Harris v. Davita Healthcare Partners, Inc.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          Marcia S. Krieger, Chief United States District Judge.

         THESE MATTERS come before the Court pursuant to the Defendants' (“DaVita”) Motions to Dismiss (#36 in -2741; # 30 in -2742; # 35 in -2744; # 33 in -2745; # 27 in -2747; # 36 in -2748; and # 33 in -2749), the Plaintiffs' responses, and DaVita's replies. Because the operative Amended Complaints and DaVita's motions in each case are largely identical, the Court finds that a single order is best suited to address the motions in each case.

         FACTS

         The allegations in each of these cases are substantially identical. The Plaintiffs are employees of DaVita in various capacities. They generally allege that they were not compensated with premium overtime pay for hours that they worked in excess of 40 per week, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. Although the various Amended Complaints contain conclusory recitations, the pertinent factual averments follow:

• DaVita “allocate[s] a certain number of hours per employee shift, but employees are unable to complete their work within the pre-established time budgeted.” See e.g. Docket # 24 in -2742, ¶ 8. Employees are then “required to perform their work regardless of how much time it takes.” Id., ¶ 7.

• DaVita has “centralized pay policies” used throughout its United States operations. Id., ¶ 9. The Plaintiffs list a variety of these policies - “Patient to Staff Ratios, Anaplan tracking of labor performance, Direct Patient Care budges, [etc.]” - but do not elaborate on what any of these policies do or how they bear on the claims at issue.

• “As an example, over the past three years while employed by the Defendants, during most workweeks the Plaintiffs would work an average of 7^[1] hours of overtime for which they were not paid.” Id., ¶ 10. No. further explanation of this calculation is offered.

• “During the time period applicable to these claims, Plaintiffs and those similarly situated routinely worked in excess of forty hours per workweek without being paid overtime premium[s].” Id., ¶ 46.

         The Amended Complaints assert two causes of action: (i) a claim bringing a collective action, on behalf of the named Plaintiff(s) and “others similarly situated” for violation of the FLSA's overtime provisions pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); and (ii) a claim for violation of the FLSA's overtime provisions on behalf of the named Plaintiffs, individually.

         DaVita moves to dismiss the Amended Complaints for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). DaVita argues that: (i) the Plaintiffs fail to identify “what purported policy or practice” by DaVita resulted in the Plaintiffs working overtime hours without compensation; (ii) the Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently “approximate the number of regular and overtime hours allegedly worked”; and (iii) the Plaintiffs fail to identify who is “similarly situated” to them for purposes of bringing a collective action.

         ANALYSIS

         A. Standard of review

         In reviewing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must accept all well-pleaded allegations in the Amended Complaint as true and view those allegations in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Stidham v. Peace Officer Standards & Training, 265 F.3d 1144, 1149 (10th Cir. 2001) (quoting Sutton v. Utah State Sch. for the Deaf & Blind, 173 F.3d 1226, 1236 (10th Cir. 1999)). The Court must limit its consideration to the four corners of the Amended Complaint, any documents attached thereto, and any external documents that are referenced in the Amended Complaint and whose accuracy is not in dispute. Oxendine v. Kaplan, 241 F.3d 1272, 1275 (10th Cir. 2001); Jacobsen v. Deseret Book Co., 287 F.3d 936, 941 (10th Cir. 2002); Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Howsam, 261 F.3d 956, 961 (10th Cir. 2001).

         A claim is subject to dismissal if it fails to state a claim for relief that is “plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). To make such an assessment, the Court first discards those averments in the Complaint that are merely legal conclusions or “threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.” Id. at 678-79. The Court takes the remaining, well-pleaded factual contentions, treats them as true, and ascertains whether those facts (coupled, of course, with the law establishing the requisite elements of the claim) support a claim that is “plausible” or whether the claim being asserted is merely “conceivable” or “possible” under the facts alleged. Id. What is required to reach the level of “plausibility” varies from context ...