United States District Court, D. Nevada
DONALD WALDEN JR., NATHAN ECHEVERRIA, AARON DICUS, BRENT EVERIST, TRAVIS ZUFELT, TIMOTHY RIDENOUR, and DANIEL TRACY on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
STATE OF NEVADA, NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, and DOES 1-50, Defendants.
MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
dispute involves claims for payment of wages brought by
Nevada Department of Corrections' (“NDOC”)
corrections officers against NDOC. Before the Court is
NDOC's Renewed Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
(“Motion”). (ECF No. 86.) The Court has reviewed
Plaintiffs' response (ECF No. 87) and NDOC's reply
(ECF No. 93). For the reasons discussed below, the Motion is
granted in part.
following facts are taken from Plaintiffs' Collective and
Class Action Complaint (“Complaint”). Plaintiffs
are current and former corrections officers employed with
NDOC as non-exempt hourly employees. (ECF No. 1 at 8-10.)
NDOC has required corrections officers like Plaintiffs and
others similarly situated to perform “work activities
before and after their regularly scheduled shifts for which
they have not been compensated.” (Id. at 10.)
In particular, Plaintiffs allege they were not paid minimum
wage or overtime when accounting for these additional hours
worked. (Id. at 11.) Plaintiffs assert claims for
failure to pay minimum wage and overtime in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), failure to pay
minimum wages in violation of Article 14 § 16 of the
Nevada Constitution and breach of contract. (Id. at
Complaint was filed in the First Judicial District Court in
and for Carson City. (Id. at 7.) NDOC removed based
on federal question jurisdiction. (Id. at 1-2.)
12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings utilizes the same
standard as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted in that it may
only be granted when it is clear to the court that “no
relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be
proven consistent with the allegations.” McGlinchy
v. Shull Chem. Co., 845 F.2d 802 (9th Cir. 1988)
(citations omitted). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) may be
based on either the lack of a cognizable legal theory or
absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal
theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901
F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
plaintiff's complaint must allege facts to state a claim
for relief that is plausible on its face. See Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677, (2009). A claim has
“facial plausibility” when the party seeking
relief “pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Id. Although the
court must accept as true the well-pled facts in a complaint,
conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences will
not defeat an otherwise proper [Rule 12(b)(6)] motion.
Vasquez v. L.A. County, 487 F.3d 1246, 1249 (9th
Cir. 2007); Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266
F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). “[A] plaintiff's
obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his
‘entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels
and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements
of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be
enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007) (citations and footnote omitted).
addition, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has recently
clarified the pleading requirements for FLSA claims post
Twombly and Iqbal. See Landers v. Quality
Communications, Inc., 771 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2015). The
court stated that “at a minimum, a plaintiff asserting
a violation of the FLSA overtime provisions must allege that
she worked more than forty hours in a given workweek without
being compensated for the hours worked in excess of the forty
during that workweek.” Id. at 646. To
establish a plausible claim for relief, a plaintiff may
estimate “the length of her average workweek during the
applicable period and the average rate at which she was paid,
the amount of overtime wages she believes she is owed, or any
other facts that will permit the court to find
plausibility.” Id. at 645.
Sufficiency of Factual Allegations Supporting FLSA
argues that Plaintiffs fail to state their FLSA claims
because Plaintiffs have not alleged that they were paid below
the minimum wage for each pay period and that they worked
more than forty hours in any workweek without compensation.
(ECF No. 86 at 6-8.) Plaintiffs counter that they were not
compensated for performing the pre-shift and post-shift
activities alleged in the Complaint. (ECF No. 87 at 5.)
Plaintiffs have missed the point.
FLSA requires compensation at or above the minimum wage,
which is determined based on the hours worked within the
workweek as a whole. Adair v. City of Kirkland, 185
F.3d 1055, 1063 (9th Cir. 1999). Employers are also required
to pay overtime for any ...