Hopkins v. U.S. Bancorp et al

Filing 17

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 12 ). The Court sua sponte ORDERS Plaintiff to amend the Complaint within 21 days of the date of this Order. Failure to timely amend the Complaint will result in dismissal of this civil action. Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 9/21/2016. (mr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

LOUIS HOPKINS, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
U.S. BANCORP, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 1:16-cv-552
Judge Timothy S. Black

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 12)
This civil action is before the Court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 12) 1
and the parties’ responsive memoranda (Docs. 15, 16).
I.

FACTS AS ALLEGED BY THE PLAINTIFF

For purposes of this motion to dismiss, the Court must: (1) view the complaint in
the light most favorable to Plaintiff; and (2) take all well-pleaded factual allegations as
true. Tackett v. M&G Polymers, 561 F.3d 478, 488 (6th Cir. 2009).
This is a class action seeking damages for Plaintiff and the class he seeks to
represent, consisting of all hourly paid employees who worked for Defendants in the
United States, and who were not paid for all hours worked (“the Class”). 2 Specifically,
Defendants allegedly entered into a compensation agreement with Plaintiff and the Class

1

Defendants include U.S. Bancorp and U.S. Bank National Association (collectively,
“Defendants”).
2

Plaintiff began working for U.S. Bank in July 2012 as a debt collector. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 18). He was
paid an hourly wage which ranged between $15 and $19 per hour worked. (Id. at ¶ 20).

members whereby Defendants agreed to compensate them an hourly wage for every hour
worked. This class action arises from Defendants’ alleged failure to fully compensate its
hourly paid employees for all hours worked as agreed between the parties.
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) operates to test the
sufficiency of the complaint and permits dismissal of a complaint for “failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.” To show grounds for relief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)
requires that the complaint contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.”
While Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 “does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ . . . it
demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544 (2007)). Pleadings offering mere “‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation
of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
In fact, in determining a motion to dismiss, “courts ‘are not bound to accept as true a
legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation[.]’” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citing
Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (1986)). Further, “[f]actual allegations must be enough
to raise a right to relief above the speculative level[.]” Id.
Accordingly, “[t]o 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.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A claim is plausible where “plaintiff pleads factual
2

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Id. Plausibility “is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’
but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id.
“[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere
possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not ‘show[n]’—‘that the
pleader is entitled to relief,’” and the case shall be dismissed. Id. (citing Fed. Rule Civ.
P. 8(a)(2)).
III.

ANALYSIS

The Complaint alleges a common law breach of contract claim. “[T]he elements
for a breach of contract claim are the existence of a valid contract between the parties,
performance by the plaintiff, a breach by the defendant, and resulting damages.” Bihn v.
Fifth Third Mortg. Co., 3:13cv57, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148891, at *16 (S.D. Ohio Oct.
16, 2013).
Plaintiff maintains that Defendants agreed to pay its hourly paid employees an
hourly wage in exchange for each hour that they worked. (Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 8, 18-21, 59).
Prior to 2016, Plaintiff and the putative class members performed work and were paid for
at least 2,080 hours of work in a year. (Id. at ¶¶ 10-12, 34-37). However, due to
Defendants’ alleged miscalculation of the total work hours within certain years,
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the putative class members for all hours worked
pursuant to their agreement. (Id. at ¶¶ 13-15, 38-44, 61). Plaintiff and the putative class

3

members bring this claim to recover the unpaid wages in those respective years. (Id. at
¶¶ 16, 45-47, 62-63).
However, Plaintiff never identifies or describes the agreement upon which he
bases his claim. Plaintiff makes no allegations as to when, where, how, or by whom
Defendants entered into a contractual agreement with him, or any other class member,
relating to his or other employees’ compensation. In the absence of facts to support the
existence of an employment contract, the breach of contract claim fails as a matter of law.
See e.g., Northampton Rest. Grp., Inc. v. FirstMerit Bank, N.A., 492 F. App’x 518, 52122 (6th Cir. 2012) (“it is a basic tenet of contract law that a party can only advance a
claim of breach of written contract by identifying and presenting the actual terms of the
contract allegedly breached.”).
Although a pleading need not provide “detailed factual allegations,’…[a] pleading
that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action,’” is insufficient. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In an effort to
resolve this case on the merits, this Court sua sponte orders Plaintiff to file an Amended
Complaint forthwith. 3 Specifically, in order to plead a breach of contract claim, Plaintiff
must identify the specific terms of a valid, enforceable agreement.

3

The granting or denial of a motion to amend pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) is within the
discretion of the trial court. Leave to amend a complaint should be liberally granted. Foman v.
Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962). In cases “where a more carefully drafted complaint might state a
claim, a plaintiff must be given at least one chance to amend the complaint before the district
court dismisses the action with prejudice.” EEOC v. Ohio Edison Co., 7 F.3d 541, 546 (6th Cir.
1993).
4

IV.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 12) is DENIED without
prejudice, and the Court sua sponte ORDERS Plaintiff to amend the Complaint
(consistent with the foregoing), within 21 days of the date of this Order. Failure to
timely amend the Complaint will result in dismissal of this civil action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 9/21/16

s/ Timothy S. Black
Timothy S. Black
United States District Judge

5