Case 8:12-cv-00891-VMC-EAJ Document 12 Filed 06/22/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID 145
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`TAMPA DIVISION
`
`PEGGY ST. CROIX,
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No. 8:12-cv-891-T-33EAJ
`
`v.
`GENENTECH, INC.,
`Defendant
`______________________________/
`ORDER
`This cause is before the Court pursuant to Defendant’s
`Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss and/or Rule 12(e) Motion for
`a More Definite Statement (Doc. # 10), filed on May 1, 2012.
`Plaintiff Peggy St. Croix filed a Response in Opposition to
`the Motion (Doc. # 11) on May 18, 2012. For the reasons that
`follow, the Court grants the Motion to Dismiss, denies as moot
`the Motion for More Definite Statement and dismisses the
`Complaint without prejudice.
`I.
`Background
`On January 23, 2012, St. Croix filed suit in state court
`against Defendant Genentech, Inc. for alleged violations of
`the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq.
`(Doc. # 2). Genentech removed the case to this Court on April
`24, 2012. (Doc. # 1).
`In Count I, St. Croix alleges that she was employed by
`Genentech “as a Pharmaceutical Sales Representative, also
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`TAMPA DIVISION
`
`PEGGY ST. CROIX,
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No. 8:12-cv-891-T-33EAJ
`
`v.
`GENENTECH, INC.,
`Defendant
`______________________________/
`ORDER
`This cause is before the Court pursuant to Defendant’s
`Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss and/or Rule 12(e) Motion for
`a More Definite Statement (Doc. # 10), filed on May 1, 2012.
`Plaintiff Peggy St. Croix filed a Response in Opposition to
`the Motion (Doc. # 11) on May 18, 2012. For the reasons that
`follow, the Court grants the Motion to Dismiss, denies as moot
`the Motion for More Definite Statement and dismisses the
`Complaint without prejudice.
`I.
`Background
`On January 23, 2012, St. Croix filed suit in state court
`against Defendant Genentech, Inc. for alleged violations of
`the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq.
`(Doc. # 2). Genentech removed the case to this Court on April
`24, 2012. (Doc. # 1).
`In Count I, St. Croix alleges that she was employed by
`Genentech “as a Pharmaceutical Sales Representative, also
`
`
`
`Case 8:12-cv-00891-VMC-EAJ Document 12 Filed 06/22/12 Page 2 of 7 PageID 146
`
`known as a Hepatology Specialist” and that “at all material
`times hereto” she worked in excess of forty hours per work
`week. (Id. at ¶¶ 5-6). She alleges that Genentech failed to
`pay her time and a half for the excess hours worked and that
`its failure to do so was “intentional and willful.” (Id. at ¶¶
`7-8). In Count II, St. Croix alleges that “at all times
`material” Genentech employed “numerous individuals who were
`similarly situated” and that Genentech intentionally and
`willfully failed to compensate such individuals for overtime.
`(Id. at ¶¶ 11-14). She seeks overtime compensation, liquidated
`damages, prejudgment interest, attorney’s fees and costs.
`II. Legal Standard
`In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule
`of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), this Court must accept as true
`all factual allegations in the complaint and construe them in
`the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See United Techs.
`Corp. v. Mazer, 556 F.3d 1260, 1269 (11th Cir. 2009). While
`such factual allegations need not be detailed, “a plaintiff’s
`obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief
`requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
`recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”
`Bell Atl. Corp v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal
`quotations and citations omitted).
`2
`
`
`
`Case 8:12-cv-00891-VMC-EAJ Document 12 Filed 06/22/12 Page 3 of 7 PageID 147
`
`“To survive dismissal, the complaint’s allegations must
`plausibly suggest that the plaintiff has a right to relief,
`raising that possibility above a speculative level; if they do
`not, the plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed.” James
`River Ins. Co. v. Ground Down Eng’g, Inc., 540 F.3d 1270, 1274
`(11th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
`A plausible claim for relief must include “factual content
`that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
`the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft
`v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009).
`III. Analysis
`Genentech moves to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety
`because St. Croix’s “conclusory and wholly unsubstantiated”
`allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief can be
`granted. (Doc. # 10 at 11). In the alternative, Genentech
`moves for a more definite statement pursuant to Federal Rule
`of Civil Procedure 12(e).
`Genentech argues that the Complaint “provides no detail
`concerning when or where [St. Croix] was allegedly employed,
`whether she was exempt or non-exempt, her theory of recovery,
`how many hours she allegedly worked, or the date(s) of the
`alleged violation(s).” (Id. at ¶ 3). Genentech further asserts
`that Count II fails to provide any specifics regarding the
`3
`
`
`
`Case 8:12-cv-00891-VMC-EAJ Document 12 Filed 06/22/12 Page 4 of 7 PageID 148
`
`alleged “similarly situated” individuals who did not receive
`overtime compensation. Finally, Genentech argues that St.
`Croix provides no factual basis for her allegations that
`Genentech’s actions were intentional and willful.
`To establish a prima facie case of liability for unpaid
`overtime under the FLSA, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1)
`the defendant employed her; (2) the defendant is an enterprise
`engaged in interstate commerce covered by the FLSA or the
`plaintiff is otherwise covered by the FLSA; (3) the plaintiff
`actually worked in excess of a 40-hour work week; and (4) the
`defendant failed to pay her overtime wages as required by law.
`Hines v. Detail Dynamics, Inc., No. 6:09-cv-1116-Orl-28DAB,
`2011 WL 4447753, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 5, 2010) (citing Morgan
`v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., 551 F.3d 1233, 1277 n.68 (11th
`Cir. 2008)). The plaintiff must show “‘as a matter of just and
`reasonable inference’ the amount and extent of [her] work in
`order to demonstrate that [s]he was inadequately compensated
`under the FLSA.” Ekokotu v. Fed. Express Corp., 408 F. App’x
`331, 340 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting Caro-Galvan v. Curtis
`Richardson, Inc., 993 F.2d 1500, 1513 (11th Cir. 1993)).
`The Complaint in this instance offers scant facts in
`support of a prima facie case for FLSA violations. The Court
`accepts as true that St. Croix is or was employed by Genentech
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 8:12-cv-00891-VMC-EAJ Document 12 Filed 06/22/12 Page 5 of 7 PageID 149
`
`and can infer that a company the size of Genentech is an
`enterprise engaged in interstate commerce. However, the
`Complaint offers only conclusory allegations that, “[a]t all
`times material hereto, Plaintiff worked for Defendant in
`excess of forty (40) hours per work week.” (Doc. # 2 at ¶ 5).
`St. Croix provides no dates or date ranges during which she
`worked overtime or any other factual basis on which this Court
`can make a “just and reasonable inference” as to the amount
`and extent of her work.
`Thus, the Court finds that St. Croix has failed to
`establish a prima facie case demonstrating that she was
`inadequately compensated under the FLSA. See Rance v.
`Rocksolid Granit USA, Inc., 292 F. App’x 1, 2 (11th Cir. 2008)
`(affirming dismissal of complaint for failure to provide
`evidence of the amount and extent of work). Count I is
`therefore dismissed.
`Count II of the Complaint is also deficient. “The FLSA
`authorizes collective actions against employers accused of
`violating the FLSA.” Morgan, 551 F.3d at 1258 (citing 29
`U.S.C. § 216(b)). However, “[t]he FLSA itself does not define
`how similar the employees must be before the case may proceed
`as a collective action.” Id. at 1259. Nonetheless, the
`Eleventh Circuit has directed that the employees should be
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 8:12-cv-00891-VMC-EAJ Document 12 Filed 06/22/12 Page 6 of 7 PageID 150
`
`“‘similarly situated’ with respect to their job requirements
`and with regard to their pay provisions.” Id.
`St. Croix fails to set forth any facts supporting her
`allegations that other Genentech employees are or were
`similarly situated. She provides only her job title, which is
`not the same as a job description. Pickering v. Lorillard
`Tobacco Co., Inc., No. 2:10-cv-633-WKW(WO), 2011 WL 111730, at
`*2 (M.D. Ala. Jan. 13, 2011). Furthermore, the Complaint
`provides no description of the job duties (or even the job
`titles) of the alleged similarly situated employees. Nor are
`there any allegations concerning the similarly situated
`employees’ pay provisions. St. Croix merely seeks relief on
`behalf of “numerous individuals who were similarly situated”
`-- a legal conclusion that does not satisfy Twombly and Iqbal
`pleading standards. See id. (dismissing a similar FLSA
`collective action claim as factually deficient). Count II is
`therefore dismissed as well.
`Accepting the allegations in the Complaint as true, the
`Court finds that St. Croix has failed to adequately state a
`prima facie case for FLSA violations. Furthermore, she has
`failed to sufficiently allege the basis for a collective
`action on behalf of others similarly situated. The Court
`therefore grants the Motion to Dismiss. The Complaint is
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 8:12-cv-00891-VMC-EAJ Document 12 Filed 06/22/12 Page 7 of 7 PageID 151
`
`dismissed without prejudice. St. Croix may file an amended
`complaint within 14 days of the date of this Order.
`This conclusion obviates the need to discuss Genentech’s
`alternative Motion for a More Definite Statement. The
`alternative Motion is denied as moot.
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
`Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 10)
`is GRANTED. Defendant’s Rule 12(e) Motion for a More Definite
`Statement (Doc. # 10) is DENIED AS MOOT. The Complaint is
`dismissed without prejudice. St. Croix may file an amended
`complaint within 14 days of the date of this Order.
`DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this
`22nd day of June, 2012.
`
`Copies:
`Counsel of Record
`
`7
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
