Castillo-Gomez v. Convenience Car Care Center, Inc. et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION re 7 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by District Judge James C. Cacheris on 7/17/2014. (rban, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division

DOMINGO CASTILLO-GOMEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
CONVENIENCE CAR CARE CENTER,
INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

M E M O R A N D U M

1:14cv651 (JCC/TCB)

O P I N I O N

Plaintiff Domingo Castillo-Gomez (“Plaintiff”) has
filed this action against his former employer Convenience Car
Care Center, Inc. and its owners (collectively “Defendants”),
alleging they failed to pay him wages and overtime compensation
as required under their contract and the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

(Compl. [Dkt. 1] at 1.)

Presently before the Court is

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and supporting memorandum.
to Dismiss [Dkt. 7]; Defs.’ Mem. [Dkt. 8].)

(Mot.

For the reasons set

forth below, the Court will deny Defendants’ motion.
I. Background
The alleged facts in this case are straightforward.
In 2009, Defendants hired Plaintiff as an automobile detailer
and orally represented that he would be paid an hourly wage of
$15.00 along with overtime at one and one-half times this rate.

1

(Compl. at 3-4.)

Defendants further promised that Plaintiff

would receive forty hours of paid vacation per annum.
4.)

(Id. at

Defendants dismissed Plaintiff as an employee in March

2014, purportedly without ever paying him overtime or providing
the promised vacation time.

(Id. at 2, 4.)

On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff filed this action alleging
Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (Counts I and
II), the Virginia Minimum Wage Act (Count III), and were in
breach of contract (Count IV).

(Compl. at 5-8.)

Defendants

have moved to dismiss Count IV, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim.
to Dismiss at 1.)

(Mot.

Defendants maintain that “Count IV fails to

pass muster under the Twombly standard as the Complaint fails to
contain any allegations as to what the substance of the supposed
contract was between the Plaintiff and Defendants.”
Mem. at 3.)

(Defs.’

Additionally, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has

not set forth the elements of a viable breach of contract claim
under Virginia law.
motion.

(Id.)

Plaintiff opposes Defendants’

(Pl.’s Opp’n [Dkt. 10] at 2-3.)
Having been fully briefed, Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss is now before the Court. 1

1

The parties have not briefed the Court on choice of law and they appear to
agree that Virginia law applies. Accordingly, the Court will apply Virginia
law for purposes of Defendants’ motion.

2

II. Standard of Review
“A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the
sufficiency of a complaint[.]”

Republican Party of N.C. v.

Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted).
The Supreme Court has stated that in order “[t]o survive a
motion to dismiss, a [c]omplaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.’”

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678

(2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007)).

“A claim has facial plausibility when the pleaded

factual content allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.”

Id.

The issue in resolving such a motion is not

whether the non-movant will ultimately prevail, but whether the
non-movant is entitled to offer evidence to support his or her
claims.
“Determining whether a complaint states a plausible
claim for relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that
requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience
and common sense.”

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (citations omitted).

While legal conclusions can provide the framework for a
complaint, all claims must be supported by factual allegations.
Id.

Based upon these allegations, the court must determine

whether the plaintiff’s pleadings plausibly give rise to an
3

entitlement to relief.

Id.

Legal conclusions couched as

factual allegations are not sufficient, Twombly, 550 U.S. at
555, nor are “unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions,
or arguments,” E. Shore Mkts., Inc. v. J.D. Assocs. Ltd. P’ship,
213 F.3d 175, 180 (4th Cir. 2000).

Moreover, the plaintiff does

not have to show a likelihood of success; rather, the complaint
must merely allege - directly or indirectly - each element of a
“viable legal theory.”

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 562-63.

In addition, at the motion to dismiss stage, this
Court must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to
the plaintiff, read the complaint as a whole, and take the facts
asserted therein as true.

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
III. Analysis

As noted, the only count at issue is Plaintiff’s
breach of oral contract claim.

“Under Virginia law, ‘the

essential elements of a cause of action for breach of contract
are: (1) a legal obligation of a defendant to the plaintiff, (2)
a violation or breach of that right or duty, and (3) a
consequential injury or damage to the plaintiff.’”

Albanese v.

WCI Communities, Inc., 530 F. Supp. 2d 752, 760 (E.D. Va. 2007)
(quoting Westminster Investing Corp. v. Lamps Unlimited, Inc.,
237 Va. 543, 546 (1989)).

Virginia law recognizes oral

contracts provided the terms are “reasonably certain, definite
and complete to enable the parties and the courts to give the
4

agreement exact meaning.”

Lamers v. Orga. Strategies, Inc., No.

1:08cv101, 2008 WL 779516, at *3 (E.D. Va. Mar. 24, 2008)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Although the Court has doubts about the validity of
Plaintiff’s claim, especially in light of Virginia’s statute of
frauds, see Va. Code Ann. § 11-2, at this stage the Court is
solely concerned with the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s pleadings
as that is all Defendants are contesting.

See, T.W. v. Hanover

Cnty. Public Sch., 900 F. Supp. 2d 659, 663 (E.D. Va. 2012)
(“[T]he Court may not act as the litigant’s advocate and
construct legal arguments that [they have] not made.” (citations
omitted)); Ware v. James City Cnty., Va., 652 F. Supp. 2d 693,
706 n.16 (E.D. Va. 2009) (declining to consider argument that
defendant did not include in its brief); Touchcom, Inc. v.
Bereskin & Parr, 790 F. Supp. 2d 435, 446 (E.D. Va. 2011)
(indicating that courts typically will not consider an argument
omitted from the moving litigant’s brief as the “opposing party
is prejudiced in its ability to respond” (citation omitted)).
In his Complaint, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants promised to
pay him $15.00 per hour plus overtime at one and one-half times
this rate in exchange for his labor.

(Compl. at 4-5, 8.)

Plaintiff further asserts that Defendants failed to pay him as
promised despite his performance under the contract.
4.)

(Id. at

Finally, Plaintiff claims that he suffered damages in the
5

amount of $30,000 for unpaid wages and vacation time.
8.)

(Id. at

At this point in the proceedings, these allegations are

sufficient to state a claim for breach of contract under
Virginia law.

See Hill v. Alstom Power, Inc., No. 3:13–cv–

00496–JAG, 2013 WL 6408416, at *2 (E.D. Va. Dec. 6, 2013)
(finding plaintiff’s breach of oral contract claim sufficiently
pled on similar allegations); see also Old Republic Ins. Co. v.
Spring Menders, Inc., No. 2:11cv69, 2011 WL 2838179, at *6 (E.D.
Va. July 14, 2011).
Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff’s claim must fail
because he has not alleged the “substance” of their purported
oral agreement is unpersuasive.

(Defs.’ Mem. at 3.)

A

plaintiff need not plead all the specific details underlying an
alleged breach of contract to state a claim.

Although

Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the particulars of the alleged
contract could certainly be more precise, Plaintiff has
identified the material terms of the agreement that Defendants
purportedly breached.
required.

At the pleadings stage, no more is

See Dodge v. CDW Gov’t, Inc., No. 1:09cv528

(AJT/IDD), 2009 WL 1605010, at *4 (E.D. Va. June 5, 2009)
(“[T]he allegation that a contract existed is sufficient to
allege the existence of the contract.

An otherwise valid claim

does not fail simply because Plaintiff did not attach a document
to its complaint.” (citation omitted)); Comfort Inn Oceanside v.
6

Hertz Corp., No. 11–CV–1534, 2011 WL 5238658, at *6 (E.D.N.Y.
Nov. 1, 2011) (“While the amended complaint is devoid of
specifics, . . . those specifics are not required in pleading a
breach of contract action[.]”); see also Hill, 2013 WL 6408416,
at *2.
IV. Conclusion
In sum, Plaintiff’s Complaint is sufficient to state a
claim under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Twombly.
Plaintiff’s Complaint therefore is adequate to allow Defendants
to respond.

Accordingly, the Court will deny Defendants’ Motion

to Dismiss.

An appropriate order will follow.

July 17, 2014
Alexandria, Virginia

/s/
James C. Cacheris
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

7