United States District Court, District of Columbia
ROSEMARY M. COLLYER United States District Judge.
Ulises Escobar Iraheta was employed as an hourly worker by
Defendants from 1999 to 2015. He seeks unpaid minimum and
overtime wages under federal and D.C. law. As explained
below, the D.C. law claims will be dismissed.
Yan and Vanessa Lim own and operate Magic Meals,
Magic Meals does business as Nooshi, a restaurant located at
1120 19th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20039. Magic Meals
previously did business as Oodles Noodles at the same
location. Defendants employed Mr. Escobar Iraheta as a busboy
from July 1, 1999 through July 11, 2015. 2d Am. Compl. [Dkt.
10] at ¶¶ 13, 16, 22. He did not receive tips.
Id. ¶ 15. Mr. Escobar Iraheta alleges that
while he worked 63.5 hours each week, which included 23.5
hours of overtime, Defendants never paid him the one and one
half times minimum wage he was owed for the overtime hours.
Id. ¶¶ 16-18, 23, 26. Further, he alleges
that Defendants paid him less per hour than what was required
under federal and D.C. minimum wage laws. Id.
¶¶ 22, 24-25. Mr. Escobar Iraheta filed this suit
on July 14, 2015, and on October 28, 2015, he filed a Second
Amended Complaint alleging: Count I, failure to pay minimum
and overtime wages under the Federal Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.; Count II,
failure to pay minimum and overtime wages under the D.C.
Minimum Wage Act, D.C. Code § 32-1001 et seq.;
and Count III, failure to pay wages under the D.C. Wage
Payment Act, D.C. Code § 32-1301 et seq.
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) challenges the
adequacy of a complaint on its face. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).
To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual information, accepted as true, to
“state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007)). A court must assume the truth of all
well-pleaded factual allegations and construe reasonable
inferences from those allegations in favor of the plaintiff.
Sissel v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs.,
760 F.3d 1, 4 (D.C. Cir. 2014). A court need not accept
inferences drawn by a plaintiff if such inferences are not
supported by the facts set out in the complaint. Kowal v.
MCI Commc’ns Corp., 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 (D.C. Cir.
1994). Further, a court does not need to accept as true legal
conclusions set forth in a complaint. Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678. In deciding a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), a
court may consider the facts alleged in the complaint,
documents attached to the complaint as exhibits or
incorporated by reference, and matters about which the court
may take judicial notice. Abhe & Svoboda, Inc. v.
Chao, 508 F.3d 1052, 1059 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
D.C. Wage Payment Act
move to dismiss Count III, the claim under the D.C. Wage
Payment Act, D.C. Code § 32-1301 et seq.,
because the D.C. Minimum Wage Act, D.C. Code § 32-1001
et seq., provides the exclusive remedy for failure
to pay minimum and overtime wages. The D.C. Minimum Wage Act
governs what an employer must pay, whereas D.C. Wage
Payment Act governs when an employer must pay. The
D.C. Wage Payment Act governs the timing of wage payments by
providing that an employer “shall pay all wages earned
to his employees at least twice during each calendar month,
on regular paydays designated in advance by the
employer” and that “not more than 10 working days
may elapse” between the designated pay periods. D.C.
Code § 32-1302. The Wage Payment Act also specifies when
wages must be paid to an employee who resigns, is discharged,
or is suspended. Id. § 32-1303. The Wage
Payment Act does not apply to disputes over the
amount of wages due to an employee, because §
32-1304 expressly provides that when there is a dispute over
the amount owed, the employer is required only to pay the
undisputed amount to comply with the Act. Fudali v.
Pivotal Corp., 310 F.Supp.2d 22, 27 (D.D.C. 2004).
Escobar Iraheta makes no complaint regarding when he
was paid by Defendants. His complaint is about the
amount he was paid. He complains that he did not
receive the mandated minimum wage and he did not receive
overtime wages. Accordingly, the D.C. Wage Payment Act claim
(Count III) will be dismissed.
D.C. Minimum Wage Act
also move to partially dismiss Count II, Mr. Escobar
Iraheta’s claim under the D.C. Minimum Wage Act,
asserting that claims for minimum and overtime wages more
than three years before the complaint was filed are barred by
the statute of limitations.
the Complaint was filed on July 14, 2015, the three year
statute of limitations bars Mr. Escobar Iraheta’s wage
claims for pay periods prior to July 14, 2012.
D.C. Code provides for a three year statute of limitation for
suits under the Minimum Wage Act filed after February ...