Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gitzen v. S&S, Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

September 12, 2019

MICHAEL GITZEN, Plaintiff,
v.
S&S, INC., Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION ECF No. 11

          Lisa Pupo Lenihan United States Magistrate Judge.

         Presently before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant S&S, Inc. (ECF No. 11.) For the reasons discussed below, the motion will be denied.

         FACTS

         Plaintiff Michael Gitzen (“Plaintiff” or “Gitzen”) brings this action under the Fair labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). He also alleges supplemental state law claims pursuant to the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (“PMWA”), the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law (“PWPCL”), and for breach of contract. (Complaint, ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 1-2.)

         Plaintiff was employed as a carpenter for Defendant S&S, Inc. (“Defendant” or “S&S”) from September 1, 2001 until August 31, 2018, when he was terminated by Defendant. (ECF NO. 1 ¶ 13.) Plaintiff was a salaried employee but he did not perform any administrative, executive, or professional job duties. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 14.) Plaintiff alleges that he regularly worked more than 40 hours in a given work week during that time period on an annual basis, but was never paid overtime by Defendant. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 15 &19.) Plaintiff also alleges that he was never paid prevailing wages for jobs that required employees to be paid at the prevailing wage rates. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 18.) Instead, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant “deliberately and unlawfully certified false payroll records to avoid paying Plaintiff at the overtime rate. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 21.)

         Plaintiff further alleges that he has not been paid an agreed upon bonus. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 27-28.) Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff his wages for the last two weeks that he worked for Defendant. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 31.)

         LEGAL STANDARD

         The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit summarized the standard to be applied in deciding motions to dismiss filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6):

Under the “notice pleading” standard embodied in Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff must come forward with “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” As explicated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), a claimant must state a “plausible” claim for relief, and “[a] claim has facial plausibility when the pleaded factual content allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Although “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, ” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007), a plaintiff “need only put forth allegations that raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the necessary element.” Fowler, 578 F.3d at 213 (quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Covington v. Int'l Ass'n of Approved Basketball Officials, 710 F.3d 114, 117-18 (3d Cir. 2013).

Thompson v. Real Estate Mortg. Network, 748 F.3d 142, 147 (3d Cir. 2014).

         ANALYSIS

         In support of its Motion to Dismiss, Defendant presents a narrative that appears to raise several issues without any substantive discussion. First, Defendant suggests that because three (3) of the four (4) Counts of the Complaint raise state law issues, jurisdiction is inappropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Plaintiff responds that because this Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, it has supplemental jurisdiction over the related state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

         Section 1367(a) provides as follows:

(a) Except as provided in subsections (b) [concerning diversity jurisdiction] and (c) [dismissal of all federal claims] or as expressly provided otherwise by Federal statute, in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.