The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Munley
Before the court for disposition is the Defendant Cook Brothers Companies Inc.'s motion to dismiss Plaintiff Terrence Kane's complaint. The matter has been fully briefed and is ripe for disposition.
Defendant Cook Brothers hired Plaintiff Kane as a warehouse manager on March 4, 2002 at an hourly rate of $10.00 per hour. (Doc. 1, Complaint at ¶ 6). During his employment, which ended on December 7, 2006, plaintiff was an hourly employee. (Id. at ¶ ¶ 7-8). His hours of work were from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. (Id. at 9). He was not allowed to take paid lunches or breaks. (Id. at 10). Plaintiff asserts that this policy violates the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, Pennsylvania's Wage Payment Collection Law and is a breach of an implied contract. Hence, he filed the instant complaint raising those three counts. In response to the complaint, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and a motion for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This motions are ripe for decision.
As this case is brought pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act, (hereinafter "FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ("The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."). We have supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
When a 12(b)(6) motion is filed, the sufficiency of a complaint's allegations are tested. The issue is whether the facts alleged in the complaint, if true, support a claim upon which relief can be granted. In deciding a 12(b)(6) motion, the court must accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and give the pleader the benefit of all reasonable inferences that can fairly be drawn therefrom, and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997).
Defendant's motion raises several issues that we will address separately.
I. Failure to State Claim Under FLSA/ Statute of Limitations
Plaintiff's first cause of action is under the FLSA, which provides that an hourly employee who works more than a forty (40) hour work week must be compensated for the excess hours at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a).
Defendant attacks this cause of action on the basis that plaintiff does not specifically allege what he was not paid, the number of hours in any given time period, and he further fails to specify the work week or pay periods at issue. Plaintiff responds that he cannot specify these matters because he does not possess the records. He argues that these records can be provided by the defendant in discovery and that will clear up these issues. We are in agreement with the plaintiff. The complaint is sufficiently clear to put defendant on notice as to the general time period involved and discovery should enable the plaintiff to become more specific. The motion to dismiss based on this ground will be denied.
Defendant also moves to dismiss the FLSA based upon the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations under the FLSA is two years, extended to three where the employer acts willfully in violation of the statute. 29 U.S.C. § 255. Plaintiff filed the instant complaint on March 16, 2008. (Doc. 1). Defendant asserts that the statute of limitations bars plaintiff from recovery for anything earlier than two years before he filed suit. We find that this argument premature. First, it is impossible to tell at this point, before discovery, whether the ...