Montoya v. JH & Mercy Enterprise LLC et al
Filing
16
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge James C. Cacheris on 12/15/14. (gwalk, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
SARA EVELINDA MONTOYA,
Plaintiff,
v.
JH & MERCY ENTERPRISE LLC and
JIHYUN JUNG,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
M E M O R A N D U M
1:14cv1216 (JCC/IDD)
O P I N I O N
This Fair Labor Standards Act action is before the
Court on Defendant JH & Mercy Enterprise LLC’s Motion to Dismiss
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
[Dkt. 9.]
The motion has been fully briefed and is
now before the Court.
I. Background1
Plaintiff Sara Evelinda Montoya (“Plaintiff”) was
employed by Defendant JH & Mercy Enterprise LLC (“Defendant”) as
a laborer from April 19, 2011 through June 6, 2014.
[Dkt. 1] at 1-3.)
(Compl.
Between April 19, 2011 and August 1, 2013,
Plaintiff worked an average of 62.5 hours per week, but only
1
In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, as is the
case here, “a court accepts all well-pled facts as true and construes these
facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff[.]” Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd.
v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 255 (4th Cir. 2009) (citations
omitted). Accordingly, the following facts, taken from Plaintiff’s
Complaint, are accepted as true for purposes of this motion. See Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
1
earned $5.98 per hour and was not paid overtime.
19-20.)
(Id. at ¶¶ 16,
Between August 2, 2013 and June 6, 2014, Plaintiff
again worked an average of 62.5 hours per week, but only earned
$6.42 per hour and again, was not paid overtime.
19-20.)
During this period of time, Plaintiff was owed, but not
paid, minimum wage and overtime compensation.
20.)
(Id. at ¶¶ 17,
(Id. at ¶¶ 15-
Plaintiff seeks past total wages and overtime compensation
owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).
(Id. at 5.)
Defendant now moves to dismiss the Complaint in part
as to Plaintiff’s demand for overtime pay.
[Dkt. 9.]
Defendant
argues that as an “agricultural worker,” Plaintiff was not
entitled to overtime pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(12).
(Def.’s Mem. [Dkt. 9-2] at 2-4.)
memorandum.
Plaintiff filed an opposition
(Pl.’s Opp’n [Dkt. 12].)
Defendant did not file a
reply brief, the time to so file has expired, and therefore, the
motion is ripe for disposition.2
II. Standard of Review
“The purpose of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is to test the
sufficiency of a complaint; importantly, [it] does not resolve
contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the
applicability of defenses.”
Butler v. United States, 702 F.3d
749, 752 (4th Cir. 2012) (citations and internal quotation marks
2
Defendant requested a hearing on this motion [Dkt. 14], but in accordance
with E.D. Va. Local Civil Rule 7(J) and Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Court dispenses with oral argument and issues this ruling
without a hearing.
2
omitted).
A court reviewing a complaint on a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion must accept well-pleaded allegations as true, and must
construe all allegations in favor of the plaintiff.
See Randall
v. United States, 30 F.3d 518, 522 (4th Cir. 1994).
However,
the court need not accept as true legal conclusions disguised as
factual allegations.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679-81
(2009).
III. Analysis
In short, Defendant’s motion to dismiss will be denied
because it raises a question of fact as to Plaintiff’s work
duties, which is not an appropriate basis for dismissal under
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
In the
Complaint, Plaintiff alleges she “worked for Defendants as a
laborer.”
(Compl. at 1.)
She does not claim that she worked as
an agricultural laborer, nor does she go on to describe her work
duties in any detail.
(Id. at 2-5.)
Defendant contends that
Plaintiff “qualifies as an agricultural laborer,” and is thus
exempt from FLSA’s overtime compensation requirements.
(Def.’s
Mem. at 3.)
Whether Plaintiff worked as a “laborer” or as an
“agricultural laborer” is not properly resolved by the Court on
motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
differently, this is a question of fact.
Stated
Because the Court must
accept Plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations as true, Randall, 30
3
F.3d at 522, at this stage in the litigation, the Court accepts
Plaintiff’s allegations that she worked as a laborer.
The Court
cannot “resolve contests surrounding the facts [or] the merits
of a claim” at this stage.
Butler, 702 F.3d at 752.
After the
benefit of a more complete record through discovery, this issue
could be more properly examined.
For purposes of a Rule
12(b)(6) motion, however, Plaintiff’s Complaint states a claim
for relief under FLSA that is plausible on its face against
Defendants.
Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd., 591 F.3d at 255-56 (quoting
Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (holding the factual allegations in the
complaint must nudge plaintiff’s claims “across the line from
conceivable to plausible.”))).
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will deny
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
An appropriate Order will issue.
December 15, 2014
Alexandria, Virginia
/s/
James C. Cacheris
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 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?