Hahn v. Rocky Mountain Express Corp.
| Decision Date | 16 June 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 11 Civ. 8512 (LTS)(GWG),11 Civ. 8512 (LTS)(GWG) |
| Parties | ANTHONY HAHN, Plaintiff, v. ROCKY MOUNTAIN EXPRESS CORP., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Plaintiff Anthony Hahn ("Hahn") brings this action against Rocky Mountain Express Corp., d/b/a RMX Global Logistics ("RMX") asserting claims pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., ("FLSA"); New York Labor Law, N.Y. Labor Law §§ 1 et seq.; and New York Codes, Rules and Regulations ("NYCRR") for federal and state wage and hour law violations. Plaintiff also asserts age discrimination claims pursuant to New York Executive Law § 296 and NYC Administrative Code § 8-107. Defendant has moved pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) to dismiss the Complaint. The Court has reviewed thoroughly and considered carefully all of the submissions and, for the following reasons, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
The following facts are derived from the allegations in the Complaint, and are assumed to be true for purposes of the instant motion practice. Plaintiff was employed by RMX as a freight broker from approximately December 8, 2008, until his termination on August 17, 2011. (Compl. ¶ 1.) On average, Plaintiff worked 50 hours per week; however, despite his status as a non-exempt employee, he was never paid overtime. (Id. ¶¶ 19, 21.) Plaintiff was told in August 2011 that he was being fired due to economic cutbacks, not his job performance, and that if RMX's finances improved, he would be rehired. (Id. ¶ 15.) Plaintiff was the only employee over forty years of age and, despite his exemplary performance and seniority, he was the sole employee who was terminated. (Id. ¶¶ 17-18.)
Defendant argues that the Court lacks supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiff's state law age discrimination claims. A district court's exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1367, which provides in relevant part:
[T]he 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 Constitution . . . .
28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (West 2011). For purposes of § 1367(a), claims "form part of the same case or controversy" if they "derive from a common nucleus of operative fact." Briarpatch Ltd., L.P. v. Phoenix Pictures, Inc., 373 F.3d 296, 308 (2d Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). "In determining whether two disputes arise from a 'common nucleus of operative fact,' we have traditionally asked whether the facts underlying the federal and state claims substantially overlapped or the federal claim necessarily brought the facts underlying the state claim before the court." Achtman v. Kirby, McInerney & Squire, LLP, 464 F.3d 328, 335 (2d Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). The only overlap between Plaintiff's wage claims and his age discrimination claim is the fact that both arose in connection with his employment at RMX. Defendant'salleged failure to pay overtime and allegedly age-motivated termination of Plaintiff are, otherwise, entirely separate cases and controversies. Accordingly, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of Plaintiff's age discrimination claims.
In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court accepts as true the non-conclusory factual allegations in the complaint and draws all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Roth v. Jennings, 489 F.3d 499, 501 (2d Cir. 2007); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. at 678.
When deciding a motion to dismiss, the Court "may consider any written instrument attached to the complaint, statements or documents incorporated into the complaint by reference . . . and documents possessed by or known to the plaintiff and upon which it relied in bringing the suit ." ATSI Commc'ns, Inc. v. Shaar Fund. Ltd., 493 F.3d 87, 98 (2d Cir. 2007). Evidence outside these parameters may be introduced in connection with a motion for summary judgment; it cannot, however, be considered on review of a 12(b)(6) motion. Accordingly, the Court will not consider the exhibits attached to Defendant's motion, nor the affidavit attached to Plaintiff's opposition.
The Complaint alleges that (1) Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee entitled to overtime pay; (2) he worked in excess of 40 hours a week; and...
To continue reading
Request your trial