DAMISSE v. PAUL et al

Filing 78

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS denying 34 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 68 Motion for Oral Argument/Hearing By JUDGE NANCY TORRESEN. (dfr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
LENORD DAMISSE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CAROL PAUL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Docket No. 1:15-cv-199-NT
)
)
)
)

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
The Plaintiffs in this action are eight migrant workers of Haitian descent who
traveled to Maine in 2009 to harvest blueberries. They assert claims under the
Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (the “AWPA”), 29 U.S.C.
§ 1801 et seq., against those who employed, housed, and transported them in
connection with their blueberry harvesting work. First Am. Compl. (ECF No. 3). The
Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ claims for non-pecuniary
damages “such as humiliation, inconvenience, physical discomfort, emotional distress
and mental suffering.” Mot. to Dismiss (ECF No. 34). The Defendants maintain that
such damages are not available under the AWPA. Mot. to Dismiss 1-2 (citing 29
U.S.C. § 1854(c)(1) & (d)(1)). The parties have suggested that the “recoverability of
emotional distress damages is an important threshold issue in this case.” Pls.’
Request for Oral Arg. on Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss 2 (ECF No. 68).
I do not agree with the parties that resolving whether one of multiple types of
damages will be available constitutes a “threshold issue.” If the Defendants are
correct that non-pecuniary damages are unavailable, the claims in this matter would

remain the same—only the amount of potential recovery would change. Picking off
one type of relief requested when other types of relief remain available does not
demonstrate a “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,” in Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) terms. See Dingxi Longhai Dairy, Ltd. v. Becwood
Tech. Grp. L.L.C., 635 F.3d 1106, 1108-09 (8th Cir. 2011); Bontkowski v. Smith, 305
F.3d 757, 762 (7th Cir. 2002); Williams v. Cutler, No. 1:14-cv-539-NT, at 16 n.14 (D.
Me. Mar. 11, 2016); Charles v. Front Royal Volunteer Fire & Rescue Dept., Inc., 21 F.
Supp. 3d 620, 629 (W.D. Va. 2014); 5 Charles Allen Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Fed.
Prac. & Proced. Civ. § 1255 Demand for Judgment—In General (3d ed. 2015); 5B
Charles Allen Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proced. Civ. § 1357 Motions
to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6) (3d ed. 2015). I understand that the parties
would like guidance on the issue of non-pecuniary damages to shape their discovery
and have more informed settlement discussions, Report of Telephone Conference &
Order 1 (ECF No. 72), but that desire for clarity does not overcome the limits of Rule
12(b)(6).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES the Defendants’ motion to
dismiss (ECF No. 34) and DENIES the Plaintiffs’ motion for oral argument (ECF No.
68).

SO ORDERED.
/s/ Nancy Torresen
United States Chief District Judge
2

Dated this 4th day of April, 2016.

3