DocketNumber: Civil Action File No. 1:12-CV-3673-TWT
Citation Numbers: 302 F.R.D. 695
Judges: Thrash
Filed Date: 9/17/2014
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/26/2022
OPINION AND ORDER
This is an FLSA action for unpaid overtime. It is before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside the Default Judgment [Doe. 14] and the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 13]. For the reasons set forth below, the Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside the Default Judgment [Doc. 14] is GRANTED and the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 13] is DENIED.
I. Background
From 2005 to 2012, the Plaintiff Deanthony Domineck was a “tire shop technician” for the Defendant One Stop Auto Shop, Inc.
II. Legal Standard
A. Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c), the Court “may set aside an entry of default for
Further, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), “[o]n motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.”
B. Motion to Dismiss
A plaintiff may survive a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) if the factual allegations in the Complaint give rise to a plausible claim for relief.
III. Discussion
A. Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment
The Defendant claims that, under Rule 60(b)(4), the default judgment must be set aside because it is void. In support, the Defendant first argues that the Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs FLSA claim because the Defendant is not subject to the FLSA’s overtime requirement. The FLSA states that “[e]x-eept as otherwise provided in [29 U.S.C. § 207], no employer shall employ any of his employees who in any workweek is [1] engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce [individual coverage], or [2] is employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce [enterprise coverage], for a workweek longer than forty hours unless such employee receives compensation for his employment in excess of the hours above specified at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is em
The “basic statutory grants of federal-court subject-matter jurisdiction are contained in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332.”
Here, the Plaintiff has asserted a claim under the FLSA — a federal statute — and so this case “arises under” federal law. The question is whether the commerce requirement in section 207(a)(1) is a limitation on federal-question jurisdiction or simply an element of the Plaintiffs claim. The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp.
The same reasoning applies to the commerce requirement in the FLSA’s overtime provision. As another District Court in this Circuit has put it: “Nothing in ... the FLSA indicates that Congress intended that the individual coverage or enterprise coverage restrictions be jurisdictional ... [thus] the Court must apply the bright line rule articulated in Arbaugh and find that individual or enterprise coverage under the FLSA is an element of a plaintiffs claim for relief, not a jurisdictional threshold.”
The Defendant then argues that the default judgment is voidable because the Defendant was not served with the summons and Complaint. Generally, “where service of process is insufficient, the court has no power to render judgment and the judgment is void.”
Although the judgment may not be set aside under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4), it may still be set aside for “good cause.”
B. Motion to Dismiss
The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs claim must be dismissed because the Defendant is not subject to the FLSA. As noted, to prevail on his overtime claim, the Plaintiff must establish either individual or enterprise coverage.
In arguing that the enterprise coverage provision is inapplicable, the Defendant
IV. Conclusion
For these reasons, the Court GRANTS the Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside the Default Judgment [Doc. 14] and DENIES the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 13].
. Compl. ¶¶ 13-14.
. Compl. ¶¶ 16-17.
. [Doc. 8].
. [Doc. 9].
. Compania Interamericana Exp.-Imp., S.A. v. Compania Dominicana de Aviacion, 88 F.3d 948, 951 (11th Cir. 1996).
. Id. (quoting Coon v. Grenier, 867 F.2d 73, 76 (1st Cir. 1989)).
. S.E.C. v. Johnson, 436 Fed.Appx. 939, 945 (11th Cir.2011).
. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (“Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level ... on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).”).
. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937.
. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (A "plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlefment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).
. Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006).
. Id.
. See, e.g., United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 431 F.3d 643, 650 (9th Cir.2005) (the "general grant of federal question jurisdiction is not limitless — Congress may negate district court jurisdiction '[b]y virtue of ... a specific reference or assignment.’ ”).
. Id. at 514-515, 126 S.Ct. 1235.
. 546 U.S. 500, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 163 L.Ed.2d 1097(2006).
. Id. at 510, 126 S.Ct. 1235.
. Id. at 511, 126 S.Ct. 1235 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
. Id. at 515-16, 126 S.Ct. 1235 (internal quotation marks omitted).
. Id. at 516, 126 S.Ct. 1235.
. Rodriguez v. Diego's Rest., Inc., 619 F.Supp.2d 1345, 1350 (S.D.Fla.2009).
. See Chao v. Hotel Oasis, Inc., 493 F.3d 26, 33 (1st Cir.2007) ("The FLSA places the [annual dollar value] limitation in the definitions section of the Act, and does not suggest that the [annual dollar value] limitation is jurisdictional.”).
. In re Worldwide Web Sys., Inc., 328 F.3d 1291, 1299 (11th Cir.2003).
. [Doc. 5],
. Cleveland Aff. ¶ 3.
. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c).
. Shepard Claims Serv., Inc. v. William Darrah & Associates, 796 F.2d 190, 192-93 (6th Cir. 1986).
. [Doc. 9],
. Florida Physician’s Ins. Co. v. Ehlers, 8 F.3d 780, 783 (11th Cir. 1993).
. 29U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).
. Compl. ¶¶ 7-11.
. Polycarpe v. E & S Landscaping Service, Inc., 616 F.3d 1217, 1220 (11th Cir.2010) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(A)).
. Compl. ¶ 7.