Wilson et al v. PNK (River City), LLC.

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's motion for partial dismissal is DENIED, with the exception of claims for unjust enrichment accruing more than two years before the filing of the complaint. (Doc. No. 12 .) Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on June 25, 2015. (BRP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

LAWRENCE M. WILSON, et al.,
Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
PNK (River City) LLC d/b/a RIVER CITY
CASINO AND HOTEL,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:15CV00380 AGF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This action for unpaid overtime was filed as a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., and as a class action under the Missouri Minimum Wage
Law (“MMWL”), Mo. Rev. Stat. § 290.500, et seq., and Missouri common law of unjust
enrichment. The matter is now before the Court on Defendant’s motion for dismissal of the state
claims. For the reasons set forth below, the motion shall be denied in large part.
BACKGROUND
The three named Plaintiffs allege that they and other Floor Supervisors employed by
Defendant are not “exempt” employees under the FLSA and the MMWL and are therefore
entitled to unpaid overtime from Defendant. Count I is brought as a collective action under the
FLSA, Count II is brought as a class action under the MMWL, and Count III is brought as a class
action for unjust enrichment under Missouri common law.
Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ MMWL claim should be dismissed with prejudice as
pre-empted by the FLSA, or as inherently incompatible with the FLSA claims. Defendant argues

that the claim of unjust enrichment should be dismissed for failure to state a claim because the
allegations in the complaint are conclusory. Defendant further asserts that if the unjust
enrichment claim is allowed to go forward, the Court should limit the time period for recovery
thereunder to two years prior to the filing of the complaint, pursuant to the two year statute of
limitations of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.140.1
In response, Plaintiffs rely on case law holding that the FLSA does not preempt state
claims such as those raised here. They argue that the complaint adequately pleads a claim of
unjust enrichment as receiving labor without compensating for it results in the unjust enrichment
of the recipient of the labor. But Plaintiffs concede that the two year statute of limitations
applies to this claim.
DISCUSSION
This Court agrees with the district courts within the Eighth Circuit that have concluded
that there is no preemption by the FLSA of state claims such as those asserted by Plaintiffs here.
See, e.g., Fry v. Accent Mktg. Servs., L.L.C., No. 4:13CV59 CDP, 2013 WL 2403669, at *2
(E.D. Mo. May 31, 2013); Byrd v. BJC Health Sys., 4:11CV1571 HEA, 2013 WL 1581420, *2-3
(E.D. Mo. Apr. 12, 2013); Davenport v. Charter Comms’ms, LLC, 4:12CV7 AGF, 2012 WL
5050580, *2-3 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 12, 2012).
With respect to Plaintiffs’ claim asserting Defendant’s unjust enrichment, to survive a
motion to dismiss, the complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, which, when accepted as
1

This section provides:
An action by an employee for the payment of unpaid minimum wages,
unpaid overtime compensation or liquidated damages by reason of the
nonpayment of minimum wages or overtime compensation, and for the
recovery of any amount under and by virtue of the provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and amendments thereto, such act being an
act of Congress, shall be brought within two years after the cause accrued.
2

true, states “a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “Threadbare recitals of
the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,” will not pass
muster. Id. Here, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled facts supporting a
claim of unjust enrichment. The Court agrees with the parties that the two year statute of
limitations governs this claim. See Davenport, 2012 WL 5050580, at *3.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for partial dismissal is DENIED,
with the exception of claims for unjust enrichment accruing more than two years before the filing
of the complaint. (Doc. No. 12.)

_________________________________
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRCIT JUDGE
Dated this 25th day of June, 2015

3