Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00452/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00452-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Denial of Overtime Compensation

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Daniel M. Quinonez, an unmarried 

individual, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Reliable Auto Glass, LLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-12-000452-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

 Pending before the court is Defendant Reliable Auto Glass, LLC’s motion to 

dismiss for failure to state a claim (Doc. 7). For the reasons stated below, Defendant’s 

motion is granted. 

BACKGROUND 

 Plaintiff Daniel Quinonez alleges that when he was employed at Reliable Auto 

Glass, Defendant willfully refused to pay him overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 

hours a week (Counts I and III). Further, Quinonez alleges that Defendant owes him 

unpaid regular time wages for the pay period immediately prior to his termination (Count 

II). In order to recover the unpaid overtime and wages, Quinonez brings suit under the 

Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.

Case 2:12-cv-00452-GMS Document 10 Filed 07/11/12 Page 1 of 7
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 Defendant Reliable Auto Glass moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim, on the 

grounds that Plaintiff’s complaint alleges no set of facts that would indicate that either 

Plaintiff or Defendant are covered under the FLSA. 

DISCUSSION 

I. Legal Standard 

 To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge, a complaint must contain more than “labels 

and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action”; it must 

contain factual allegations sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the speculative 

level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “[I]n practice, a complaint 

. . . must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material 

elements necessary to sustain recovery under some viable legal theory” Twombly, 550 

U.S. at 562 (quoting Car Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 745 F.2d 1101, 1106 (7th Cir. 

1984) (emphasis in original)). While “a complaint need not contain detailed factual 

allegations . . . it must plead ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face.’” Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017, 1022 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads 

factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is 

liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The plausibility standard “asks for more than a sheer 

possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that are 

‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability, it ‘stops short of the line between 

possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 

Case 2:12-cv-00452-GMS Document 10 Filed 07/11/12 Page 2 of 7
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

557) (internal citations omitted). 

II. Analysis 

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., employers 

are “generally require[d] . . . to pay overtime to [non-exempt] employees who work more 

than 40 hours per week.” East v. Bullock's Inc., 34 F. Supp. 2d 1176, 1180 (D. Ariz. 

1998). “If a covered employee is not paid the statutory wage, the FLSA creates for that 

employee a private cause of action against his employer for the recovery of unpaid 

overtime wages and back pay.” Josendis v. Wall to Wall Residence Repairs, Inc., 662 

F.3d 1292, 1298 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 216(b)). An FLSA claim has three 

elements: 

The elements of an FLSA claim are: 1) plaintiff was employed by 

defendant during the relevant period; 2) plaintiff was [a covered employee]; 

and 3) the defendant failed to pay plaintiff minimum wage and/or overtime 

pay. 

Lucas v. Jerusalem Cafe, LLC, 4:10-CV-00582-DGK, 2012 WL 1758153 (W.D. Mo. 

May 10, 2012) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 201, et. seq. ). See also Sec’y of Labor v. Labbe, 319 

F. App’x 761, 763 (11th Cir. 2008) (“[T]he requirements to state a claim of a FLSA 

violation are quite straightforward. The elements that must be shown are simply a failure 

to pay overtime compensation and/or minimum wages to covered employees and/or 

failure to keep payroll records in accordance with the Act.”) 

 Plaintiff alleges that, while employed by Defendant Reliable Auto Glass, he was a 

non-exempt “auto glass technician”, that he “typically worked between fifty (50) and 

seventy (70) hours each week,” and that “Plaintiff was never paid time-and-one-half 

Case 2:12-cv-00452-GMS Document 10 Filed 07/11/12 Page 3 of 7
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

times his hourly rate for all hours over forty (40) per week.” (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 7, 9–11). Thus 

stated, Plaintiff has sufficiently and clearly pled the first and third elements of a FLSA 

claim. See, e.g., Uribe v. Mainland Nursery, Inc., CIV2070229FCDDAD, 2007 WL 

4356609 *6-8 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2007) (finding plaintiff had stated a claim under FLSA 

when he alleged that he was a non-exempt employee engaged in commerce and that 

employer had not paid time-and-one-half for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per 

week). 

 However, Plaintiff has not alleged any set of facts from which the Court could 

infer that he is a “covered employee” within the scope of the FLSA’s provisions. See

Josendis v. Wall to Wall Residence Repairs, Inc., 662 F.3d 1292, 1298 (11th Cir. 2011) 

(“In order to be eligible for FLSA overtime, however, an employee must first 

demonstrate that he is ‘covered’ by the FLSA.”) An employee may qualify as a covered 

employee either 1) individually, if they are “engaged in commerce or in the production of 

goods for commerce,” or 2) through their employer, if they are “employed in an 

enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce.” Zorich v. 

Long Beach Fire Dept. & Ambulance Serv., Inc., 118 F.3d 682, 684 (9th Cir. 1997). 

 “Individual coverage” applies if an employee “regularly and directly participat[es] 

in the actual movement of persons or things in interstate commerce.” Josendis, 662 F.3d 

at 1198. (citations omitted). See also 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1) (mandating time-and-a-half 

for “employees ... engaged in [interstate] commerce or in the production of goods for 

[interstate] commerce”). 

 An employee may also be covered through “enterprise coverage” if an employer 

Case 2:12-cv-00452-GMS Document 10 Filed 07/11/12 Page 4 of 7
- 5 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

“(1) has at least two employees engaged in interstate commerce or the production of 

goods for interstate commerce, or who handle, sell, or otherwise work on goods or 

materials that had once moved or been produced for in interstate commerce, and (2) has 

gross sales of at least $500,000 in sales annually.” Josendis, 662 F.3d at 1317. See also 

Zorich, 118 F.3d at 684 (same). 

 “A motion under 12(b)(6) tests the formal sufficiency of the statement of claim for 

relief.” Fednav Ltd. v. Sterling Int’l, 572 F. Supp. 1268, 1270 (N.D. Cal. 1983). 

Therefore, complaints are to be “liberally construed in favor of the plaintiff.” Id. In this 

spirit, courts have considered plaintiffs to have stated a claim when plaintiffs have 

alleged a set of facts which show that the plaintiff was a covered employee. Compare 

Vega v. Peninsula Household Services, Inc., C-08-03815 JCS, 2009 WL 656291 (N.D. 

Cal. Mar. 12, 2009) (finding plaintiff had stated a FLSA claim where plaintiff alleged 

employer had “an annual gross income of $500,000 or more during the 4 years prior to 

the filing of this case; and . . . has employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on 

goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for commerce by any person”) 

and Cardenas v. Grozdic, 12 C 292, 2012 WL 2359399 (N.D. Ill. June 20, 2012) (finding 

plaintiff had stated a claim under FLSA where plaintiff alleged facts from which court 

could infer that employer-defendant was a covered enterprise) and Kelley v. Stevens Auto 

Sales, CIV.A. 3:08-CV-261JV, 2009 WL 2762765 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 27, 2009) (finding 

plaintiff created a question of fact as to whether plaintiff was individually covered under 

FLSA when plaintiff had alleged that he purchased cars in commerce for employer, a 

non-covered enterprise) with Jiang v. Lee’s Happy House, C 07-03606 RS, 2007 WL 

Case 2:12-cv-00452-GMS Document 10 Filed 07/11/12 Page 5 of 7
- 6 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3105087 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2007) (dismissing for failure to state a claim when plaintiff’s 

“complaint [was] devoid of any facts tending to support th[e conclusion that employer 

was subject to the FLSA] . . . and [did] not mention the $500,000 threshold”). 

 Plaintiff has not alleged facts from which the Court could infer either that he is 

either individually covered or that his employer is a “covered enterprise.” While we 

construe complaints liberally, Plaintiff must meet his pleading burden by pleading 

“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 

570. Here, however, “Plaintiff fails to allege any facts to show that he is subject to 

individual or enterprise coverage. He does not allege whether he directly and regularly 

engaged in interstate commerce or that Defendant's enterprise has employees who engage 

in interstate commerce or the production of goods for interstate commerce and meets the 

minimum statutory threshold for annual gross volume of sales or business.” Gomez v. 

Kern, 12-20622-CIV, 2012 WL 1069186 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 29, 2012). Defendant’s motion 

to dismiss for failure to state a claim is, therefore, granted. 

CONCLUSION 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 7) 

is GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT should Plaintiff desire to file a motion for 

leave to file an amended complaint, he shall do so no later than 30 days from the date of 

this Order. The proposed amended complaint shall be attached to the motion for leave to 

amend and comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15 and Local Rules of Civil 

Procedure 15.1. The Court will not permit the filing of any proposed amended complaint 

Case 2:12-cv-00452-GMS Document 10 Filed 07/11/12 Page 6 of 7
- 7 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

that does not comply with the requirements of this Order, or that seeks to reassert claims 

that have been dismissed. 

 If Plaintiff does not file a motion requesting leave to file an amended complaint by 

30 days from the date of this Order, the Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate this 

action. 

 DATED this 11th day of July, 2012. 

Case 2:12-cv-00452-GMS Document 10 Filed 07/11/12 Page 7 of 7