Seagram v. David's Towing & Recovery, Inc.
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148721
E.D. Va.2014Background
- Plaintiff Colby Seagram worked as a tow-truck driver for David’s Towing from Apr 2012–Apr 2014, averaging about 75 hours per week and performing interstate tows at times.
- Payroll records were incomplete: employer did not track total hours, hourly rate, or detailed overtime; paystubs showed a commission-like description and some deductions for loans and uniforms.
- Seagram alleges unpaid minimum wages and unpaid overtime under the FLSA, plus state-law claims for quantum meruit and unjust enrichment, and seeks liquidated and punitive damages and fees.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and for lack of jurisdiction as to Counts 3–4, arguing inadequate pleadings on hours/rates, exemptions (Motor Carrier Act and commission-paid exemption), and preemption of state-law claims.
- The Court denied the motion as to the FLSA minimum-wage and overtime claims (Counts 1–2), finding the complaint plausibly alleged employment, interstate activity, approximate hours/wages, and employer knowledge; it denied resolution of the Motor Carrier Act exemption on a 12(b)(6) record.
- The Court granted the motion as to the state-law claims (Counts 3–4) and the punitive damages claim, holding the state claims duplicate FLSA remedies and punitive damages are not available for the asserted quasi-contractual claims absent a pleaded independent tort.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Minimum wage (29 U.S.C. § 206) | Seagram alleges employment, interstate work, paid less than minimum, and attached paystubs and weeks worked (≈75 hrs/week) | Seagram failed to plead hourly rate or a usable estimate of unpaid wages | Denied dismissal — complaint plausibly alleges elements and gives meaningful notice to defend |
| 2. Overtime (29 U.S.C. § 207) | Averaged 75 hrs/wk, described overtime tasks (long tows, on-call weekends); employer knew or should have known | Pleading lacks precise hours and amount; employer says plaintiff must quantify overtime | Denied dismissal — approximations and factual allegations suffice to state a plausible overtime claim |
| 3. Motor Carrier Act exemption (29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(1)) | De minimis interstate activity; carrier not registered as interstate; factual dispute unsuitable for dismissal | Exemption applies if duties affect safety of interstate transportation | Denied dismissal — exemption depends on facts (extent/character of interstate activity); not resolvable on Rule 12(b)(6) record |
| 4. State-law claims (quantum meruit / unjust enrichment) and punitive damages | State claims seek additional relief for uncompensated services; punitive damages alleged based on willful conduct and conversion | State claims duplicate FLSA wage claims and thus are preempted; punitive damages not available for quasi-contract claims | Granted dismissal of Counts 3–4 and punitive damages — state claims duplicate FLSA remedies and punitive damages unavailable absent independent tort with factual support |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (courts need not accept legal conclusions as facts)
- Anderson v. Sara Lee Corp., 508 F.3d 181 (state wage claims preempted where they duplicate FLSA)
- Pforr v. Food Lion, Inc., 851 F.2d 106 (precise proof of every overtime hour not required)
- Troutt v. Stavola Bros., Inc., 107 F.3d 1104 (Motor Carrier Act exemption: duties affect safety and interstate commerce)
- Pyramid Motor Freight Corp. v. Ispass, 330 U.S. 695 (de minimis exception context for Motor Carrier Act)
- Morris v. McComb, 332 U.S. 422 (character of activities, not just proportion, determines applicability of carrier regulation)
- Blankenship v. Thurston Motor Lines, Inc., 415 F.2d 1193 (de minimis application when safety-related activities are trivial)