McArthur v. The Rock Wood Fired Pizza & Spirits et al

Filing 88

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 65 Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 5 6 7 8 JENNIFER McARTHUR, 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 12 13 THE ROCK WOOD FIRED PIZZA & SPIRITS, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. C14-0770 RSM ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 14 15 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary 16 Judgment. Dkt. #65. Although not entirely clear, it appears that Plaintiff is seeking an Order 17 from this Court stating that Defendant The Wedge Corporation is subject to the requirements of 18 the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Dkts. #65 and #81. She does not seek a ruling on the 19 merits of the claims she brings under the FLSA, but rather seeks a dismissal of Defendants’ 20 21 affirmative defense that her claims are not covered by the FLSA. Id. 22 Defendants appear to concede that The Wedge Corporation is subject to the 23 requirements of the FLSA. See Dkt. #78 at 6-8. However, Defendants oppose the dismissal of 24 their affirmative defense on several grounds, but primarily because there are numerous issues 25 of material fact in dispute as to the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims. Dkt. #78. 26 27 28 ORDER PAGE - 1 1 Having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion, the opposition thereto, and reply in support thereof, 2 along with the Declarations and Exhibits thereto, and the remainder of the record, the Court 3 hereby finds and ORDERS: 4 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. #65) is GRANTED IN 5 PART AND DENIED IN PART. To the extent Plaintiff seeks an Order stating that 6 Defendant The Wedge Corporation is subject to the requirements of the FLSA, there 7 8 appears to be no dispute that it is. However, nothing in this Order is intended to 9 suggest that Plaintiff’s claims under the FLSA have merit, or that she will succeed 10 on her claims as to any of the Defendants. Likewise, the Court will not dismiss 11 Defendants’ affirmative defense that the FLSA does not apply to Plaintiff’s claims. 12 13 That affirmative defense goes to the merits of each of Plaintiff’s claims that she 14 raises under the FLSA and is brought on behalf of all of the Defendants. Plaintiff 15 does not address all Defendants in her motion, or explain why the defense should be 16 dismissed as to all of them. In addition, the Court agrees that numerous issues of 17 fact in dispute on the several claims that Plaintiff raises under the FLSA make the 18 dismissal of Defendants’ affirmative defense inappropriate at this time. 19 20 2. Both parties have asked the Court to strike material from the briefs and Declarations 21 submitted in support of this motion. The Court DENIES those requests as moot. 22 Even if the Court disregarded the materials sought to be stricken, its conclusion 23 would remain the same. 24 25 3. Finally, to the extent that Defendants have requested the dismissal of certain of 26 Plaintiffs’ claims, the Court DENIES such requests. Defendants have improperly 27 raised those requests through a response brief, which does not contain any cross- 28 ORDER PAGE - 2 motion to dismiss or for summary judgment in their favor, and does not allow the 1 2 Plaintiff an opportunity to substantively respond to the requests given the limitations 3 of the reply brief. 4 DATED this 13 day of February, 2017. 5 6 A 7 8 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER PAGE - 3

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?