Ports et al v. Karpathoes, Inc. et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying Karpathoes Inc.'s 8 Motion to Dismiss; denying George Sakellis and Roula Rigopoula Sakellis' 9 motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Ellen L. Hollander on 11/20/2014. (dass, Deputy Clerk)

United States District Court
District Of Maryland
Chambers of
Ellen Lipton Hollander
District Court Judge

101 West Lombard Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
410-962-0742

November 20, 2014
MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL
Re:

Ports et al. v. Karpathoes, Inc. et al.
Civil Action No. ELH-14-03044

Dear Counsel:
As you know, on September 26, 2014, plaintiffs Keith Ports, Mara A. Rouse, and Lauren
Losiewski filed suit against their alleged former employers, defendants, Karpathoes, Inc., George
Sakellis, and Roula Rigopoula Sakellis. Complaint, ECF 1. All three plaintiffs worked as
servers at Fratelli’s Italian Restaurant in Hempstead, Maryland, and Ports also worked as a
bartender at the restaurant. ECF 1 ¶ 11. Plaintiffs allege that the restaurant is owned and
operated by defendant Karpathoes, Inc., which in turn is “owned and operated” by the individual
defendants. ECF 1 ¶¶ 7, 9. Plaintiffs assert violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., and related claims, under Maryland’s Wage and Hour Law
(“MWHL”), Md. Code (2008 Repl. Vol.), § 3-401 et seq. of the Labor & Employment Article
(“L.E.”), and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law (“MWPCL”), L.E. § 3-501 et.
seq. They have also filed a motion to conditionally certify a FLSA collective action under 29
U.S.C. § 216(b). ECF 10.
Now pending are two motions to dismiss, one filed by defendant Karpathoes, Inc.
(“Karpathoes Motion,” ECF 8), and one filed by defendants George and Roula Sakellis
(“Sakellis Motion,” ECF 9). Both motions urge dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), for
failure to state a claim. The Karpathoes Motion seeks dismissal of only two counts, Counts I and
IV, alleging failure to pay federal and State minimum wages, respectively. ECF 8. The Sakellis
Motion seeks dismissal of all counts against them, arguing that plaintiffs have not pled adequate
facts to show that the Sakellis were “employers” within the meaning of federal and State wage
law. ECF 9-1 at 3. No hearing is necessary to resolve the motions. See Local Rule 105.6.
This case is closely related to another case filed with this Court in March 2014 against the
same defendants, titled Ford v. Karpathoes, Inc., ELH-14-00824 (D. Md. 2014). Plaintiffs in
both cases are represented by the same attorneys, and three of defendants’ attorneys have
appeared in both cases. In Ford, three former servers and one former hostess at the restaurant
sued the same three defendants named in this case under the same laws and legal theories.
Compare Second Amended Complaint, ECF 23, ELH-14-00824 with Complaint, ECF 1, ELH14-03044. In the instant case, plaintiffs have added one additional count, Count V, alleging
violations of the MWPCL. ECF 1 at 10-11. In their memorandum in support of the Sakellis
Motion, the Sakellis acknowledge the similarity between the cases. See ECF 9-1 at 7 n.4.

The three defendants in Ford filed a single “Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second
Amended Complaint.” In their memorandum in support of that motion, in all material respects,
defendants made the same arguments for dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims as they make in the
Karpathoes and Sakellis motions filed here. Compare ECF 25, ELH-14-00824 with Karpathoes
Motion and Sakellis Motion, ELH-14-03044.
In Ford, I issued a Memorandum denying defendants’ motion. See ECF 39 in ELH-1400824. Here, as discussed, the material facts alleged in plaintiffs’ complaint, and defendants’
arguments as to their inadequacy, are indistinguishable from the facts alleged and the arguments
advanced in Ford. To be sure, plaintiffs here have included in Count V a claim under MWPCL,
which is absent from Ford. However, the Karpathoes Motion does not seek dismissal of Count
V, and the arguments in the Sakellis Motion regarding their status as “employers” would apply
as much to Count V as to the MWHL claim alleged by the plaintiffs in Ford. Consequently, the
addition of Count V does not change the applicability of the analysis set forth in my
Memorandum in Ford. See Campusano v. Lusitano Const. LLC, 208 Md. App. 29, 38, 56 A.3d
303, 309 (2012) (holding “economic reality” test governs claims under MWPCL as well as under
MWHL). Indeed, if anything, plaintiffs here have included more facts than the plaintiffs in
Ford. See ECF 1 ¶¶ 13, 14, 15 (alleging approximate start and end dates of plaintiffs’
employment and estimating hours regularly worked in excess of 40).
Accordingly, the Karpathoes and Sakellis Motions filed in this case will be denied for the
same reasons as set forth in my Memorandum in Ford v. Karpathoes, Inc., ELH-14-00824, at
ECF 39, the pertinent parts of which are incorporated herein by reference.
Despite the informal nature of this Memorandum, it is an Order of the Court, and the
Clerk is directed to docket it as such.

Very truly yours,
/s/
Ellen Lipton Hollander
United States District Judge

-2-