it make leads the court we all know that in the run up to the mortgage crisis in this country there was a few or should ever a mortgage companies to sell mortgages and package them work that had to be dog nap at one point she went to one of the owners mr chapman this is a get everything i'm saying is alleged in the complaint and said said she walked away now i don't think miss thompson believed at the time that that statement was made that that was the final work o but it turns out to her if surprise and to us that that was the final word the decision of the couple for the that she doesn't get over part of this job that doesn't require the company to talking based on general knowledge of the f l s a and well well documented is that in this area congress wanted it to be known that aig allege very specifically why should they be employed why should they be held to the status of an employer because they we're responsible and we'll ledge for compensation this is personnel decisions work aside and decisions operational control hiring firing i mean you can ask from that's that alleges everything that you would need yes it is a federal standard the f l is it is very clear this third circuit has talked about this subject over and over again and in fact this is very interesting and this i find to be somewhat awed given the decision here the court rather is mindful that employer determination and he was talking about individuals not companies but individual liability that employer determination is a fact intensive such that it can rarely even be made on summ and i find that very inconsistent and so this this complaint lays out the essential elements of employer liability with the join she worked for because she was hard what she thought was a company called security atlantic mortgage it was hard actually i apologize in two thousand and nine june of two thousand mark she was hard what she believed to be a company called security atlantic mortgage however when she was going to training she was told by the head of the training department well i'm from r e i man we're a sister company we're somehow this some connection between  who processes paper could really know about the connection she hears things she sees things but if you're asking her to know a lot more than that it's unrealistic because judge found without any evidence we can the legit in our complaint was in a brief that there but the funk and the judge for some reason adopted that as a finding of fact yeah but the question is if if you're trying to allege to an employer the fact that there might be some mix up on you know the check is payable this person and that from this entity and so forth is what's going to be the critical going we're telling the jury we're saying that there was a continuity from the very beginning there was talk of our young men and i see mc as one item it from the very beginning she was told us she was told this she's not in a board meeting she's not in the standing this alleged transition s e m c a point of the funk company still writing checks to the employees that's a critical critical factor in employer relationship payment is the most there's liability of each of these companies we're going to need to skive repressed successorship issue we're going to be discovered to find out who these owners are where they belong joint employer is simply another piece that will come out of the same discovery will be no additional burden put on these parties to answer the questions that we really are getting inclusions based on the same facts and at the prize in this quite well that enterprise that if there's a cut if there's a commonality of control have in terms of wealth but we it's critical because we don't can't connect it and maybe we can't and so be it live with the results but if we can at least take a shot at the issue then that whole period is going to go face the face of of s a n c but all work in progress goes to them the same management continues nothing changes well i'm saying is i wish i had some more facts and to an employer we have some i think we have enough in this context based on traditional experience based on context and based on common sense which is which quietly pocs about as being the touchstone of what the information there's certainly there seem to be sufficient allegations with regard to individual liability i mean it's a small pub privately held company and these that are two of the principals sides of the i guess it's february twenty eighth and divide right i mean whether you go from that point in the past that point into the future there seems to be in this you know that there is a management  by the facts and i think that's the problem with the district court found the district court specifically said in its order dismissing the first complaint and i will read from it the appendix which is that eighty five of the jo appendix specifically sat and told the plaintiff exactly what she needed to do the judge said plaintiff addresses her claims to defendants collectively without specifically alleging any employment relationship with each and then further in this paragraph plaintiff does not however allege any specific facts connecting her employment to each and found it without such specific facts but the court and defendants are unable to determine the extent to which any of the name defendants could be liable that was the problem with her complaint and she never fixed it if there is at least a viable f l s a claim here is just a question of identifying who the employers i don't even know from the with respect to context it says that a district court has the power and should have the right to be able to look at a case based on its knowledge based on the context of the case and demand certain specific so that it can manage its socket and probably more what more do  isn't it as simple as she claims that she worked overtime she has the statement from one of the officers saying i don't pay overtime to underwriters  there is the statement with regard to the two individuals that they are in charge of the hiring the firing determinations with regard to compensation and several other things isn't that enough for had ceased doing business after he was now they were she was now working at running but there's no allegation that when he at the time mr chapman made that counted he had any role with rehman whatsoever there's no allegation was an officer in fact draw you know when you talk when she talks about the role of these individuals and i want to bring it back to some extent to the context and what's missing in this complaint when you see if i say i'm sure your honour's of seeing many of them over the past several years you usually see allegations to talk about this is details these are not hard things to alleged there and everybody's common everyday occurrences none of them are here and when you speak to that as to it it pertains to this case when you look at it when you see here is one of the allegations against  one that there were co owners we don't know what percentage ownership we don't know what they did it doesn't by the way allege they were responsible hiring iris noticed pleading is about right i mean we're talking about notice pleading your your clients are on notice with regard to what the claims are it's not like they look at this and they go oh my god look at what could december mean example of twenty six of the amended complaint alleges that  decisions concerning security atlantics and rams day to day operations hiring firing promotions personnel matters work schedules pay policies and compensation again but that's quite different than being responsible made decisions that concern any decision  ball and you talk about generals assertions that are naked in devoid of further factual and hansen which is what we're talking about here you can allege any of these generalities give me specific some any and again the district court has the power to address the specifics and require some things some meat on the bones so to speak as you call it before you subject parties toothpastes of a geisha in this particular case you've not you your honor i'm sorry plate that has conflated completely individual live below the presumed is based upon the existence of a poor relationship at the outset from either one of the companies and we can't really determine that then you really can't determine the individual liability in other words this complaint so happened was there the entire time with both security atlantic and r e m man isn't there enough to say individual i've been i don't care who the actual employer is in that context chapman has individual liability individual responsibility because he made decisions that affected that individual well he made decisions concerning his liability is not vicarious is liability that is true but i would say that again we don't know what his role was altogether at possible claim for really i think your honor in this the plane you're talking naked assertions that are general in nature without further factual enhancement which is what the supreme court said is not a law especially when you look at the context of things it should be pretty easy to plead this is what we're for this is to just say made decisions concerning you could say that about any employee you can say almost any employee makes decisions of any level with their your supervisor role or not that makes a decision concerning that's pretty broad what actually it was argued in the first motion to dismiss which the court actually adopted and i can raise that it's page forty seven port forty eight of our of the joint appendix response a prickly address the point that you're raising and we said  point she just a person who was defendants so if i may when she says defendants you can't tell in the district or actually highlighted that it's order you can't tell whether you're talking about defendants rehman because of its joint employer status it's excess what to do what is expected what it wanted and she chose to pursue an appeal rather than add a couple of paragraphs if in fact she could have and i would suggest the fact she didn't is talent but to go back to the question of whether there was a sufficiency alleged the only things left are if you look at the complaint very generic statements of i was employed i was exempt i was or i was treated as exempt i was not paid overtime there's nothing and specifics as to tell me a little bit about what happened in each place and when she conflates the defendants as only referred to as quote defendants you don't know whether that's remnant acting as roman as primary liabilities are treated in the complaint or if it's remnants simply by it groups a bunch of people and entities all into one basket and then says they all did this and at the same time espouses different theories that make it unclear as to is romans let's talk about roman for example is  see my time is up around as if i may finish my answer cook that running did this wrong or essay and see did this wrong or here's what happened s and c or here's what happened around it there's no discussion with that if so ever look at the plaintiff's brief on page thirteen i believe it's thirteen of their brief where they say yes we did and then they go through it and then they race issues and all talks about defendants defendants defendants without clarifying which defendant did what or when that is exactly what the district court was unclear about that's exactly what we were unclear about the there's nothing in here that says that redmond is responsible for a car at least primarily and that's the mc it is at least possible primarily i just find that mind boggling  based on context common sense of judicial experience the very things that this court i do lower court expects defendants know to satisfy the threshold requirements to get some type of justice are facts that one definition the people who are protected by this law are not the people who could possibly know these facts the people who are exam are the workers the low level workers the people that know the facts like the judge asked for evidence of a business plan ownership percentages eccentrics cetera of the very people who this