Mejia v. Travis Buquet Construction L L C et al
ORDER denying 23 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 6/28/2017. (ajn)
Case 2:17-cv-03494-JCZ-JVM Document 26 Filed 06/29/17 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
TRAVIS BUQUET CONSTRUCTION,
SECTION: "A" (1)
The following motion is before the Court: Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss
(Rec. Doc. 23) filed by defendants Travis Buquet Home Builders, LLC and Travis
Buquet. Plaintiff Sergio Mejia opposes the motion. The motion, submitted on June 28,
2017, is before the Court on the briefs without oral argument.
This is a Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) collective action to recover unpaid
overtime wages. Plaintiff alleges that he worked for Defendants as a carpenter from
November 2011 to August 2016. (Rec. Doc. 14, FAC ¶ 6). Plaintiff alleges that at times he
worked in excess of forty hours a week but was not paid overtime wages. (Id. ¶ 9).
Plaintiff seeks to certify a collective action so that similarly situated employees of
Defendants can receive notice of their rights.
Defendants Travis Buquet Construction, LLC and Travis Buquet Home Builders,
LLC are limited liability companies with their principal places of business in Houma,
Louisiana. Both entities are owned by codefendant Travis Buquet. (Id. ¶ 11). Plaintiff has
sued all three defendants collectively as “TBC” and alleges that they are a “single
business enterprise.” (Id. ¶ 12).
Case 2:17-cv-03494-JCZ-JVM Document 26 Filed 06/29/17 Page 2 of 4
The movant-defendants Travis Buquet Home Builders, LLC and Travis Buquet
move to dismiss the claims against them arguing that they did not employ Plaintiff, and
that his allegation of a “single business enterprise” is without factual support.
Plaintiff, on the other hand, contends that his factual allegations must be
accepted as true at this stage of the litigation.
In the context of a motion to dismiss the Court must accept all factual allegations
in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff=s favor.
Lormand v. US Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 232 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing Tellabs, Inc. v.
Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (2007); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236
(1974); Lovick v. Ritemoney, Ltd., 378 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir. 2004)). However, the
foregoing tenet is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937,
1949 (2009). Thread-bare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements, do not suffice. Id. (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550, U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
The central issue in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is whether, in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff, the complaint states a valid claim for relief. Gentilello v.
Rege, 627 F.3d 540, 544 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d 413,
418 (5th Cir. 2008)). To avoid dismissal, a plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to Astate a
claim for relief that is plausible on its face.@ Id. (quoting Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949). AA
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.@ Id. The Court does not accept as true Aconclusory allegations, unwarranted
factual inferences, or legal conclusions.@ Id. (quoting Plotkin v. IP Axess, Inc., 407 F.3d
Case 2:17-cv-03494-JCZ-JVM Document 26 Filed 06/29/17 Page 3 of 4
690, 696 (5th Cir. 2005)). Legal conclusions must be supported by factual allegations.
Id. (quoting Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950).
Although Defendants’ arguments are well-taken, the Court is persuaded that the
motion to dismiss must be denied. Employer status under the FLSA is based on the factintensive “economic reality” test, which has several elements, not all of which must be
satisfied in every case. Watson v. Graves, 909 F.2d 1549, 1553 (5th Cir. 1990) (citing
Carter v. Dutchess Comm. College, 735 F.2d 8, 12 (2nd Cir. 1984)). The test includes
inquiries into whether the alleged employer 1) has the power to hire and fire employees,
2) supervised and controlled employee work schedules or conditions of employment, 3)
determined the rate and method of payment, and 4) maintained employment records.
Id. A complaint need not detail every fact on which the plaintiff may ultimately rely
upon to prove his claim. Akins v. Worley Catastrophe Resp., LLC, 921 F. Supp. 2d 593,
605 (E.D. La. 2013) (Wilkinson, M.J.).
Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to withstand dismissal on Rule 12(b)(6)
grounds. But the Court reminds Plaintiff that it will be his burden to prove employer
status under the economic reality test for each individual entity or person that he
intends to pursue as an FLSA “employer.” See Watson, 909 F.2d at 1556. Merely
characterizing the defendants collectively as a “single business enterprise” will not
suffice once Plaintiff has had the opportunity to conduct discovery on the “employer”
issue. Nothing in this ruling precludes movants from re-urging their arguments at a
more appropriate time via a well-supported motion for summary judgment.
IT IS ORDERED that the Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc.
Case 2:17-cv-03494-JCZ-JVM Document 26 Filed 06/29/17 Page 4 of 4
23) filed by defendants Travis Buquet Home Builders, LLC and Travis Buquet is
June 28, 2017
JAY C. ZAINEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?