which, if
true, would show that she is covered by the FLSA and entitled to
relief. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that: (1) she was
"employed" by Defendant, a corporation, compi., ¶ 2; (2)
Defendant "was, at all times mentioned herein, 'an enterprise
engaged in commerce', as defined [by] the FLSA," id. ¶ 3; and
(3) she "worked a substantial amount of overtime, for which
[she] has not been compensated." Id. ¶ 51 These facts are
sufficient to set forth a claim under the FLSA. Accordingly,
the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as to Plaintiff's
FLSA claim.
As to Plaintiff's breach of contract claim, "the elements
for a breach of contract claim in Georgia are the (1) breach and
' The Court notes that sister courts in the Eleventh Circuit have not required
plaintiffs, in pleading FLSA claims, "to plead which weeks [s]he worked
overtime, the number of overtime hours worked each week, or the amount of
FLSA damages [s]he seeks." Topol v. Artech Info. Sys., LLC, No. 6:15-CV1526-ORL-40KRs, 2016 WL 3763216, at *2 n.2 (M.D. Fla. June 24, 2016)
(gathering cases holding the same within the Eleventh Circuit).
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

4

I

the (2) resultant damages (3) to the party who has the right to
complain about the contract being broken." Uhlig v. Darby Bank
& Trust Co., 556 F. App'x 883, 887 (11th Cir. 2014) (per curiam)
(quoting Norton v. Budget Rent a Car Sys. Inc., 705 S.E.2d 305,
307 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010)). "A breach occurs if a contracting
party fails to perform the engagement as specified in the
contract." Id. (ellipses omitted) (quoting UWork.com , Inc. v.
Paragon Techs., Inc., 740 S.E.2d 887, 893 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013)).
Thus, "to assert a claim for breach, the party against whom the
claim is brought must have been a party to the contract." Id.
(quoting UWork.com , Inc., 740 S.E.2d at 893).
In a motion to dismiss, the Court draws all reasonable
inferences in favor of the non-moving party, here Plaintiff.
Randall, 610 F.3d at 705. Accepting, as this Court must at this
stage, that Plaintiff's allegations are true and that there was
a contract between Plaintiff and Defendant as alleged, Plaintiff
has set forth sufficient facts alleging a breach of said
contract. 2 Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the contract
between the parties was breached when she worked a "substantial
amount of overtime," without receiving overtime pay, even though
she had been employed as a store manager by Defendant for six
years. Id. ¶I 4-5. Therefore, as to the portion of Defendant's

2

5

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

The Court notes that the issue may be revisited on Summary Judgment.

I

Motion pertaining to breach of contract, Defendant's Motion is
DENIED.

Finally, as to Plaintiff's reference to other, unspecified
state law causes of action, the Court notes that Plaintiff makes
one vague reference to "state law claims." Id. at P. 3, ¶ B.
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that this Court should allow her
to "recover from the Defendant all unpaid wages and overtime,
along with liquidated damages, all as provided by the . . . laws
of the State of Georgia." Id. This statement does not provide
Defendant—or the Court for that matter—with a basis for a claim,
other than Plaintiff's breach of contract claim, arising under
state law. Plaintiff has thus failed to adequately plead a
claim "giv[ing] Defendant fair notice of what the claim is and
the grounds upon which it rests" as to any state law claims.
Tellabs, Inc., 551 U.S. at 319. Therefore, Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss, as to state claims other than the state law breach
of contract claim, is GRANTED.
CONCLUSION

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 8) is GRANTED in
part and DENIED in part.

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is

GRANTED with regard to Plaintiff's non-breach of contract state

law claims. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as to
Plaintiff's state law breach of contract and FLSA claims.

6

AO 72A

(Rev. 8182)

I

SO ORDERED, this 22ND day of August, 2016.

LISA GODBEY WOOD, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)