Franks et al v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company et al, No. 2:2019cv10839 - Document 23 (E.D. La. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that the defendants' 13 and 14 motions to dismiss Count II of the complaint and plaintiffs' claim for prejudgment interest are GRANTED as unopposed, and those claims are DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Barry W Ashe on 09/25/2019. (am)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Franks et al v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company et al Doc. 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LARRY FRANKS, TODD HEBERT, AND CRAIG LEDET, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-10839 VERSUS LOUISIANA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LOUISIANA FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY AND SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY SECTION: M (4) ORDER & REASONS On August 26, 2019, defendants Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, and Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company filed motions to dismiss Count II of the complaint and plaintiffs’ claim for prejudgment interest.1 The motions were set for submission on September 26, 2019.2 Local Rule 7.5 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana requires that a memorandum in opposition to a motion be filed no later than eight days before the noticed submission date, which in this case was September 18, 2019. Plaintiffs, who are represented by counsel, have not filed memoranda in opposition to the motions to dismiss. Accordingly, because the motions to dismiss are unopposed, and it appearing to the Court that the motions have merit,3 1 R. Docs. 13 & 14. R. Docs. 13-2 & 14-2. 3 In Count II of the complaint, plaintiffs seek damages for defendants’ alleged failure to keep adequate time and pay records in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 211(c). The Secretary of Labor has the sole authority to enforce the FLSA’s recordkeeping provisions, and the FLSA does not authorize employee suits for damages for violation of the FLSA recordkeeping requirements. Elwell v. Univ. Hosps. Home Care Servs., 2 Dockets.Justia.com IT IS ORDERED that the defendants’ motions to dismiss Count II of the complaint and plaintiffs’ claim for prejudgment interest are GRANTED as unopposed, and those claims are DISMISSED. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 25th day of September, 2019. ________________________________ BARRY W. ASHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 276 F.3d 832, 843 (6th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). Therefore, Count II is ripe for dismissal. Further, interest is not recoverable on judgments for unpaid overtime or minimum wages obtained under the FLSA. Brooklyn Sav. Bank v. O'Neil, 324 U.S. 697, 715-16 (1945). Thus, plaintiffs’ claim for prejudgment interest must be dismissed. 2
]]>
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.
