A 14 district court reviews a Rule 12(c) motion under the same legal standard as Rule 12(b)(6).
LEGAL STANDARDS 11 The Court may grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) 12 “when there is no issue of material fact in dispute, and the moving party is entitled to 13 judgment as a matter of law.” Fleming v. On January 18, 2022, Defendant filed 8 the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, which is now ripe for review. 59), 6 and Plaintiff subsequently filed the First Amended Complaint, alleging both the FLSA 7 claim and the Oregon state-law claim. On April 22, 2021, the Court granted the Motion to Amend (Doc. 1 On February 16, 2021, Plaintiffs moved to amend the Complaint to add an 2 additional named plaintiff, Plaintiff Samantha Stocklein (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), seeking 3 to bring a claim for failure to pay overtime under Oregon law for herself and other 4 putative class members employed by Defendant in Oregon, in addition to the FLSA 5 claim. Plaintiff was ordered to notify all members of the class within 21 28 days, and the members then had 63 days to opt in to the action. On October 15, 2020, the Court conditionally certified 26 a collective class of employees and granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Step-One Notice under 27 the FLSA. BACKGROUND 22 On May 6, 2020, Plaintiffs Tina Weeks, Michael McDonald, and Cassandra 23 Magdaleno filed a Complaint alleging they and other similarly situated employees of 24 Defendant were improperly classified as exempt under the FLSA and had therefore been 25 denied overtime wages. For the 20 reasons that follow, the motion will be denied. Defendant argues 19 that the state-law claim is preempted by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). 81), in which Defendant moves for judgment in its 17 favor on Plaintiff Samantha Stocklein’s Oregon state-law wage claim and the associated 18 putative Rule 23 class action claim alleging failure to pay overtime. CV-20-00884-PHX-SPL ORDER 15 Before the Court is Defendant Matrix Absence Management Inc.’s Motion for 16 Judgment on the Pleadings.
11 12 Matrix Absence Management Incorporated, 13 Defendant. 1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 Tina Weeks, et al., 9 10 Plaintiffs, vs.
0 kommentar(er)
