dismiss some of the out-of-state plaintiffs on the grounds of personal jurisdiction. The court concluded that the defendant waived the personal jurisdiction defense for plaintiffs who joined the case before the defendant ’ s initial motion to dismiss but did not waive it for those who joined afterward. Thereafter, the court addressed the issue of personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state opt-in plaintiffs. The defendant argued that the Supreme Court ’ s Bristol-Meyers Squibb precedent requires the dismissal of the out-of- state plaintiffs’ claims. The plaintiff argued that the decision only applied to state court actions and that federal courts should have broader jurisdiction. The court noted that there is a split in decisions on this issue among different jurisdictions, but ultimately held that FLSA collective actions should be treated like individual actions with regard to personal jurisdiction. Since the FLSA lacked a nationwide mechanism for service of process and personal jurisdiction was not established for the out-of-state plaintiffs, the court found that personal jurisdiction did not exist over the out-of-state plaintiffs. Accordingly, the court denied defendant ’ s motion to dismiss regarding the six out-of-state plaintiffs who joined the action before the defendant ’ s previous motion to dismiss, but granted the motion as to the out-of-state plaintiffs who joined afterward, citing the need for personal jurisdiction for each individual claim in FLSA cases. Employers also successfully attacked class and collective action claims by challenging the sufficiency of the allegations in a plaintiff ’ s pleading prior to a motion for conditional certification. In Shoemo-Flint, et al. v. Cedar Fair, L.P., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111873 (N.D. Ohio June 28, 2023), the plaintiff, a restaurant server, filed a class and collective action alleging that the defendant failed to pay the minimum wage in violation of the FLSA and Ohio state wage & hour laws. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant required servers to perform various side work tasks that were not tip-producing, such as setting tables, restocking, and cleaning, which effectively dropped her pay below the minimum wage. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff ’ s claims or request a more definite statement of her claims. The plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint. The defendant then moved to strike the class and collective action allegations from the complaint. The court agreed with the defendant that the plaintiff ’ s allegations failed to sufficiently demonstrate that she could maintain the case as a class or collective action. The court ruled that the plaintiff offered only conclusory allegations that her experiences were typical of the experiences of all other servers employed by the defendant during the relevant time period. The court reasoned that the plaintiff ’ s allegations did not provide the necessary information to determine that the plaintiff was similarly-situated to other servers. The court therefore concluded that the plaintiff failed to allege the necessary facts to support her class and collective action claims and granted the defendant ’ s motion to strike the class and collective action allegations. Another example of a successful attack on the sufficiency of the pleadings is Hudson, et al. v. St. Joseph’s Hospital Health Center, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10694 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2023). The plaintiff, a licensed practical nurse, filed a collective action alleging that the defendant failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA and failed to provide annual wage notices in violation of the New York Labor Law (NYLL). The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which alleged that the plaintiff worked four to five days a week, with shifts ranging from eight to 12 hours, and regularly worked more than 40 hours. The plaintiff was paid overtime for hours worked bi-weekly exceeding 80 hours. The court found that the plaintiff ’ s allegations lacked the necessary amount of detail to demonstrate uncompensated overtime work. The court reasoned that the plaintiff ’ s allegations included terms such as “typically,” “often,” and “sometimes” when describing her work hours and shifts, but the plaintiff failed to offer any specific instances of overtime work or the frequency of such occurrences. Further, the court noted that the plaintiff ’ s allegations failed to contain specific content to move beyond mere speculation. The court explained that while the plaintiff did not need to keep precise records of his hours worked, he was required to provide enough detail based on memory and experience. The court stated that the plaintiff ’ s claims were too vague to establish a plausible case of unpaid overtime. Accordingly, the court granted the defendant ’ s motion to dismiss. The court also declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim. Another method that defendants successfully employed to defeat class and collective actions in 2023 was to challenge whether one or more entities constituted an “employer” under state and federal law. For example, in Jean-Francois, et al. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118136 (E.D.N.C. July
25
© Duane Morris LLP 2024
Wage & Hour Class And Collective Action Review – 2024
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online