United States District Court, D. Colorado
LISA MURPHY, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals and on behalf of the Proposed Rule 23 Class, Plaintiff,
ALLSTAFF MEDICAL RESOURCES, INC., and ALLSTAFF HOMECARE, LLC, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' EARLY MOTION FOR
William J. Martinez United States District Judge.
action, Plaintiff Lisa Murphy brings claims against
Defendants Allstaff Homecare, LLC and Allstaff Medical
Resources, Inc. (together, “Defendants”), on
behalf of herself and a putative class, alleging violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29
U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., the Colorado Wage
Act (“CWA”), Colo. Rev. Stat. §§
8-4-101 et seq., and Colorado Minimum Wage Order
Number 31 (“MWO”), Code Colo. Reg. § 1103-1.
(ECF No. 7.) Before the Court is Defendants' Early Motion
for Summary Judgment (“Motion”), in which
Defendants contend that this Court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims. (ECF No. 36.) For
the reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied.
following facts are undisputed, unless attributed to one
party or another, or otherwise noted.
was employed by Defendant Allstaff Homecare, LLC as an hourly
paid care giver/home health-aide from August 26, 2015 through
June 19, 2016. (ECF No. 41 at 3; ECF No. 7 ¶ 2; ECF No.
19 ¶ 2.) Plaintiff alleges that as a home health-aide
worker she receives the benefit of “overtime and
minimum wage protections” guaranteed by the FLSA. (ECF
No. 7 ¶ 22.) “During her employment, Plaintiff
regularly worked more than 40 hours a week in the homes of
her employers' clients.” (ECF No. 7 ¶ 35; ECF
No. 19 ¶ 18.) However, Plaintiff was only paid
“straight time, and not overtime, despite her working
well over 40 hours a week.” (ECF No. 7 ¶ 38; ECF
No. 19 ¶ 17.)
on this course of events, Plaintiff filed her
“Collective and Class Action Complaint” on
September 20, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff subsequently
amended her “Collective and Class Action
Complaint” on November 1, 2016. (ECF No. 7.) Defendants
individually filed their Answers on December 6 and 7, 2016.
(ECF Nos. 19, 20.) On December 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed a
Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification
requesting entry of an order conditionally certifying the
proposed collective FLSA class, and authorizing notice to all
potential class members who are not already named plaintiffs
in this action. (ECF No. 21.)
January 19, 2017, Defendants filed their Early Motion for
Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 36.) On January 23, 2017,
discovery and briefing on the pending Motion for Collective
Action Certification (ECF No. 21) was stayed pending
resolution of the instant Motion. (ECF No. 40.) On January
29, 2017, Plaintiff filed her Response to the Motion. (ECF
No. 41). Defendants filed their Reply on February 9, 2017.
(ECF No. 43.) The Motion is now ripe for review.
Judgment is appropriate only if there is no genuine issue of
material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as
a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Adamson v. Multi.
Cmty. Diversified Servs., Inc., 514 F.3d 1136, 1145
(10th Cir. 2008). Whether there is a genuine dispute as to a
material fact depends upon whether the evidence presents a
sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or,
conversely, is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a
matter of law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S.
242, 248-49 (1986); Stone v. Autoliv ASP, Inc., 210
F.3d 1132, 1136 (10th Cir. 2000).
motion for summary judgment, the moving party bears the
burden of demonstrating that no genuine issue of material
fact exists. Adamson, 514 F.3d at 1145. Where the
moving party does not bear the ultimate burden of persuasion
at trial, it may satisfy this burden by demonstrating a lack
of evidence for an essential element of the nonmovant's
claim. Id. In deciding whether the moving party has
carried its burden, the Court does not weigh the evidence,
and instead views it, and draws all reasonable inferences
from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
Adamson, 514 F.3d at 1145.
undersigned permits an early motion for summary judgment if
filed “within 30 days after entry of the initial
scheduling order, ” and if the motion “presents a
substantial and well-supported argument for significantly
reducing the claims or issues in the case.” WJM Revised
Practice Standards III.E.2.
“First Amended Collective and Class Action
Complaint” alleges that this Court “has
subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's FLSA claim
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Plaintiff's
claim raise[s] a federal question.” (ECF No. 7 ¶
12.) Defendants disagree with this assertion, and in their
Motion argue that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction
over Plaintiff's FLSA claim, and accordingly may not
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.
(ECF No. 36.) Defendants also contend that Plaintiff
“virtually confesses Defendants' Motion” by
disregarding Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56(c) and (e). (ECF No. 43 at
1-2.) The Court will address both of Defendants'
FLSA Coverage Requirements Are ...