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)

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