Carter et al v. PJS of Parma, Inc. et al
Filing
43
Memorandum of Opinion and Order: This matter is before the Court upon Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings regarding plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim relating to the post-January 2014 Banquet Servers (Doc. 21 ). In its April 4, 2016 Order addressing defendants' motion, the Court asked the parties to submit further briefing on this claim. For the reasons that follow, plaintiffs have stated a claim for unjust enrichment with respect to the post-January 2014 Banquet Servers. Thus, defendants' motion is DENIED in its entirety with respect to Count III. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 4/22/16. (LC,S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Carol Carter, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
PJS of Parma, Inc., et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:15 CV 1545
JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
Memorandum of Opinion and Order
This matter is before the Court upon Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
regarding plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim relating to the post-January 2014 Banquet Servers
(Doc. 21). In its April 4, 2016 Order addressing defendants’ motion, the Court asked the parties
to submit further briefing on this claim.1 For the reasons that follow, plaintiffs have stated a
claim for unjust enrichment with respect to the post-January 2014 Banquet Servers. Thus,
defendants’ motion is DENIED in its entirety with respect to Count III.
Defendants argue that the claim for unjust enrichment by the post-January 2014 Banquet
Servers fails on the merits because defendants did not pay the servers with a tip credit and, thus,
under FLSA, the defendants had the right to retain the entire amount of any tip from banquet
1
Familiarity with the Court’s Order of April 4, 2016 is assumed.
customers. In support, defendants cite two cases from the District of Utah that rejected claims of
unjust enrichment in similar situations. (See Defs.’ Mot. at 12-13; Reply Br. at 13) (citing
Stephenson v. All Resort Coach, Inc., 2013 WL 5419781, at * 9 (D. Utah Aug. 26, 2013);
Brueningsen v. Resort Express Inc., 2015 WL 339671, at *9 (D. Utah Jan. 26, 2015)). According
to these cases, FLSA “only prohibits an employer from retaining a portion or all of the tips if the
employer pays a tipped employee less than the federal minimum wage and takes the tip credit,
unless there is a valid tip pool. Thus, an employer is not prohibited from retaining an
employee’s tips if the employer does not take the tip credit.” Brueningsen, 2015 WL 339671, at
*4 (analyzing § 203(m) of FLSA).2 With respect to the plaintiffs’ common law claims, both
courts held that the claims depended on the plaintiffs’ ability to show that they were entitled to
the tips. Stephenson, 2013 WL 5419781, at * 9; Brueningsen, 2015 WL 339671, at *9.
According to Stephenson, “[t]he only alleged entitlement to these tips derives from the FLSA.”
Id. But because the employers paid the employees the minimum wage and did not utilize a tip
credit, the plaintiffs failed to show that they were entitled to tips under FLSA, and their common
law claims therefore failed. Id.; Brueningsen, 2015 WL 339671, at *9.
2
Stephenson and Brueningsen both relied on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in
Cumbie v. Woody Woo, Inc., 596 F.3d 577, 581 (9th Cir. 2010), which held that an
employer is not prohibited by FLSA § 203(m) from retaining an employee’s tips
when the employer does not take a tip credit. After Cumbie, the Department of
Labor issued a regulation stating that “[t]ips are the property of the employee
whether or not the employer has taken a tip credit under section 3(m) of the
FLSA.” 29 C.F.R. § 531.52 (2011). In February, the Ninth Circuit held that this
regulation was a valid exercise of the Department of Labor’s authority. Oregon
Restaurant and Lodging Assoc. v. Perez, 2016 WL 706678 (9th Cir. Feb. 23,
2016). The district court in Brueningsen declined to reconsider its holding that the
employer has a right to retain tips if it does not take a tip credit in light of Perez.
Brueningsen v. Resort Express Inc., 2016 WL 1181683, at ** 2-5 (March 25,
2016).
2
Plaintiffs, however, argue that for purposes of a state-law unjust enrichment claim, the
servers’ ownership interests in the tips is not dependent on FLSA. Plaintiffs cite Williams v.
Jacksonville Terminal Co., 315 U.S. 386, 388 (1942), in support. In Williams, the Supreme Court
stated that “[i]n businesses where tipping is customary, the tips, in the absence of an explicit
contrary understanding, belong to the recipient. Where, however, [such] an arrangement is made
..., in the absence of statutory interference, no reason is perceived for its invalidity.” Id. at 397.
In McCullum v. McAlister’s Corp., for example, the court relied on Williams in denying a motion
for summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim because genuine issues of
material fact existed as to whether the plaintiffs entered into an explicit agreement to turn their
tips over to the defendant. 2010 WL 4064309, at * 1 (E.D. La. Oct. 14, 2010). In doing so, the
court noted that “the general principal [sic] that tips belong to the recipient is not depende[nt]
upon the application of the FLSA, and comports with the common understanding and intent of
tipping.” Id. at *1 n.2.
Plaintiffs further note that other courts, even when not relying on Williams, have
similarly held that a plaintiff’s allegation of ownership rights in tips left by customers are
sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss unjust enrichment or other common law claims. See,
e.g., Marin v. AIDA, Inc., 992 F. Supp. 2d 913, 915 (W.D. Ark. 2014) (granting default judgment
on conversion claim and holding that allegation that plaintiff owned tips that customers left for
his service, taken as true, was sufficient to show that he was entitled to retain his tips); Kyne v.
Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co., L.L.C., 835 F. Supp. 2d 914, 933 (D. Haw. 2011) (denying motion to
dismiss unjust enrichment claim where plaintiffs alleged that defendant “assessed and partially
retained a service charge ... which customers expect and intend to be distributed to Plaintiffs,
3
result[ing] in unjust[] enrich[ment to] Defendant”).
Upon review of the parties’ submissions on this issue, including the parties’ supplemental
briefing, the Court finds that the cases plaintiffs rely on are more persuasive than Stephenson and
Brueningsen. Stephenson did not cite any authority for its statement that the plaintiffs’
entitlement to the tips came from FLSA, nor did either case acknowledge Williams. Indeed,
based on Stephenson’s language–“[plaintiffs’] only alleged entitlement to ... tips derives from
the FLSA”–it appears that the plaintiffs’ own complaint stated that their ownership interests in
the tips derived from FLSA. By contrast, plaintiffs here do not allege that their entitlement to the
tips is based on FLSA This Court agrees with McCullum that a plaintiff’s entitlement to tips on a
common law unjust enrichment claim is not dependent upon the application of the FLSA. Thus,
while the Department of Labor’s regulation in 29 C.F.R. § 531.52 that “[t]ips are the property of
the employee whether or not the employer has taken a tip credit under section 3(m) of the FLSA”
supports plaintiffs’ position, the Court need not address at this time the validity of § 531.52.
Rather, the only question is whether plaintiffs have adequately alleged a claim for unjust
enrichment under Ohio law. To state a claim for unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must allege: “(1) a
benefit conferred by a plaintiff upon a defendant; (2) knowledge by the defendant of the benefit;
and (3) retention of the benefit by the defendant under circumstances where it would be unjust to
do so without payment (‘unjust enrichment’).” Filo v. Liberato, 987 N.E.2d 707 (Ohio Ct. App.
2013). Here, in support of their unjust enrichment claim, plaintiffs allege that they conferred a
benefit upon defendants with defendants’ knowledge by giving excellent service to the
customers, which caused those customers to leave additional tips and gratuities and created
repeat business for Defendants. They further allege that “[t]here was a clear understanding
4
between Defendants, Plaintiffs, the members of the class, and the customers that the additional
tips and gratuities ... belonged solely to Plaintiffs and the members of the Class, and there was no
arrangement by which Plaintiffs and the members of the Class agreed to turn over those tips and
gratuities to Defendants.” Finally, they allege that, because plaintiffs were the intended
recipients of the additional tips and gratuities, defendants’ retention of the additional tips and
gratuities is unjust.
These allegations are sufficient to state a claim for unjust enrichment. Specifically, with
respect to the only element at issue in defendants’ motion–whether defendant retained the tips
under circumstances that would be unjust–plaintiffs allege that the tips belonged solely to them
and that there was no agreement to turn the tips over to defendants. This sufficiently alleges that
plaintiffs had an ownership interest in the tips and that defendants’ retention of the tips was
therefore unjust. Plaintiffs’ allegations are distinguishable from the allegations by the plaintiff in
Holland v. Levy Premium Foodservice Ltd. P'ship, 469 F. App'x 794 (11th Cir. 2012), which
defendants cite in support of their motion. There, the plaintiffs alleged only that the defendant’s
retention of a service charge was unjust, which the court held was a legal conclusion rather than
an allegation of fact and therefore insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss. Id. at 797. Here,
plaintiffs have done more than allege a “naked assertion devoid of further factual enhancement.”
Id. (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, (2009)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 4/22/16
/s/ Patricia A. Gaughan
PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
United States District Judge
5
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?