Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Aguilera v. Aegis Communications Group, LLC

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Southwestern Division

December 9, 2014

DANIELA AGUILERA, Plaintiff,
v.
AEGIS COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, LLC, et al., Defendants

For Daniela Aguilera, Plaintiff: Kelly A. McCambridge, LEAD ATTORNEY, McCambridge Law LLC, Lee's Summit, Mo; Larry D. Wright, LEAD ATTORNEY, Wright and Fisher, LLC, Kansas City, MO.

For Aegis USA, Inc., also known as TPUSA-FHCS, Inc., Defendant: Robert A Kaiser, LEAD ATTORNEY, Jeremy M Brenner, Armstrong Teasdale LLP-STL, St. Louis, MO.

ORDER

DOUGLAS HARPOOL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

Before the Court is Defendant Aegis, Inc.'s (" AUSA" ) Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. No. 5). Defendant moves to dismiss Count III -- Unjust Enrichment; Count IV --

Page 976

Breach of Contract; and Count VI -- Forced Labor of Plaintiff's Petition.[1]

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff's Petition alleges she was employed by ACG[2] from September 2011 through July 2012 as a call center employee in Joplin, MO. While employed at the call center, Plaintiff received a flyer about a one-year study abroad program at Aegis Global Academy in India. Plaintiff alleges Defendant made numerous representations to induce her to participate in the program, and that as a result of the representations Plaintiff agreed to participate. Plaintiff ultimately took a leave of absence from her position in Joplin to participate in the one year work-study program in India.

Plaintiff claims there were numerous problems with the work-study program once she arrived in India. She further claims Defendant's representations regarding the work-study program were false. For example, Plaintiff alleges she was forced to work late shifts; she was not paid her monthly allowance; she was not provided adequate living quarters; she had persistent power outages and insufficient internet connection; she was not provided laundry service; and she received inadequate food that resulted in food poisoning and dysentery.

Plaintiff also claims she was forced to stay and complete the work-study program to remain employed by ACG back home. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges she was told that ACG would not pay for her return flight and that if she stopped working she would be terminated and responsible for her own return travel cost. She also claims she was unable to complete required online courses because of power outages and therefore was not sure if she would receive a $2,000 saving payment. Her Petition states she was told she would only receive the savings payment if she kept working her shifts. Plaintiff's Petition contains numerous other allegations against Defendant regarding the work-study program that are not necessary for purposes of this Court's analysis of the pending Motion to Dismiss.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

" To survive a motion to dismiss [under 12(b)(6)], a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). A complaint is facially plausible where its factual content " allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. The plaintiff must plead facts that show more than a mere speculation or possibility that the defendant acted unlawfully. Id.; Bell A. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). While the Court accepts the complaint's factual allegations as true, it is not required to accept the plaintiff's legal conclusions. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678.

Page 977

" Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id.

The court's assessment of whether the complaint states a plausible claim for relief is a " context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 679. The reviewing court must read the complaint as a whole rather than analyzing each allegation in ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.