Shaw v. Peraton, Inc.
| Decision Date | 12 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:21-cv-00045 |
| Parties | JACOB SHAW, Plaintiff, v. PERATON, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
The Court now considers "Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue"1 ("Motion to Dismiss"). Jacob Shaw ("Plaintiff") has filed a response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss;2 Peraton, Inc. ("Defendant") has filed a Reply Memorandum in Further Support of its Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue;3 and Plaintiff has filed a Sur-Reply.4 After considering the motion, record, and relevant authorities, the motion to dismiss is converted into a motion for summary judgment and the Court GRANTS the motion and DISMISSES Plaintiff's action.
This is an employment dispute brought by Plaintiff-employee against Defendant-employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").5 The merits of this case pertain to Plaintiff's allegation that Defendant failed to compensate employees for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek as required by the FLSA.6 Defendant's motion to dismiss is premisedon the Letter of Understanding ("LOU") that Plaintiff signed upon employment with Defendant.7 The LOU contains a Choice of Law and Venue provision as well as a Dispute Resolution provision.8
This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply the same day as Defendant's reply.9 Defendant then filed an Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply.10 Plaintiff's motion states that Counsel for Plaintiff 11 However, Defendant's opposition notes that Counsel for Plaintiff emailed a counselor who was not listed as counsel of record and allowed less than thirty minutes to pass before filing the Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply.12 Thus, Plaintiff did not successfully confer with Defendant prior to filing their motion as required by Local Rule 7.1.D.
"Whether to allow filing a sur-reply is within the sound discretion of the district court."13 Given that the two issues raised in the sur-reply could have easily been raised in the response andgiven Plaintiff's failure to confer with Defendant, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for leave.14
The Court uses federal pleading standards to determine the sufficiency of a complaint.15 "A motion to dismiss an action for failure to state a claim admits the facts alleged in the complaint, but challenges plaintiff's right to relief based upon those facts."16 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), to avoid dismissal, the complaint "must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'"17
In considering a motion to dismiss, the Court is limited to assessing only the complaint, its proper attachments, documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which the Court may take judicial notice.18 Because the focus is on the pleadings, "if, on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c), matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56,"19 but not if the material is a matter of public record20 and not if a defendant attaches documents to a motion to dismiss that are "referred to in the plaintiff's complaint and are central to her claim."21 If a motion to dismiss is converted to a motion for summary judgment, the parties are entitled to notice and a reasonable opportunity to present all pertinent material.22 23
ii. Rule 56
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides that a court shall award summary judgment when there is "no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."24 One principal purpose of summary judgment "is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims or defenses" and should be interpreted to accomplish this purpose.25
To earn summary judgment, the movant must demonstrate that there are no disputes over genuine and material facts and that the movant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.26 "[I]f the movant bears the burden of proof on an issue, either because he is the plaintiff or as a defendant he is asserting an affirmative defense, he must establish beyond peradventure all of the essential elements of the claim or defense to warrant judgment in his favor."27 The movant "bears the initial burden of . . . demonstrat[ing] the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, but is not required to negate elements of the nonmoving party's case."28 In other words, a movant may satisfy its burden by pointing out the absence of evidence to support the nonmovant's case if the nonmovant would bear the burden of proof with respect to thatelement at trial.29 To demonstrate the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact, the movant must point to competent evidence in the record, such as documents, affidavits, and deposition testimony30 and must "articulate precisely how this evidence supports his claim."31 If the movant fails to meet its initial burden, the motions for summary judgment "must be denied, regardless of the nonmovant's response."32 Accordingly, the Court may not enter summary judgment by default,33 but may accept a movant's facts as undisputed if they are unopposed.34
If the movant meets its initial burden, the nonmovant "may not rest upon mere allegations contained in the pleadings, but must set forth and support by summary judgment evidence specific facts" that demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue for trial.35 The nonmovant's "conclusory statements, speculation, and unsubstantiated assertions cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment."36 The nonmovant is "required to identify specific evidence in the record and to articulate the precise manner in which that evidence supports his or her claim."37 "A failure on the part of the nonmoving party to offer proof concerning an essential element of its case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial and mandates a finding that no genuine issueof fact exists."38 The nonmovant's demonstration cannot consist solely of "[c]onclusional allegations and denials, speculation, improbable inferences, unsubstantiated assertions, and legalistic argumentation"39 and a "mere scintilla of evidence" also will not do.40 "That is, the nonmoving party must adduce evidence sufficient to support a jury verdict."41
"A fact is 'material' if its resolution could affect the outcome of the action,"42 while a "genuine" dispute is present "only if a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-movant."43 As a result, "[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment."44 "Although this is an exacting standard, summary judgment is appropriate where the only issue before the court is a pure question of law."45 The Court does not weigh the evidence or evaluate the credibility of witnesses and views all facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmovant,46 including "resolv[ing] factual controversies in favor of the nonmoving party, but only where there is an actual controversy, that is, when both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts."47 The Court will draw only reasonable inferences in the nonmovant's favor and will not countenance "senseless" theories or leaps in logic.48 The Court is under no duty to sift through the entire record in search of evidence to support the nonmovant's opposition tosummary judgment.49 The Court does not "assume in the absence of any proof ... that the nonmoving party could or would prove the necessary facts, and will grant summary judgment in any case where critical evidence is so weak or tenuous on an essential fact that it could not support a judgment in favor of the nonmovant."50
Here, Defendant submitted, with its motion to dismiss, an affidavit from its Chief Human Resources Officer attesting to the LOU accepted and exacted by Plaintiff. In his response, Plaintiff does not controvert the validity of the LOU. Accordingly, the Court treats Defendant's motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment. Defendant argues that this Court should interpret the dispute resolution clause and the choice of law and venue clause in the LOU to dismiss this matter or in the alternative transfer venue to the Eastern District of Virginia.51 In contrast, Plaintiff argues first in his response that this Court should stay the case or in the alternative transfer the case to the Eastern District of Virginia.52
The LOU provides in pertinent part:
To continue reading
Request your trial