Gonzalez v. OLD LISBON RESTAURANT & BAR LLC
820 F. Supp. 2d 1365
S.D. Fla.2011Background
- Gonzalez, a busboy, alleged he worked for Old Lisbon entities from Jan 4, 2010 to Jan 2, 2011 without minimum wage or overtime pay under the FLSA.
- Plaintiff claimed Carlos Silva, the managing member, operated both corporate defendants and thus sought enterprise coverage under a joint enterprise theory.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, contending plaintiff failed to plead facts showing related activities for a common business purpose.
- Plaintiff argued that, to plead FLSA joint enterprise coverage, it was enough to allege a failure to pay wages or failure to keep payroll records and that paragraph 10 outlined the necessary elements.
- The court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice, allowing plaintiff to amend within 14 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff pleads enterprise coverage under FLSA | Gonzalez asserts joint enterprise coverage with related activities under common control. | Defendants argue plaintiff failed to plead facts showing related activities for a common business purpose. | Plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts for joint enterprise coverage. |
| Whether paragraph 10 suffices to allege a joint enterprise | Paragraph 10 states two entities are joint enterprises with unified operation for a common business purpose. | Paragraph 10 is bare legal conclusion lacking factual support. | Paragraph 10 insufficient to plead a joint enterprise. |
| Whether same managing member establishes joint enterprise | Same managing member operating both entities supports unified operation/common control. | Shared management does not prove the two businesses form a joint enterprise; a separate factual showing is required. | Not enough to establish joint enterprise; may indicate joint employer liability only. |
| Whether plaintiff may amend to cure the deficiencies | Amendment could cure pleading gaps. | Court should dismiss for failure to state a claim. | Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint within 14 days. |
Key Cases Cited
- Donovan v. Easton Land & Dev., Inc., 723 F.2d 1549 (11th Cir. 1984) (enterprise coverage requires related activities for a common business purpose and unified operation)
- Perez v. Sanford-Orlando Kennel Club, Inc., 515 F.3d 1150 (11th Cir. 2008) (employer officer with control is an employer; enterprise analysis differs from liability analysis)
- Brennan v. Veterans Cleaning Service, Inc., 482 F.2d 1362 (5th Cir. 1973) (illustrates how related activities may be evidenced by shared office, equipment, and employees)