Stone v. Lincare Inc
Filing
5
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 4 . Signed by Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (VR, Courtroom Deputy)
FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
1
Dec 01, 2017
2
SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
6
7
AMANDA STONE,
NO: 2:17-CV-337-RMP
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
11
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE
A CLAIM
v.
LINCARE, INC.,
Defendant.
12
13
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a
14
Claim, ECF No. 4. Defendant Lincare, Inc., moves this Court to dismiss Plaintiff
15
Amanda Stone’s third claim for relief. ECF No. 4. Ms. Stone did not respond to
16
Lincare’s motion. The Court has reviewed Lincare’s Motion and Ms. Stone’s
17
Complaint, and is fully informed.
18
BACKGROUND
19
Ms. Stone filed this lawsuit against Lincare alleging claims of discrimination
20
based on her sex in violation of the Washington Law Against Discrimination, RCW
21
49.60 et seq.; discrimination based on her disability in violation of the Washington
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM ~ 1
1
Law Against Discrimination; and Lincare’s failure to pay Ms. Stone the wages owed
2
to her in violation of RCW 49.52.050(2). ECF No. 1 at 8-9.
3
The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant 28 U.S.C.
4
§ 1332 based on the diversity of the parties and the amount in controversy. Plaintiff
5
Stone is a resident of the state of Washington. ECF No. 1 at 2. Defendant Lincare is
6
a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Florida. Id. The amount
7
in controversy is $100,000, which exceeds the statutory requirement of $75,000. Id.
8
DISCUSSION
9
10
Plaintiff’s Failure to Respond to Defendant’s Motion
Defendant Lincare moves this Court to dismiss Ms. Stone’s third claim for
11
relief, regarding Lincare’s alleged failure to pay Ms. Stone the wages owed to her in
12
violation of RCW 49.52.050(2). See ECF No. 4. Ms. Stone failed to respond to
13
Lincare’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Local Rule 7.1(b) requires
14
a represented party to respond to a dispositive motion within 21 days after the filing
15
of the dispositive motion. Violation of LR 7.1 (b) “may be deemed consent to the
16
entry of an Order adverse to the party who violates these rules.” LR 7.1(d).
17
However, the Court will consider the arguments presented by Lincare before
18
deciding the motion.
19
Legal Standard for Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss
20
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow for the dismissal of a complaint
21
where the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM ~ 2
1
Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A motion to dismiss brought pursuant to this rule “tests the legal
2
sufficiency of a claim.” Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). In
3
reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint, a court accepts all well-pleaded
4
allegations as true and construes those allegations in the light most favorable to the
5
non-moving party. Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir.
6
2010) (citing Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031-
7
32 (9th Cir. 2008)).
8
To withstand dismissal, a complaint must contain “enough facts to state a
9
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
10
544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
11
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
12
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
13
While specific legal theories need not be pleaded, the pleadings must put the
14
opposing party on notice of the claim. Fontana v. Haskin, 262 F.3d 871, 877 (9th
15
Cir. 2001) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).
16
A plaintiff is not required to establish a probability of success on the merits;
17
however, he or she must demonstrate “more than a sheer possibility that a
18
defendant has acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S.
19
at 556). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to
20
relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
21
elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM ~ 3
1
2
Analysis of Defendant’s Arguments
Defendant Lincare moves this Court to dismiss Ms. Stone’s third claim for
3
relief, regarding Lincare’s alleged failure to pay Ms. Stone the wages owed to her in
4
violation of RCW 49.52.050(2). See ECF No. 4. RCW 49.52.050(2), in relevant
5
part, penalizes employers “who . . . willfully and with intent to deprive [an]
6
employee of any part of his or her wages, . . . pay any employee a lower wage than
7
the wage such employer is obligated to pay such employee by any statute, ordinance,
8
or contract.” RCW 49.52.070 creates civil liability for any employer who violates
9
RCW 49.52.050(2) and provides that the wronged employee may be entitled to
10
11
“twice the amount of wages unlawfully rebated or withheld.”
Lincare argues that Ms. Stone’s Complaint contains no factual allegation that
12
she was not paid by Lincare for all hours worked. ECF No. 4 at 2. Ms. Stone’s
13
Complaint alleges that her hourly rate of pay in her position at Lincare was $14.00,
14
and that she worked 40 hours each week in addition to approximately seven hours of
15
overtime each month. ECF No. 1 at 7. She alleges that she was diagnosed with
16
narcolepsy and experienced narcolepsy-related issues. Id. at 7-8. Ms. Stone further
17
alleges that she received warnings from Lincare concerning her work attendance and
18
performance, and that she received a termination notice from Lincare. Id. at 8. In
19
her first and second claims for relief, Ms. Stone alleges that Lincare discriminated
20
against her in violation of the Washington Law Against Discrimination and that, as a
21
result, Ms. Stone “sustained economic damages consisting of wage loss.” Id. at 8-9.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM ~ 4
1
With regards to her third claim, id. at 9, Ms. Stone states, “The allegations set forth
2
above are hereby incorporated by reference [sic] as if fully set forth.” Arguably, if
3
Ms. Stone was discriminated against in a manner that led to the termination of her
4
employment, as she alleges, she could have sustained lost wages as a result.
5
Lincare argues that, even if Ms. Stone alleged that Lincare failed to pay her
6
for all hours worked, the “double damages” pursuant to RCW 49.52.070 are not
7
available where an employer violates an anti-discrimination statute. Id. at 3. In
8
support of its argument, Lincare cites Hemmings v. Tidyman’s Inc., 285 F.3d 1174
9
(9th Cir. 2002), which held that plaintiffs alleging violations of anti-discrimination
10
statutes were not entitled to double damages. Id. at 1204. Hemmings states that
11
“Washington courts have not extended RCW 49.52.050 to situations where
12
employers violate antidiscrimination statutes.” Id. at 1203. Instead, “violations of
13
[RCW 49.52.050] have been upheld where an employer consciously withholds a
14
quantifiable and undisputed amount of accrued pay.” Id. The Hemmings court
15
distinguished the statute’s use of “obligated,” noting that “obligated” indicated a pre-
16
existing duty, while a defendant’s “obligation” to pay a plaintiff based upon a
17
verdict is a “retrospective” duty. Id.
18
Thus, even if Ms. Stone sustained lost wages as a result of Lincare’s alleged
19
discriminatory conduct, the Court finds Ms. Stone has failed to state a claim upon
20
which relief may be granted because she has not alleged that Lincare failed to pay
21
her wages due for hours that she worked.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM ~ 5
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
2
1.
3
4
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, ECF No.
4, is GRANTED.
2.
Plaintiff’s third claim for relief regarding Lincare’s alleged failure to
5
pay Ms. Stone the wages owed to her in violation of RCW 49.52.050(2)
6
is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
7
8
9
The District Court Clerk is directed to enter this Order and provide copies to
counsel.
DATED December 1, 2017.
10
11
s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson
ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON
United States District Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM ~ 6
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?