2:13-cv-01820
D. Nev.Feb 5, 2015Background
- Plaintiffs seek overtime, minimum wage, and off-the-clock pay under FLSA and state laws for Outback Steakhouse employees across multiple states.
- On Oct 24, 2014, the court conditionally certified a multi-state FLSA collective action and approved class notice/consent forms.
- Defendants moved for Rule 12(c) judgment on the pleadings, reconsideration, decertification, and stayed class notice pending resolution.
- Defendants urged that Landers v. Quality Communications adopted a narrower pleading standard post-Twombly/Iqbal, requiring specific workweek allegations.
- The court reviewed Landers and Lundy and held Landers adopts Lundy, but did not change the court’s prior analysis; the 12(c) motion was denied as to FLSA claims.
- The court lifted the stay, reaffirmed conditional certification, and ordered production of class-contact information within one week.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Landers/Lundy require a specific workweek pleading? | Plaintiffs argue Landers adopts Lundy’s lack of need for precise dates, authorizing plausible claims. | Outback contends Landers requires a specific workweek and precise unpaid periods for each plaintiff. | Landers adopts Lundy; no change to pleading sufficiency—claims plausibly pled. |
| Are the FLSA overtime/minimum wage claims adequately pled under the current complaint? | Plaintiffs alleged unpaid overtime and minimum-wage payments across years; claims are plausible. | Defendants argue lack of specific workweeks undermines plausibility under Landers/Lundy. | Claims remain sufficiently pled; denied as to FLSA claims. |
| Do the Illinois, Maryland, and Ohio state-law claims meet the heightened pleading standard? | State-law claims are pled with sufficient specificity under applicable standards. | Landers/Lundy undermine the state-law pleadings as insufficiently specific. | Plaintiffs’ state-law claims survive at this stage. |
| Is the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law claim viable at this stage? | MWPCL claim based on willful failure to pay overtime and record-keeping is stated. | MWPCL actions must challenge payment timing/process; concerns about entitlement to payment. | MWPCL claim survives at this stage. |
| Whether the omnibus motion should be decertified, reconsidered, or supplemented? | Plaintiffs argue claims are plausible and class certification should stand. | Defendants request decertification and reconsideration based on Landers/Lundy. | Decertification denied; reconsideration denied; supplementation granted in part. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lundy v. Catholic Health Sys. of Long Island, Inc., 711 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2013) (standard for plausibility without requiring precise dates or calendars)
- Landers v. Quality Commc’ns, Inc., 771 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2014) (overtime claim requires alleging a workweek with unpaid overtime; multiple pleadings paths permitted)
- McGlinchy v. Shell Chem. Co., 845 F.2d 802 (9th Cir. 1988) (standard for evaluating Rule 12(b)(6) and conversion considerations)
- Keams v. Tempe Technical Inst., Inc., 110 F.3d 44 (9th Cir. 1997) (extrinsic materials may be considered in Rule 12 motions without converting to summary judgment)
- Hamilton Materials, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Corp., 494 F.3d 1203 (9th Cir. 2007) (discretion to accept extrinsic materials in motion practice to avoid premature summary judgment)
- Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2007) (standard for reconsideration under Rule 59(e))
- Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 2000) (reconsideration standards and prudent relief)