Clark v. Pizza Baker, Inc., 2:18-cv-00157

Background

Ronald Clark worked as a Domino’s delivery driver/assistant manager in Cambridge, Ohio (Jan. 2014–Feb. 2018) at a franchise operated first by Pizza Baker, Inc. and then Precision Pizza LLC.
Clark alleges delivery drivers were under-reimbursed and therefore not paid minimum wage, and that Domino’s corporate entities jointly employed drivers by imposing policies affecting working conditions.
Defendants: Domino’s Pizza, Inc.; Domino’s Pizza, LLC; Domino’s Pizza Franchising, LLC (the Domino’s Defendants); Precision Pizza LLC and Lisa Burkett; Pizza Baker, Inc. and Christopher Baker.
Clark’s Amended Complaint asserts FLSA collective claims, state-law wage claims, a declaratory-relief claim, and a civil-damages claim under O.R.C. § 2307.60 based on alleged willful FLSA violations.
Defendants moved to dismiss (Rule 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1)), to strike or stay collective/class allegations due to arbitration agreements, and to dismiss Count 6 and the declaratory relief claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Individual officers (Burkett, Baker) liable as "employers" under FLSA	Clark alleges officers are owners/presidents who control pay, payroll, reimbursement and day-to-day operations	Allegations are conclusory and merely track the legal test for FLSA employer status	Denied — allegations sufficiently plead operational control to survive 12(b)(6)
Count 6 (O.R.C. § 2307.60 civil damages for criminal acts) — is a criminal conviction required?	Jacobsen means §2307.60 independently authorizes civil suits for criminal acts without a conviction	A criminal conviction is required before §2307.60 damages attach	Denied — issue unsettled; court refuses to dismiss Count 6 pending Ohio Supreme Court guidance; defendants may renew if conviction is required
Declaratory relief (standing)	Clark seeks declaratory relief about future compliance	Defendants: Clark lacks standing because he is no longer employed; no concrete, imminent injury	Granted — dismissed without prejudice for Precision & Baker; also dismissed as to Domino’s (named plaintiff lacks standing to seek injunctive/declaratory relief)
Domino’s motion to strike/stay collective/class allegations based on arbitration agreements	Clark: premature; no corporate-store drivers have actually opted in yet	Domino’s: many drivers signed arbitration agreements; class/notice should be limited or stayed pending arbitration	Denied — premature to strike or stay at pleading stage; arbitration defenses are merits questions for later (conditional-certification/decertification or motions to compel as appropriate)
Domino’s joint-employer pleading specificity	Clark grouped the three Domino’s entities as a single "Domino’s" and alleged specific control measures (e.g., PULSE system)	Domino’s: plaintiff must allege specific acts by each entity to hold each as a joint employer	Denied — pleading is sufficient at motion-to-dismiss stage to attribute alleged policies/control to each Domino’s defendant; plaintiff may amend if needed

Key Cases Cited

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (court need not accept legal conclusions; plausibility standard applies)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (complaint must state a plausible claim; factual allegations required beyond speculation)
Dole v. Elliott Travel & Tours, Inc., 942 F.2d 962 (6th Cir. 1991) (economic-reality test for FLSA employment)
United States Dep’t of Labor v. Cole Enters., 62 F.3d 775 (6th Cir. 1995) (corporate officer with operational control can be an "employer" under FLSA)
Comer v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 454 F.3d 544 (6th Cir. 2006) (two-step approach to FLSA collective certification)
O’Brien v. Ed Donnelly Enters., Inc., 575 F.3d 567 (6th Cir. 2009) (plaintiffs are similarly situated where a uniform, unlawful policy exists)
Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66 (U.S. 2013) (named-plaintiff mootness in FLSA collective actions)
Reyna v. Int’l Bank of Commerce, 839 F.3d 373 (5th Cir. 2016) (motion to compel arbitration against named plaintiff should be addressed before conditional certification)
In re JPMorgan Chase & Co., 916 F.3d 494 (5th Cir. 2019) (where majority of potential opt-ins have valid arbitration agreements, notice to them is error)
Taylor v. Pilot Corp., 697 F. App’x 854 (6th Cir. 2017) (named plaintiffs’ arbitration status affects conditional-certification analysis)
Mayer v. Mylod, 988 F.2d 635 (6th Cir. 1993) (pleading inferences construed in plaintiff's favor)
Golden v. City of Columbus, 404 F.3d 950 (6th Cir. 2005) (standards for 12(b)(6) motion analysis)
Total Benefits Planning Agency, Inc. v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 552 F.3d 430 (6th Cir. 2008) (complaint construed favorably to nonmoving party)