Walsh v. Deluca et al

Filing 19

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 10 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 4/7/2016. (Jackson, Ryan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________
)
ARIELLE WALSH, on behalf of herself)
and all others similarly situated, )
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
C.A. No. 15-472 S
)
GILBERT ENTERPRISES, INC.,
)
d/b/a CLUB FANTASIES, and
)
FRANCIS DELUCA,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________)
ORDER
This is one of four cases brought on behalf of exotic dancers
at various Rhode Island night clubs.

(See also Levi v. Gulliver’s

Tavern, Inc., C.A. No. 15-216 (“Levi”); Binienda v. Atwells Realty
Corp., C.A. No. 15-253 (“Binienda”); Pizzarelli v. The Cadillac
Lounge, LLC, C.A. No. 15-254 (“Pizzarelli”.)

The cases involve

substantially similar allegations and identical causes of action.
(Compare Levi Am. Compl., ECF No. 13 in C.A. No. 15-216, with
Binienda Am. Compl., ECF No. 10 in C.A. No. 15-253, with Pizzarelli
Compl., ECF No. 1 in C.A. No. 15-254, with Walsh Compl., ECF No.
1 in C.A. No. 15-472.)
Before the Court is Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss
(“Motion”).

(ECF No. 10 in C.A. No. 15-472.)

Defendants

argue

sufficient

to

that

hold

Plaintiffs:

Francis

(1)

Deluca

failed

In the Motion,
to

individually

plead
liable

facts
for

Plaintiffs’ claims; (2) failed to state a cognizable claim in Count

II, Plaintiffs’ unlawful tip sharing claim; and (3) that R.I. Gen.
Laws §§ 28-14-2 and 28-14-2.2 do not support Plaintiffs’ claim for
relief in Count V, Plaintiffs’ “unlawful fees and fines” claim.
(See Defs.’ Mem. 4, 5, and 7, ECF No. 10-1 in C.A. No. 15-472.)
These are the same claims that Defendants moved to dismiss in Levi.
(Compare Defs.’ Mem., ECF No. 10-1 and Pls.’ Opp’n, ECF No. 16 in
Walsh, C.A. No. 15-472, with Defs.’ Mem., ECF No. 15-1 and Pls.’
Opp’n, ECF No. 17-1 in Levi, C.A. No. 15-216.)

And both Defendants

and Plaintiffs largely copy – often verbatim – the arguments raised
by the parties in Levi.

(Id.)

Given these similarities, the Court need not write separately
in the present action.

The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN

PART Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss for the reasons set
forth in the Court’s Memorandum and Order in Levi.
& Order, ECF No. 21 in C.A. No. 15-216.)

(See Levi Mem.

Specifically, the Court

GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss as to Count II, and as to
Francis Deluca, and dismisses those claims without prejudice.
Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss as to Count V.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

William E. Smith
Chief Judge
Date: April 7, 2016

2

The