Zamalloa et al v. Thompson Landscape Services, Inc. et al
Filing
37
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE for 32 Report and Recommendations, DENYING 13 Motion to Dismiss filed by Thompson Landscape Services, Inc., Autumn Nicole Casey. Because Plaint iffs' complaint states plausible claims for relief under the FLSA and for the state law claims of breach of contract and quantum meruit, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (Dkt. 13 ) is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 6/12/2018. (baf, )
United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
RODRIGO ZAMALLOA and
MANUEL ZAMOLLOA,
§
§
§
Plaintiffs,
§
§
v.
§
§
THOMPSON LANDSCAPE SERVICES, INC., §
and AUTUMN NICOLE CASEY,
§
§
Defendants.
§
Case No. 4:17-cv-00519-ALM-KPJ
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this
action, this matter having been heretofore referred to the United States Magistrate Judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On May 3, 2018, the report of the Magistrate Judge was entered
(see Dkt. #32) containing proposed findings of fact and recommendations that Defendants
Thompson Landscape Services, Inc. (“Thompson”) and Autumn Nicole Casey’s (“Casey”)
(collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (the “Motion”) (Dkt.
#13) be denied.
Defendants filed objections to the report (Dkt. #33), and Plaintiffs filed a response (Dkt.
#35). The Court has made a de novo review of the objections raised by Defendants and is of the
opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and the objections
are without merit as to the ultimate findings of the Magistrate Judge. The Court hereby adopts
the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of the
Court.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Rodrigo Zamalloa and Manuel Zamalloa (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) brought
this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and Texas contract law to recover
wages they allege Defendants owe to them. See generally Dkt. 1 at ¶ 1. Plaintiffs, authorized to
enter and work in the United States pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) (the “H-2B
Visa Program” or the “Program”), allege that Defendants compensated them on a piece-rate
basis for their work but failed to pay them the required overtime wages for hours worked over
forty in a workweek in violation of the FLSA. Id. at ¶¶ 20-22. Plaintiffs further allege that
Defendants breached their employment contracts with Plaintiffs because the piece-rate
compensation resulted in Plaintiffs receiving less than the prevailing wage rate expressly
promised to them. Id. In the alternative to their breach of contract claim, Plaintiffs allege that if
the employment contract did not contain a wage rate, Plaintiffs are entitled to compensation in
quantum meruit for the services provided to and accepted by Defendants. Id. at ¶ 38.
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have failed to allege a FLSA violation because
Plaintiffs’ conclusion that Defendants violated the FLSA by paying too little is based on the
wrong formula. See Dkt. 13 at 4. Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs’ state law causes of action
for breach of contract or, in the alternative, quantum meruit, should be dismissed because they
are preempted by federal law. Id.
II.
DISCUSSION
In objecting to the Magistrate Judge’s finding regarding the sufficiency of Plaintiffs’
FLSA claim, Defendants challenge the basis by which Plaintiffs assert they were not
2
appropriately paid overtime. See Dkt. 33 at 3. “Overtime pay is calculated not by dividing
promised pay by the hours worked, but rather by dividing the total actual pay by the total hours
worked per pay period.” Id. Thus, Defendants continue to challenge the computation formula
used by Plaintiffs to conclude they were not paid one and one-half times the regular rate. Id.
However, at the Magistrate Judge explained, this argument goes to the merits of Plaintiffs’
FLSA claim, not whether the claim was sufficiently pleaded. See Dkt. 32 at 4, 6. Accordingly,
this objection is OVERRULED.
As to Plaintiffs’ state law claims, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs lack standing to
enforce the H-2B regulations. See Dkt. 33 at 3-5. Defendants’ cursory summation of Plaintiffs’
state law claims as “a single, alleged violation of the H-2B regulations: non-payment of the
prevailing wage” (id. at 5) misconstrues the allegations in Plaintiffs’ complaint. As the
Magistrate Judge explained, Plaintiffs here do not “assert[] a private right of action under either
the INA or the H-2B regulations [but rather, they] are asserting contract and quantum meruit
claims under state law.” Dkt. 32 at 12. Defendants’ reliance on SCI Tex. Funeral Servs. v. Hijar,
214 S.W.3d 148 (Tex. App. 2007), as support for the proposition that Texas law does not permit
a plaintiff to create a private cause of action by alleging a violation of a federal regulation to
satisfy an element of a state common law claim is unavailing. See Dkt. 33 at 3-4 (citing Hijar,
214 S.W.3d at 154). Hijar is readily distinguishable because there, unlike here, the plaintiffs
specifically alleged a violation of the federal “Funeral Rule” as one of their causes of action.
See id. at 153. Although Defendants relentlessly pursue their “no private right of action” theory,
that is simply not the substance of Plaintiffs’ state law causes of action. Furthermore, Plaintiffs
have sufficiently asserted the elements of their state law contract and quantum meruit claims,
and those elements do not rely on an asserted violation of any federal law, as was the case in
3
Hijar. Based on the foregoing, this objection, as well as its corollary, that Texas law would
preempt a private right of action, is OVERRULED.
III.
.
CONCLUSION
Because Plaintiffs’ complaint states plausible claims for relief under the FLSA and for
the state law claims of breach of contract and quantum meruit, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (Dkt. #13) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 12th day of June, 2018.
___________________________________
AMOS L. MAZZANT
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?