Pereira v. JRV Services LLC et al
Filing
14
ORDER AND REASONS denying 9 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Judge Eldon E. Fallon on 7/30/2018. (clc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ROLANDO PEREIRA
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 18-2720
JRV SERVICES, LLC, ET AL.
SECTION "L" (3)
ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is a 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants JRV Services, LLC
and Juana Vargas. R. Doc. 9. Plaintiff Rolando Pereira opposes. R. Doc. 12. Having considered
the parties’ briefs and the applicable law, the Court now issues this Order & Reasons.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Rolando Pereira brings this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated to recover overtime wages against Defendants JRV
Services, LLC (“JRV”), PRA-SE Construction, LP (“PRA-SE”), and Juana Vargas (“Vargas”).
Defendant JRV is a residential and commercial subcontractor that provides labor for
construction projects in Louisiana, owned by Defendant Vargas. PRA-SE, a commercial
construction company, engaged JRV to provide labor for its jobsites. Plaintiff alleges that he was
hired by PRA-SE in 2014 and worked as a construction laborer for Defendants until March of
2018. During this time, Plaintiff claims he worked, on average, 45-54 hours per week, and
Defendants failed to pay one-and-a-half times his regular hourly rate for all hours over forty.
Defendants JRV and Vargas now move the Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against them
under Rule 12(b)(6). R. Doc. 9. Specifically, Defendants contend that Plaintiff has failed to (1)
allege the specific time period for which he claims he was undercompensated; (2) plead facts
1
sufficient to establish that JRV and Vargas qualify as his “employer” under the FLSA; and (3)
sufficiently allege facts to show that he is similarly situated to the putative class members.
II.
LAW & ANALYSIS
A. Rule 12(b)(6)
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit a defendant to seek a dismissal of a complaint
based on the “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim “unless it appears beyond doubt
that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.”
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957).
“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A 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 district court
must construe facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and must accept as true all
factual allegations contained in the complaint. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A court “do[es] not accept
as true conclusory allegations, unwarranted factual inferences, or legal conclusions.” Plotkin v. IP
Axess Inc., 407 F.3d 690, 696 (5th Cir. 2005).
B. The Fair Labor Standards Act
The FLSA requires “employers” to pay covered employees at least one and one-half times
their normal rate for hours worked in excess of forty per week. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). To state a
claim for unpaid overtime wages, a plaintiff must plead “(1) that there existed an employeremployee relationship during the unpaid overtime periods claimed; (2) that the employee engaged
2
in activities within the coverage of the FLSA; (3) that the employer violated the FLSA’s overtime
requirements; and (4) the amount of overtime compensation due.” Johnson v. Heckmann Water
Resources, Inc., 758 F.3d 627, 630 (5th Cir. 2014). JRV and Vargas argue that Plaintiff
inadequately pleads elements (1) and (4), and that Plaintiff fails to adequately plead a collective
action.
a. Employee-Employer Relationship
Under the FLSA, “employer” is defined as “any person acting directly or indirectly in the
interest of an employer in relation to an employee.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(d). The Fifth Circuit
determines employer status under the “economic reality” test, considering whether the putative
employer “(1) possessed the power to hire and fire the 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.” Williams v. Henagan, 595 F.3d 610, 620 (5th
Cir. 2010). The Court must consider the totality of the circumstances and the economic reality of
the overall relationship, and all four factors need not be present in every case. Gray v. Powers, 673
F.3d 352, 357 (5th Cir. 2012). “The dominant theme in the case law is that those who have
operating control over employees within companies may be individually liable for FLSA
violations committed by the companies.” Martin v. Spring Break ’83 Prods., LLC, 668 F.3d 247,
251 (5th Cir. 2012).
Finally, to determine whether an individual is an “employee,” the Fifth Circuit considers
(1) the permanency of the relationship; (2) the degree of control exercised by the alleged employer;
(3) the skill and initiative required to perform the job; (4) the relative investments of the worker
and employer; and (5) whether the worker’s opportunity for profit and loss is determined by the
employer. Thibault v. Bellsouth Telecomm., Inc., 612 F.3d 843, 846 (5th Cir. 2010). “The
3
touchstone of ‘economic reality’ in analyzing a possible employee/employer relationship for
purposes of the FLSA is dependency.” Altier v. Worley Catastrophe Response, LLC, No. 11-241,
2011 WL 1791292, at *3 (E.D. La. May 9, 2011).
Plaintiff alleges that he worked as a construction laborer for JRV from approximately
March 2014 – March 2018, and that JRV determined his work schedule; supervised his day to day
work activities; and maintained an employment file for him. R. Doc. 1 at 2. Moreover, Plaintiff
alleges that he was paid by check, some bearing the name “JRV Services, LLC.” R. Doc. 1 at 2, 5.
Plaintiff has therefore adequately pleaded that JRV was his “employer” under the FLSA.
Turning to Vargas, Plaintiff alleges that she is an owner of Defendant JRV and that she
maintained executive authority over the jobs that Plaintiff and other JRV employees worked,
including the power to set the rate of pay, duration and location of those jobs, and that she had the
power to hire and fire Plaintiff and other JRV employees. These allegations raise a plausible claim
that Vargas was Plaintiff’s employer under the “economic reality” test.
b. Time Period
Allegations of a complaint must be sufficient to “give the defendant fair notice of what the
… claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. In the FLSA context,
this notice requirement is satisfied when the complaint contains the “approximate date ranges, as
well as the approximate number of hours worked” for which the plaintiff claims he was undercompensated. Meija v. Brothers Petroleum, LLC, No. 12-2481, 2015 WL 3619894, at *6 (E.D. La.
June 9, 2015) (finding allegation that plaintiffs “worked approximately 70-80 hour[s] per week,
before July of 2012, and then approximately 50 hours thereafter, without receiving overtime pay”
sufficient); England v. Adm’rs of the Tulane Educ. Fund, No. 16-3184, 2016 WL 3902595, at *3
4
(E.D. La. July 19, 2016) (allegation that plaintiff “routinely worked overtime hours” from 20122015, and employer paid for some hours but failed to pay “numerous hours” insufficient).
Here, Plaintiff alleges that (i) he worked for Defendants from March 2014-March 2018,
(ii) on average, 45-54 hours per week, (iii) without ever being paid more than his regular rate of
$20 per hour. R. Doc. 1 at 2, 5. Plaintiff has thus provided the approximate date range and
approximate hours worked to sufficiently allege the amount of overtime compensation due.
c. Collective Action Pleading
Lastly, Defendants argue that Plaintiff fails to plead a collective action under the FLSA
because the complaint does not identify class members by name or job title, or indicate how their
job duties are similar to Plaintiff’s.
The FLSA authorizes an employee to bring a collective action to recover unpaid overtime
on their own behalf and on behalf of other “similarly situated” employees. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
“[T]he Fifth Circuit has not specified the level of detail required to be shown in the pleading stage,
as opposed to the class certification stage” – but an FLSA plaintiff “must allege facts supporting
the conclusion that all potential plaintiffs were ‘victims of a common policy or plan that violated
the law.’” England v. Adm’rs of the Tulane Educ. Fund, No. 16-3184, 2016 WL 6520146, at *4
(E.D. La. Nov. 3, 2016) (quoting Wischenewsky v. Coastal Gulf & Intern., Inc., No. 12-2277, 2013
WL 1867199, at *4 (E.D. La. May 2, 2013)). Moreover, “a 12(b)(6) motion should not succeed if
the complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the putative class.” Id.
Here, Plaintiff’s putative class consists of hourly or non-exempt employees who performed
manual labor for Defendants in the past three years and were not paid overtime. R. Doc. 1 at 6.
Plaintiff describes his duties as those of a “construction laborer,” performing “duties related to
carpentry, demolition, and brickwork.” R. Doc. 1 at 2. This case has not yet reached the conditional
5
certification stage, and some courts have recognized that a “challenge on the pleadings seeks to
end-run the certification process by trying certification on the face of the complaint.” Lang v.
DirecTV, Inc., 735 F. Supp. 2d 421, 436 (E.D. La. 2010). Plaintiff’s complaint provides
Defendants with fair notice of the putative class, and whether proceeding collectively is
appropriate will be addressed when Plaintiff moves for conditional certification.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to
Dismiss (R. Doc. 9) is hereby DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 30th day of July, 2018.
_______________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
6
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?