United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
ORTRIE D. SMITH, Senior District Judge.
Pending is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, which seeks to (1) dismiss the Complaint or portions thereof for failing to satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8 as construed in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), (2) dismiss Count III because it does not permit suit against Defendant, and (3) dismiss Counts II through IV to the extent they seek damages from more than two years before the suit was filed. Alternatively, Defendant asks the Court to direct Plaintiff to file a more definite statement. The Court (1) declines to dismiss the case (in whole or in part) for insufficient pleading, (2) dismisses Count III, (3) will apply a two-year statute of limitations to Plaintiff's state law claims, and (4) declines to order Plaintiff to file a more definite statement of her claims.
According to the Amended Complaint, Defendant "operates a hospital in North Kansas City, Missouri" and Plaintiff is employed at the hospital as an hourly employee. Amended Complaint ("AC") ¶¶ 5-6, 12. Plaintiff
was required to work in excess of forty hours per week, AC ¶¶ 13, 16;
was "frequently interrupted" during meal periods in order to perform work (and on occasion denied meal time entirely) but Defendant did not compensate for this time worked; instead, pursuant to a policy adopted by Defendant, a full, standardized time period was designated as off-the-clock meal time regardless of whether Plaintiff actually received the full meal time, AC ¶¶ 2, 14; and
Defendant's policies called for the rounding of "employee time to the nearest 15 minute interval, " which indicates Plaintiff was not compensated for any time increment spent working that was less than 7½ minutes. AC ¶ 15.
As a result of the application of these policies to Plaintiff, she was caused to work more than forty hours per week but she was not paid an overtime wage. AC ¶¶ 16-17. The Amended Complaint does not allege how often this happened to Plaintiff, nor does it allege the number of overtime hours she allegedly worked. The Amended Complaint further alleges that Defendant's policies were applied to other hourly employees, resulting in other employees working more than forty hours per week without receipt of overtime wages. AC ¶¶ 18-20.
The Amended Complaint sets forth four claims:
Count I Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
Count II Unjust Enrichment
Count III Violation of the Missouri Minimum Wage Law ("MMWL")
Count IV Quantum Meruit
Plaintiff intends to seek certification of a collective action for Count I (pursuant to the FLSA) and certification of a class for Counts II through IV (pursuant to Rule 23). As a prelude to that effort, she has set forth the questions of law and fact she believes are common to the class members, AC ¶ 34, and has asserted the legal requirements for certification are satisfied. AC ¶¶ 32-33, 35-39. The Amended Complaint does not set forth much in the way of a ...