Jennings et al v. Rapid Response Delivery, Inc. et al, No. 1:2011cv00092 - Document 19 (D. Md. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge William D Quarles, Jr on 6/15/11. (bmh, Deputy Clerk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
FI' ED 1I S DISTRICT COURLiN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR OlSTRICT OF MARn~HBISTRICT OF MARYLAND, NORTHERN DIVISION * * * CIVIL NO.: WDQ-11-0092 * RAPID RESPONSE et al., DELIVERY, INC., * * Defendants. * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM Mazie Jennings, Plaintiffs") Response") Tire") Trent Miles, sued Rapid Response and Maryland for violations ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. amended motion * Delivery, Inc. Truck Tire Services, of the Federal of contract reasons, to dismiss * and John Ziglar * * ("the ("Rapid Inc. ("Maryland Fair Labor Standards 55 201 et seq., and Maryland laws, and for breach For the following * OPINION Act wage and hour and money had and received. Maryland Tire's motion will be granted in part, to dismiss and and denied in part. I. Background1 The Plaintiffs were employed a Maryland corporation services. Amend. as drivers that provides Compl. delivery ~~ 1-3, 12-14. for Rapid Response, and courier Beginning in spring For the motion to dismiss, the well-pled allegations in the Plaintiffs' amended complaint are accepted as true. See Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993). 1 2009, they worked exclusively from Rapid Response." tires to wholesale including Shortly Id. ~~ 1-3, 46. customers Virginia. for Maryland Maryland in Maryland Tire delivers and other states, Id. ~ 15. after she was assigned Rapid Response Tire "on assignment told Jennings to work for Maryland that she would be "required Tire, to work from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., or nine hours per day," and that her wages and hours were set "pursuant Response and Maryland Maryland Tire, Jennings and "regularly Tire. January complained "refused wanted of overtime to Rapid Response Miles Tire became [Jennings] her. refused meal or rest periods" another Mr. Tire. Maryland to provide Id. ~~ 23-25. and Maryland Tire, and in that "Maryland position for Rapid Response He dispatched amounts wages due." Id. ~~ 26-29. Id. Tire. drivers Tire Rapid Response as a route driver" Id. Maryland of overtime." as a dispatcher for Maryland He continued his hours were "7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.," significant . to Id. ~ 29. began working Id. ~ 32. predecessor, Rapid While assigned told Jennings her services." to offer and terminated 2008. was "refused 2010, Rapid Response no longer Id. ~~ 20-21. between worked more than forty hours per week" but "was not paid the full amount Jennings to a contract" Tire's in this job after Mr. Tire told Miles and Miles that "worked Id. ~~ 33, 40. Miles with meal or rest breaks, 2 in Maryland Tire and he was not paid all overtime assigned as a driver work more refused wages owed. for Maryland overtime wages. allege that Rapid Response employers," an agreement Id. ~ 75. the ability to Maryland Tire, and Maryland Maryland between On January Tire "controlled the "number made, Tire the[ir] Id. ~~ 64-65. and order" and required wages of them to report to their mileage Id. ~~ 52-60. 11, 2011, the Plaintiffs Tire for violating of contract, 1. 4, 2011, Maryland ECF NO.7. On March complaint. ECF No. 13. its amended motion sued Rapid Response the FLSA and Maryland laws, breach On March [the] Defendants while they were assigned Tire at the end of each day and record after each delivery. Maryland each [with Rapid Response]." Tire also controlled the Plaintiffs Tire They state that Maryland to fire the[m]" [its] contracts and Maryland work "benefitted and the Plaintiffs' "retain[ed] deliveries Tire Id. ~~ 53-55. to share workers." Maryland Maryland and he has not been paid as part of . Defendant to regularly Id. ~~ 50, 54. him with breaks The Plaintiffs are "joint Ziglar was Tire and required than 40 hours per week. to provide through Id. ~~ 36-38. wage and hour and money had and received. Tire filed its motion 25, 2011, the Plaintiffs On March to dismiss. 3 ECF No. to dismiss. filed an amended 31, 2011, Maryland ECF No. 14. and Tire filed l II. Analysis A. Standard Under for failure of Review Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6), an action may be dismissed to state a claim upon which relief Rule 12(b) (6) tests the legal sufficiency does not "resolve a claim, contests or the applicability Charlottesville, and plain is entitled statement Inc., 248 F.3d 321, 325-26 must allege advanced. requirements each element de Nemours These "state a claim to relief that is plausible facts that are misconduct alleged." (2009) (quoting Twombly, on its face." Bell (2007). the court to draw the is liable v. Iqbal, 550 U.s. at 557). 4 to with a defendant's that the defendant Ashcroft the plaintiff do more than "plead[] liability'''; the facts pled must "allow[] inference Rule 8' s of the claim 550 U.s. 544, 570 'merely consistent reasonable Int'l facts must be sufficient that the plaintiff only a & Co., 324 F.3d 761, (4th Cir. 2003). Corp. v. Twombly, Although are "not onerous," Bass v. E.I. Dupont This requires v. City of that the pleader v. Rowe Price-Fleming (4th Cir. 2001). facts that support of (4th Cir. 2006). 764-65 Atlantic Presley of the claim showing Midgal but the facts, the merits in mind that Rule 8 (a) (2) requires to relief." notice-pleading of a complaint, of defenses." 464 F.3d 480, 483 The Court bears "short surrounding can be granted. for the 129 s. Ct. 1937, 1949 The complaint must not only allege to relief. permit but also "show" Id. at 1950. "Whe[n] the complaint the pleader is entitled the well-pleaded facts do not has alleged-but to relief." Id. of it has not shown-that (internal quotation omitted). B. Maryland 1. Counts Response against Tire's Motion FLSA Claims I & II of the amended and Maryland pay overtime Jennings Compl. claims against Plaintiffs' ~~ 84, 87-90. Virginia Maryland under the FLSA. to protect toil, of those who sacrifice to the use and profit Beach, 180 F.3d goals." Id. because that employers (2) retaliating that the FLSA it was not the "the rights 3. of those who of their Benshoff freedom and v. City of (quoting Tenn. Local No. 123, 321 U.S. 590, and humanitarian interpreted to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss of others." (internal citation The Act mandates and 136, 140 (4th Cir. 1999) It is "remedial "should be broadly (1) failing Tire argues a full measure Coal. Iron & R.R. Co. v. Muscoda (1944)). wages, that Rapid about the FLSA violations. it must be dismissed employer allege the FLSA by and minimum for complaining The FLSA was enacted talents complaint Tire violated compensation Amend. 597 is entitled the court to infer more than the mere possibility misconduct, marks that the plaintiff and applied in purpose" to effectuate and its and quotation marks pay a minimum wage to covered 5 omitted). employees and pay overtime per work week. for each hour worked 29 U.S.C. ~~ 206 To state an FLSA claim, sufficient to establish relationship. "employer" interest ~ 203 See Benshoff, of an employer 29 U.S.C. An FLSA employee at the same time. 298, 305 relationship, 683, 688 Jacobsen (D. Md. 2010). relationship exists criterion, viewed Under which v. Comcast "[W]hether in its totality." 29 C.F.R. FLSA regulations, benefits for two or more employers and severally Corp., a joint employment exist[s]" if: to share the employee's of any relationship ~ 825.106 "performs times during relationship is an arrangement is to be (b) (1). two or more employers, work or works the generally between as, for example, 6 for 740 F. Supp. 2d by application when an employee services liable or not a joint employment at different workweek, (1) "there by an Int'] Sec. Inc., 466 F.3d but rather the entire simultaneously employed by more than one employer are jointly is not determined single 29 U.S.C. In such a joint employment all employers FLSA violations. in the (e) (1). v. Capital (4th Cir. 2006). The FLSA defines to an employee." may be employed Schultz facts or indirectly is "any individual ~ 203 (a) (1). must allege 180 F.3d at 140. in relation of 40 of an employer-employee acting directly An "employee" employer." the plaintiff the existence as "any person (d). (a) (1), 207 in excess the employers to interchange employees;" (2) "one employer in the interest of the other employer to the employee;" disassociated or with respect directly or indirectly, between determine Schultz, purpose, there the FLSA." Jacobsen, Four factors determine employment economic to bring normal schemes within the inquiry: (2) authority Bonnette to expose the ambit of Supp. 2d at 689. govern the rate and method 704 F.2d 1465, 1470 not intended to relationship. that lack a substantial or employment records. joint employer This test "is intended 740 F. hire and fire employees, work schedules and putative contracting usually with the relationship" is a joint employment but it is manifestly oriented control S 791.2(b). employer, relationships strategically of the employee the "real economic 466 F.3d at 306. outsourcing of a particular by, or is under common also examine whether are not completely to share control 29 C.F.R. the employee, in relation by reason of the fact that one employer is controlled Courts or indirectly (or employers) to the employment and may be deemed other employer." directly (3) "the employers employee controls, is acting to supervise conditions, of payment, and considered: 7 Courts to and control (3) authority v. Cal. Health (9th Cir. 1983). (1) authority to (4) maintenance & Welfare have also Agency, of (1) whether [the joint employer's] premises and equipment were used for the plaintiffs' work; (2) whether the [contractor] had a business that could or did shift as a unit from one putative joint employer to another; (3) the extent to which plaintiffs performed a discrete line-job that was integral to [the joint employer's] process of production; (4) whether responsibility under the contracts could pass from one subcontractor to another without material changes; [and] (5) . whether plaintiffs worked exclusively or predominantly for the [joint employer]. Zheng v. Liberty Apparel 2003) (citing Rutherford 25 Co., 355 F.3d 61, 72 (2d Cir. Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722, 724- (1947)). Every factor need not weigh against find that the putative joint employer FLSA; rather, the court must circumstances of the whole activity," and assess is not governed "base its decision "the real economic Schultz, relationship who uses and benefits from the services that hires the worker or assigns v. Gristede's Operating joint employment Corp., to by the upon the 466 F.3d at 306, between the employer of workers and the party to that employer," Ansoumana 255 F. Supp. 2d 184, 193 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). The Plaintiffs employment argue that they have shown a joint relationship through Response had a contractual Maryland Tire for its delivery contract required Tire, their allegations relationship and distribution that the Plaintiffs (3) Rapid Response to assign 8 (1) Rapid drivers needs, exclusively set the Plaintiffs' that to (2) the serve Maryland wages and hours based on their contract Response would terminate PIs.' Opp'n 2-3, 11-12. similar Deras drivers v. Verizon Md., Id. 12-13. similar to Quinteros motion (4) Rapid Tire's request. They argue that their allegations to show joint employment Inc., 2010 WL 3038812 Maryland Tire argues v. Sparkle (D. Md. 2008),3 in which employer's Tire, and at Maryland to those held sufficient 2010).2 762 with Maryland to dismiss. Cleaning, are in (D. Md. July 30, that this case is Inc., 532 F. Supp. 2d the court granted the putative Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss joint 4-7. 2 In Deras, the plaintiffs were directly employed by Utilities Maldonado, Inc. to install underground fiber optic cables for Verizon under an agreement between Utilities Maldonado and Verizon. 2010 WL 3038812 at *1. The plaintiffs sufficiently alleged Verizon's joint employer status by showing that (1) "they were hired by [Utilities Maldonado] for the exclusive purpose of laying Verizon's fiber optic cable," (2) "they were monitored, and occasionally directed, by Verizon supervisors," and (3) before they were permitted to work, they were required to attend Verizon's safety training. Id. *5-6. Although Utilities Maldonado "directly" controlled their schedules and assignments, "Verizon at least exerted indirect control over the time and manner in which their work was done." Id. at *7. The allegations were sufficient to survive the motion to dismiss " [c]onsidering the expansive definitions of 'employer' and 'employee' prescribed by the FLSA." Id. *8. 3 The Quinteros plaintiffs, who were employed by Sparkle Cleaning, performed janitorial services for Regal Cinemas. 532 F. Supp. 2d at 765. When Regal Cinemas needed cleaning services, it contacted Sparkle, which contacted the plaintiffs "to see if they were interested and available to work." Id. The, plaintiffs usually "dr[ove] Sparkle's vehicles to [the] movie theaters" and alleged that Regal's employees "direct [ed] [their] cleaning activities." Id. In dismissing the FLSA claim against Regal Cinemas, Judge Williams held that joint employment requires "an 'economic reality' or dependency between the employee and the putative [joint] employer," and there was no 9 "[E]xtensive employment supervision only if it demonstrates terms and conditions F.3d at 74-75. demonstrate weighs Tire's of their employment. Plaintiffs' hours and refused meal and rest breaks. Plaintiffs have alleged indirectly through alleged Maryland Amend. Compl. Tire for their work. Zheng, 355 allegations Tire prescribed the Plaintiffs ~ 40. Further, solely" the with the Tire set their wages Id. ~ 21.4 with Rapid Response. Quinteros, that they "depend[ed] employment." Maryland that Maryland unlike of the over the terms and to provide its contract control the Plaintiffs' control conditions Additionally, effective of the plaintiff's Here, like Deras, Maryland in favor of joint the Plaintiffs here have on the business Rapid Response required of the such dependency between the plaintiffs and Regal Cinemas. Id. at 775. Sparkle, not Regal Cinemas, sent the plaintiffs to work; some of that work "just happen[ed] [to be] at Regal." Id. The plaintiffs did not "depend solely on the business of movie theaters for their work, but rather depend[ed] on the business generated from Sparkle who direct[ed] them to work at places like Regal Cinemas," and their allegation that Regal Cinema employees had directed their work was "nothing short of a conclusory statement unsupported by sufficient facts." Id. 4 The Plaintiffs' allegations that Maryland Tire controlled the number and order of deliveries and required them to record their mileage after each delivery shows "supervision [that] is perfectly consistent with a typical, legitimate subcontracting arrangement," which is not indicative of joint employment. See Zheng, 355 F.3d at 75 ("supervision with respect to contractual warranties of quality and time of delivery have no bearing on the joint employment inquiry."); Moreau v. Air France, 356 F.3d 942, 950-53 (9th Cir. 2004) (general contractor was not a joint employer of subcontractor's employees when instructions given to the employees concerned performance of the subcontract). 10 Plaintiffs to work exclusively Jennings-they for Maryland could be terminated assignment at Maryland Jennings's case, Rapid Response position." employee Tire's Id. ~ 29. worked joint employer is relevant employment relationship dependence on particular functional control Zheng, Plaintiffs' well-pled contractors Tire could determine reality" Accepting control" 2. Count into the that over them because their continued complaint alleges employment sufficient stage of the litigation, Deras, will be denied apparent over the subcontractor's Tire may have been a joint employer required. of the at See id. The amended this "nascent" for the putative as true, it appears "functional In the [may] translate[] 355 F.3d at 75 n. 12. Maryland Law in Zheng, whether "a subcontractor's allegations 46. to offer her another to the "economic Tire exercised Response "refused because Tire Id. ~~ 29-30, or predominately" Maryland Maryland request. by those contractors employees." Rapid Response. from the Maryland As explained "exclusively Tire, and-like 2010 WL 3038812, facts to show that under the FLSA. At that is all that is at *9. The motion to dismiss as to the FLSA claims. Maryland Wage and Hour Law Claim III of the amended and Maryland complaint Tire violated alleges the Maryland that Rapid Wage and Hour ("MWHL"), Md. Code. Ann. Lab. & Empl. 55 3-401, 11 et seq., by failing to pay the Plaintiffs' 91-95. Maryland because the allegations the MWHL. overtime the applicable 40 that the employee minimum that "employers 744 Turner v. Human Genome motion 3. Count violated Maryland the Maryland The MW HL of their claim under have alleged status under the MWHL. as to Count that Rapid Response Law Claim and Maryland and Collection Law not pay all wages on a timely basis. Amend. it "never undertook Mot. to Dismiss Compl. to pay wages to the Plaintiffs." 12 Tire ("MWPCL"), they did ~~ 96-104. that this claim must be dismissed 8. The III. and Collection Wage Payment Wage Payment See id. et seq., because Tire argues the Maryland Md. Code. Ann. Lab. & Empl. 55 3-501, Maryland MWHL Sci., Inc., 292 F. Supp. 2d 738, will be denied IV alleges v. status under the FLSA, they have also its joint employer to dismiss Friolo law," and the Plaintiffs' As the Plaintiffs joint employer alleged wage for each hour over one workweek." or falls on the success (D. Md. 2003). Tire's works during the federal under pay wage" and "an overtime 373 Md. 501, 513 , 819 A. 2d 354 (2003). "mirror[s] FLSA." ~~ 3. of at least 1.5 times the usual hourly wage claim "stands Compl. do not show that it is an employer Like the FLSA, the MWHL requires Fran k e1, Amend. Tire argues that this claim should be dismissed Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss [employees] wages. because Def.'s The MWPCL periods" "requires and "prohibits deductions." Friolo, a joint employer allege was in anyway involved and all of the well-pled that it was not"). that Maryland establishing claim against 4. Breach "refusing to pay contractually Maryland dismissed because ever promised to Dismiss Response, Plaintiffs their complaint does not for, or involved in, Accordingly, the Claim Tire breached a contract the full amount of their wage" of $135 daily. Amend. Compl. by ~~ Tire argues that this claim should be the well-pled allegations to pay the Plaintiffs 8-9. that Verizon as to this point deductions. that Maryland [the] Plaintiffs 106-110. MWPCL Tire will be dismissed. of Contract promised of his or withholding Here, the amended or making Maryland Count V alleges allegations fails to in payment allegations Tire was responsible pay periods claim against at *8 (dismissing Plaintiffs pay unauthorized if the plaintiff [were] no specific in paying regular An MWPCL was involved 2010 WL 3038812, "there suggest from making cannot be sustained See Deras, wages, to establish 373 Md. at 513-14. claim because MWPCL employers that the joint employer wages. allege employers The amended not Maryland $135 per day. complaint Tire, promised never negotiated do not show that it alleges that Rapid the daily wage, and the their pay with Maryland 13 Def.'s Mot. Tire. See Amend. Compl. against ~~ 18-22, Maryland 5. 135. had and received dismissed for failure obtained The Plaintiffs' deductions disability consent of money he ought not administrative allegations or restitution which Compl. Amend. Compl. ~~ 114-15. above, Id. $29 for "did not voluntary Whether these against was responsible for paying show that Maryland Maryland 14 [a] $5 it is clear from the well- of the alleged on this claim. on to state a claim against that Rapid Response and no allegations has claim is based for money had and received ~~ 14, 22-26. will be granted to retain." the Plaintiffs As discussed possession" the defendant fees of approximately Maryland "obtained (Md. Ct. [their] pay, including they are insufficient the Plaintiffs, 525 claim. in equity and good Rapid Response, pled allegations 887 A.2d had and received or weekly state a claim Tire. Money had and received be allowed [taken] from fee/and Amend. which, . money insurance," to." enrichment a claim law, should be The claim lies "whenever possession "certain under Maryland 389 Md. 615, 652-53, 2005). conscience, Claim to state a claim. to an unjust v. State, Spec. App. claim Tire argues that Count VI, which alleges for money is analogous of contract Tire will be dismissed. Money Had and Received Maryland Benson The breach wrongful Tire deductions. Tire's motion See to dismiss III. Conclusion For the reasons dismiss and amended and denied stated motion above, Maryland to dismiss Tire's motion will be granted to in part, in part. Date iam D. Quarles, Jr. U ited States District Judge 15
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
