Gremillion v. Cox Communications, Inc. et al

Filing 41

ORDER AND REASONS granting in part, denying in part 28 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; Plaintiff's FLSA claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his complaint by 11/8/2016. Should plaintiff amend the complaint, any renewed motion to dismiss by Cox is due by 11/16/2016. Cox's brief shall not exceed five pages. Plaintiff's opposition to any motion to dismiss is due by 11/23/2016. Plaintiff's brief shall not exceed five pages. Further, plaintiff's claims under La. Rev. Stat. 23:631 and 23:632 are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. FURTHER ORDERED that the remainder of the motion to dismiss is DENIED. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 11/1/2016.(blg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SCOTT GREMILLION

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 16-9849

COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC. ET AL.

SECTION I

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the motion 1 to dismiss filed by defendant Cox
Communications, Inc. The Court recently resolved a substantively identical motion
filed by Cox in another case pending before it, one involving the same plaintiffs’
attorneys and the same lawyers for Cox. See Crosby et al. v. Cox Communications,
Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 16-6700, R. Doc. No. 22. In fact, the similarity of the two
cases is highlighted by the plaintiff’s brief in this case, which cuts and pastes from
the plaintiffs’ brief 2 in the Crosby case and which repeatedly refers to Superior
Telecom Services, Inc.—a defendant in the Crosby case who is not a party to this
lawsuit. 3
The complaints in the two cases are also essentially indistinguishable, except
that the plaintiff in this case claims to have been nominally employed by Grayco

R. Doc. No. 28.
Crosby et al. v. Cox Communications, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 16-6700, R. Doc.
No. 26.
3 See, e.g., R. Doc. No. 32, at 6 (“[T]here exists an employment relationship between
Plaintiffs and both Superior and Cox.”), at 9 (“Plaintiffs have asserted that they were
employed by both Superior and Cox.”). The brief also repeatedly refers to the
“plaintiffs” even though Scott Gremillion is the only named plaintiff in this action.
1
2

Communications, L.P., and the plaintiffs in the Crosby case claim to have been
nominally employed by Superior. 4

The legal claims asserted in both cases are

identical.
It follows that the result in Crosby should also govern here. Accordingly, for
the same reasons provided in this Court’s order and reasons in the Crosby case, 5
IT IS ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART.
Plaintiff’s FLSA claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Plaintiff is

granted leave to amend his complaint by November 8, 2016. Should plaintiff amend
the complaint, any renewed motion to dismiss by Cox is due by November 16, 2016.
Cox’s brief shall not exceed five pages. Plaintiff’s opposition to any motion to dismiss
is due by November 23, 2016. Plaintiff’s brief shall not exceed five pages. Further,
plaintiff’s claims under La. Rev. Stat. §§ 23:631 and 23:632 are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the remainder of the motion to dismiss is
DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, November 1, 2016.

_______________________________________
LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Compare R. Doc. No. 1 with Crosby et al. v. Cox Communications, Inc. et al., Civil
Action No. 16-6700, R. Doc. No. 1.
5 Crosby et al. v. Cox Communications, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 16-6700, R. Doc.
No. 34.
4

2