Pruitt et al v. Gee et al
Filing
28
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION as set forth in following order.Signed by District Judge R Leon Jordan on 4/1/13. (ABF)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
GREENEVILLE DIVISION
KEVIN PRUITT, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CHARLES GEE, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 2:12-CV-242
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This civil action is before the court for consideration of the “Motion for
Dismissal” filed by defendant Citizens Bank [doc. 18]. Plaintiffs have filed a response [doc.
20].1 Oral argument is unnecessary, and the motion is ripe for the court’s determination.
Plaintiffs have brought suit for alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., for failure to pay overtime and withhold taxes. For
the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted, and Citizens Bank will be dismissed.
1
Attached to plaintiffs’ response are two affidavits, one executed by plaintiff Kevin Pruitt
and the other by plaintiff Jeffrey Doyle. However, the court will not consider these affidavits nor
convert the pending motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment because of their inclusion in
the response. “A motion to dismiss is not automatically converted into a motion for summary
judgment simply because a party submits exhibits or other materials beyond the pleadings.”
Gudenas v. Cervenik, No. 1:09CV2169, 2010 WL 987699, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 22, 2010)
(citations omitted). “It is well established that a District Court ‘has complete discretion to determine
whether or not to accept any material beyond the pleadings that is offered in conjunction with a Rule
12(b)(6) motion.” Barrett v. Harrington, 130 F.3d 246, 253 (6th Cir. 1997) (citing 5A C. Wright
& A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 1366, at 491-93 (1990) (footnotes
omitted)); see also id. “Where the court does not rely on such materials, or considers them irrelevant
to resolution of the merits of the motion, the court does not err in simply considering the motion as
a motion to dismiss.” Id. (citations omitted). The affidavits submitted by plaintiffs are irrelevant,
adding nothing to the legal issue before the court, and the court will not rely on them.
I.
Background
According to the complaint, plaintiffs were employed by defendant Charles
Gee. Plaintiffs allege that they were not paid overtime and that the employer also failed to
withhold required taxes so they were deprived of “the employer’s contribution to their Social
Security.” Apparently, Citizens Bank issued the payroll checks for the employer Gee.
Plaintiffs further allege that they were terminated by Gee “because they were whistleblowers
by reporting that raw sewage was being discharged by him to the peril of the population of
his trailer courts.”
II.
Standard of Review
Citizens Bank’s motion is brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes dismissal of a complaint for “failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.” In resolving a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must
“construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept its allegations as
true, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” Directv, Inc. v. Treesh, 487
F.3d 471, 476 (6th Cir. 2007). “The factual allegations, assumed to be true, must do more
than create speculation or suspicion of a legally cognizable cause of action; they must show
entitlement to relief.” League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Bredesen, 500 F.3d 523, 527
(6th Cir. 2007) (emphasis in original) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
2
555-56 (2007)). “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’. . . A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 556). “To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss, plaintiff’s pleading for relief must provide ‘more than labels and conclusions, and
a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’” Bowman v. United
States, 304 F. App’x 371, 374 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing Ass’n of Cleveland Fire Fighters, 502
F.3d 545, 548 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555)).
III.
Analysis
Plaintiffs have brought this case for relief under the FLSA. Under the FLSA,
employers are required “to pay their employees time-and-a-half for work performed in
excess of forty hours per week.” Acs v. Detroit Edison Co., 444 F.3d 763, 764-65 (6th Cir.
2006) (emphasis added) (citations omitted). The employee has the burden of proving “by a
preponderance of the evidence that he or she ‘performed work for which he [or she] was not
properly compensated.’” Myers v. Copper Cellar Corp., 192 F.3d 546, 551 (6th Cir. 1999)
(quoting Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 686-87 (1946)).
The only allegation in the complaint related to Citizens Bank is at paragraph
seven. That paragraph states: “Defendant Citizens Bank participated culpably in the scheme
3
by issuing the check knowing that overtime and the employer’s contribution were not being
paid.” Even taking the allegations in this paragraph as true and in the light most favorable
to the plaintiffs, as the court must, Directv, 487 F.3d at 476, they do not state a claim against
Citizens Bank under the FLSA. There is no allegation that Citizens Bank employed any of
the plaintiffs; rather, the complaint states that defendant Charles Gee employed the plaintiffs
and failed to pay them overtime and to properly withhold taxes. Thus, there are no
allegations in the complaint showing that plaintiffs would have any “entitlement to relief”
as to Citizens Bank based upon the FLSA. Bredesen, 500 F.3d at 527. Accordingly, no basis
for liability exists as to Citizens Bank under the FLSA, and dismissal is appropriate.
IV.
Conclusion
Therefore, for the reasons stated herein, the “Motion for Dismissal” filed by
Citizens Bank [doc. 18] will be granted, and that defendant will be dismissed. An order
consistent with this opinion will be entered.
ENTER:
s/ Leon Jordan
United States District Judge
4
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?