United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
January 26, 2015
JASON WHITE Plaintiff,
VIEW POINT HEALTH, Defendant
For Jason White, Plaintiff: Charles Ronald Bridgers, Kevin D. Fitzpatrick, Jr., LEAD ATTORNEYS, DeLong Caldwell Bridgers & Fitzpatrick, LLC, Atlanta, GA.
For View Point Health, Defendant: Noelle A. Abastillas, Hervey Joseph Colette, Owen Gleaton Egan Jones & Sweeney, LLP, Atlanta, GA.
WILLIS B. HUNT, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
This matter is before the Court for consideration of Defendant's motion to dismiss, [Doc. 6], because of Plaintiff's failure to sufficiently plead a viable cause of action. Plaintiff has brought the instant action seeking to recover damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act because Defendant allegedly failed to pay him overtime pay despite the fact that he regularly worked more than forty hours a week.
Defendant brings its motion under the Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) line of cases in which the Supreme Court tightened the requirements for establishing a claim for relief. Iqbal and Twombly did not, however, dispense with common sense, and there remain areas in a given complaint that can be inferred when they are, for example, glaringly obvious.
In its motion to dismiss Defendant first asserts that Plaintiff has failed to state an FLSA claim because Plaintiff did not plead facts to support the contention that Defendant is an enterprise engaged in interstate commerce covered by the FLSA. In response, this Court notes that interstate commerce is such an all-encompassing concept that it would be surprising if an organization in the nature of Defendant was not engaged in interstate commerce. In this context, this Court concludes that merely asserting that Defendant is engaged in interstate commerce is sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.
This Court likewise concludes that Plaintiff's allegation that he regularly worked over forty hours a week without receiving overtime pay is sufficient to state a claim under the FLSA. Listing out a specific week (or weeks) that he worked over forty hours would do nothing to enhance the complaint or help Defendant better understand the claims against it. In response to Defendant's assertion that Plaintiff has insufficiently plead willfulness, this Court will allow Plaintiff an opportunity to develop his theory of willfulness during discovery.
Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss, [Doc. 6], is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.