Hawkins v. Proctor Auto Service Center, LLC et al, No. 8:2009cv01908 - Document 18 (D. Md. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 3/30/2010. (kn, Deputy Clerk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND LEONARD HAWKINS, Plaintiff v. PROCTOR AUTO SERVICE CENTER, LLC, et al., Defendants. * * * * * * * * * * * * Case No.: RWT 09cv1908 MEMORANDUM OPINION Defendants Proctor Auto Service Center, LLC, Natalie Proctor, and Timothy Proctor have moved to dismiss Plaintiff Leonard Hawkins s complaint seeking overtime compensation and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ( FLSA ), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law ( MWHL ), Md. Code. Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 3-401, et seq. STANDARD OF REVIEW To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. But where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged but it has not show[n] that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id. at 1950 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). ANALYSIS Defendants argue that the complaint should be dismissed because Plaintiff (i) was paid overtime wages when appropriate and (ii) often worked less than 40 hours a week.1 Defs. Mot. to Dismiss ¶¶ 23, 24, 29. However, these factual issues cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss. Moreover, the Court cannot convert Defendants Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss into a Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 motion for summary judgment, see, e.g., Bosiger v. U.S. Airways, Inc., 510 F.3d 442, 450 (4th Cir. 2007), because Defendants have proffered no evidentiary support whatever. To assert a claim for unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages under the FLSA, a plaintiff must plead (1) that he worked overtime hours without compensation; and (2) that the employer knew or should have known that he worked overtime but failed to compensate him for it. See Davis v. Food Lion, 792 F.2d 1274, 1276 (4th Cir. 1986). In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he worked more than forty hours a week, see Compl. ¶¶ 21-23, and that Defendants did not compensate him for the overtime, see Compl. ¶¶ 17, 25, 27. Plaintiff clearly state[s] a claim that is plausible on its face, Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949, thereby satisfying Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Accordingly, the Court, by separate Order, will deny Defendants Motion to Dismiss (Paper No. 15). March 30, 2010 Date /s/ Roger W. Titus United States District Judge 1 Defendants also raise extraneous matters irrelevant to the instant litigation, including criminal actions involving Plaintiff. Recognizing that the relationship between the parties appears to have soured, the Court reminds the litigants and their counsel that they must conduct themselves in a professional, ethical, and courteous manner throughout the course of this litigation. 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.
