Leon v. Tapas & Tintos, Inc.
51 F. Supp. 3d 1290
S.D. Fla.2014Background
- Plaintiff Reinaldo Segundo Leon worked for Tapas & Tintos, Inc. and owner/director Nicolas Justo from March 2006 to November 2011 performing food prep, cooking, dishwashing, cleaning, and janitorial duties.
- Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint asserting: unpaid overtime under the FLSA (Counts I & II), retaliatory discharge under Fla. Stat. § 440.205 (Count III), misclassification as independent contractor violating FDUTPA (Count IV), and willful filing of fraudulent 1099s in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7434 (Count V).
- Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to plead facts (allegedly only conclusory recitations), vagueness, and lack of statutory standing or requisite intent for certain claims.
- Court applied Twombly/Iqbal pleading standards and evaluated employment relationship, individual vs. enterprise FLSA coverage, causal timing for retaliation, FDUTPA consumer standing, and willfulness for § 7434.
- Court denied dismissal of FLSA claims (enterprise coverage sufficiently alleged; individual coverage not), dismissed retaliation claim without prejudice (insufficient facts showing a valid workers’ comp claim at the time of termination), dismissed FDUTPA claim with prejudice (no consumer standing), dismissed § 7434 as to Justo with prejudice and as to the corporation without prejudice (insufficient allegations of willful filing).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FLSA overtime (Counts I & II): coverage and employment status | Leon alleges employment relationship; enterprise coverage (sales >$500k; goods/materials moved in interstate commerce); individual coverage because he handled goods that moved interstate | Defendants say pleadings are conclusory and lack factual support for enterprise/individual coverage | Denied as to both counts: employment and enterprise coverage sufficiently alleged; individual coverage not established |
| Retaliatory discharge (Count III) under Fla. Stat. § 440.205 | Leon alleges he notified employer of a workplace injury and repeatedly requested payment of medical bills; termination on Nov 21, 2011 was retaliation | Defendants say protected activity (formal workers’ comp claim) occurred after termination; mere notice of accident is not a claim | Granted without prejudice: plaintiff must plead facts showing he asserted a valid workers’ compensation claim at time of adverse action |
| FDUTPA (Count IV): misclassification as independent contractor | Leon alleges misclassification was deceptive, causing tax and benefit harms | Defendants say FDUTPA protects consumers (or businesses acting as consumers); Leon is not a consumer | Granted with prejudice: plaintiff lacks standing as non-consumer |
| § 7434 (Count V): willful filing of fraudulent information returns (1099s) | Leon alleges defendants issued fraudulent 1099-MISC forms misclassifying him as independent contractor | Defendants argue no plausible allegations that Justo personally filed false returns or that any defendant acted willfully with requisite scienter | Dismissed with prejudice as to Justo (no allegations tying him to filing); dismissed without prejudice as to Tapas & Tintos for lack of specific allegations of willfulness |
Key Cases Cited
- St. Joseph’s Hosp., Inc. v. Hosp. Corp. of Am., 795 F.2d 948 (11th Cir. 1986) (complaint must be viewed favorably to plaintiff on motion to dismiss)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (legal conclusions need factual support under pleading standards)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must raise right to relief above speculative level)
- Morgan v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., 551 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2008) (FLSA prima facie elements for overtime claims)
- Thorne v. All Restoration Servs., Inc., 448 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 2006) (individual vs. enterprise coverage under FLSA)
- Alvarez Perez v. Sanford-Orlando Kennel Club, Inc., 515 F.3d 1150 (11th Cir. 2008) (individual liability under FLSA for persons with control over employment)
- Polycarpe v. E & S Landscaping Serv., Inc., 616 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir. 2010) (broad reading of "materials" for enterprise coverage)
- Dania Jai-Alai Palace, Inc. v. Sykes, 450 So.2d 1114 (Fla. 1984) (individual corporate officer liability normally requires showing of fraud or misuse of corporate form)