Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01451/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01451-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

Gregory R. Kantor, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Monument Homes Realty & Investment,

LLC; HA Developers/Monument Homes

Inc.; and Monument Homes,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-1451-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff began working for Defendants as an assistant sales manager in July 2007.

Plaintiff’s employment ended on April 16, 2008. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint

against Defendants asserting federal and state law claims based on Defendants’ alleged

failure to pay Plaintiff wages and commissions and alleged continued use of Plaintiff’s name

to retain clients. Dkt. #10.

Defendants have filed a joint answer and motion to dismiss. Dkt. ##14-15. Plaintiff

has filed a response to the motion. Dkt. #16. For reasons that follow, the Court will deny

the motion.

Rule 7.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “upon any motion, the

moving party shall serve and file with the motion’s papers a memorandum setting forth the

points and authorities relied on in support of the motion.” LRCiv 7.2(b). Defendants have

not filed the supporting memorandum required by Local Rule 7.2. Defendants assert that the

Case 2:08-cv-01451-DGC Document 17 Filed 04/29/09 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

complaint fails to state a claim for relief and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction

(Dkt. ##14-15 ¶¶ 1, 11), but present no facts or argument in support of these assertions. Nor

have Defendants filed a reply memorandum to Plaintiff’s response. See LRCiv 7.2(d); Fed.

R. Civ. P. 6 (setting forth time limits for motion papers).

Plaintiff has alleged federal question jurisdiction based on his claim under the Fair

Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. Dkt. #10 ¶¶ 1-2, 11-14; see 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Defendants have not shown that the complaint fails to “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 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). The

motion to dismiss will therefore be denied. 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. #15) is denied.

2. The Court will set a case management conference by separate order.

DATED this 28th day of April, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01451-DGC Document 17 Filed 04/29/09 Page 2 of 2