Abdulina v. Eberl's Temporary Services, Inc.
79 F. Supp. 3d 1201
D. Colo.2015Background
- Plaintiff Ab-dulina sues ETS under FLSA, Colorado Wage Claim Act, and Colorado Minimum Wage Act.
- Amended Complaint added wage, FLSA, and contract claims; ETS moved to dismiss the Wage Claim Act and contract claims.
- Plaintiff alleges ETS paid 12+ hour days with a daily rate of $175, of which $162 was per diem; she worked in Maryland and Missouri 2011–2012 and is Indiana resident.
- Court grants motion to dismiss Wage Claim Act and Breach of Contract claims; denial of the initial dismissal motion is moot after amendment.
- Court permits supplemental authority; case will proceed on the FLSA claim (Claim Two) only.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to assert Wage Claim Act | Ab-dulina asserts wage claims under Colorado law. | Wage Claim Act applies only to Colorado workers; plaintiff lacks standing. | WCA claim dismissed for lack of standing. |
| Breach of contract claim viability | Contract claim independent of FLSA/WCA; not preempted. | Contract claim duplicative or preempted by FLSA/WCA. | Contract claim dismissed. |
| Effect of amendment on dismissal motions | Amendment should preserve all claims. | Amendment does not cure deficiencies; should dismiss. | Plainly moot as to motion to dismiss original complaint; but analysis focused on amended claims. |
| Scope of Colorado wage law extraterritorial application | Colorado wage laws apply to Plaintiff despite absence of Colorado employment. | Colorado wage law does not apply extraterritorially to Plaintiff. | Colorado Wage Claim Act does not apply; dismissal affirmed. |
| Preemption and contract overlap with FLSA/WCA | State contract claim not preempted; supports damages independent of FLSA/WCA. | WCA/FLSA preempt or render contract claim duplicative. | Contract claim dismissed; wage claim dismissed for lack of standing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard: plausibility required)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must plead plausible claims)
- Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2012) (plausibility standard varies by context)
- Ridge at Red Hawk, L.L.C. v. Schneider, 493 F.3d 1174 (10th Cir. 2007) (pleading plausibility requires more than mere possibility)
- Morse v. Regents of the Univ. of Colo., 154 F.3d 1124 (10th Cir. 1998) (accept factual allegations as true on 12(b)(6) review)
- Stransky v. Cummins Engine Co., Inc., 51 F.3d 1329 (7th Cir. 1995) (non-moving party must present legal basis for claim on motion to dismiss)
- Gravquick A/S v. Trimble Navigation Intl. Ltd., 323 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 2003) (statutory scope constrains extraterritorial application)
- Levinson v. Primedia, Inc., 2007 WL 2298406 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (choice-of-law provisions and contract interpretation impact)
- Harlow v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 574 F. Supp. 2d 1224 (D. Kan. 2008) (geographic limitations affect wage statute applicability)