Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Stone v. Lincare Inc

United States District Court, E.D. Washington

December 1, 2017

AMANDA STONE, Plaintiff,
v.
LINCARE, INC., Defendant.

          ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

          ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON United States District Judge

         Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, ECF No. 4. Defendant Lincare, Inc., moves this Court to dismiss Plaintiff Amanda Stone's third claim for relief. ECF No. 4. Ms. Stone did not respond to Lincare's motion. The Court has reviewed Lincare's Motion and Ms. Stone's Complaint, and is fully informed.

         BACKGROUND

         Ms. Stone filed this lawsuit against Lincare alleging claims of discrimination based on her sex in violation of the Washington Law Against Discrimination, RCW 49.60 et seq.; discrimination based on her disability in violation of the Washington Law Against Discrimination; and Lincare's failure to pay Ms. Stone the wages owed to her in violation of RCW 49.52.050(2). ECF No. 1 at 8-9.

         The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1332 based on the diversity of the parties and the amount in controversy. Plaintiff Stone is a resident of the state of Washington. ECF No. 1 at 2. Defendant Lincare is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Florida. Id. The amount in controversy is $100, 000, which exceeds the statutory requirement of $75, 000. Id.

         DISCUSSION

         Plaintiff's Failure to Respond to Defendant's Motion

         Defendant Lincare moves this Court to dismiss Ms. Stone's third claim for relief, regarding Lincare's alleged failure to pay Ms. Stone the wages owed to her in violation of RCW 49.52.050(2). See ECF No. 4. Ms. Stone failed to respond to Lincare's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Local Rule 7.1(b) requires a represented party to respond to a dispositive motion within 21 days after the filing of the dispositive motion. Violation of LR 7.1 (b) “may be deemed consent to the entry of an Order adverse to the party who violates these rules.” LR 7.1(d). However, the Court will consider the arguments presented by Lincare before deciding the motion.

         Legal Standard for Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss

         The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow for the dismissal of a complaint where the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R.Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A motion to dismiss brought pursuant to this rule “tests the legal sufficiency of a claim.” Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). In reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint, a court accepts all well-pleaded allegations as true and construes those allegations in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Daniels-Hall v. Nat'l Educ. Ass'n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031-32 (9th Cir. 2008)).

         To withstand dismissal, a complaint must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” 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.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). While specific legal theories need not be pleaded, the pleadings must put the opposing party on notice of the claim. Fontana v. Haskin, 262 F.3d 871, 877 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).

         A plaintiff is not required to establish a probability of success on the merits; however, he or she must demonstrate “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “[A] plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.

         Analysis of Defendant's Arguments

         Defendant Lincare moves this Court to dismiss Ms. Stone's third claim for relief, regarding Lincare's alleged failure to pay Ms. Stone the wages owed to her in violation of RCW 49.52.050(2). See ECF No. 4. RCW 49.52.050(2), in relevant part, penalizes employers “who . . . willfully and with intent to deprive [an] employee of any part of his or her wages, . . . pay any employee a lower wage than the wage such employer is obligated to pay such employee by any statute, ordinance, or contract.” RCW 49.52.070 creates civil liability for any employer who ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.