United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
Honorable Jennifer G. Zipps United States District Judge.
Pending
before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion for Partial
Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 35), Plaintiff's Motion
to Dismiss Counterclaims for Lack of Subject Matter
Jurisdiction (Doc. 37), and Defendant's Motion to Strike
Plaintiff's Notice of Supplemental Authority. (Doc. 50.)
The motions have been fully briefed, or the time for filing a
response has expired. (See Docs. 43, 44, 45, 46.)
For the reasons stated herein, the Court will grant the
Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings and Motion to
Dismiss Counterclaims. The Court will deny the Motion to
Strike Notice of Supplemental Authority.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff
Antonio Martinez was employed by Defendant PM&M, d/b/a/
Titan Solar Power (“Titan”), from around July
2017 to February 2, 2018.[1] (Doc. 30 at ¶ 10.) Martinez was a
non-exempt employee paid at a rate of $20.00 per hour.
(Id. at ¶ 23.) Martinez claims he
“routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week,
” but he did not receive one-and-a-half times pay for
his overtime hours as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA). (Id. at ¶¶ 24-25.) He alleges
that he worked 47 hours during the week of January 22, 2018,
and 41.63 hours during the January 28 - February 10, 2018 pay
period. (Id. at ¶¶ 26, 28.) On February 2,
2018, Martinez complained that he was not receiving correct
wages and overtime, and later that day Titan terminated his
employment. (Id. at ¶¶ 38-40.) Martinez
received $0.00 in net pay for his last paycheck because Titan
deducted $848.90 for “damages” and
“tools.” (Id. at ¶¶ 31, 32.)
Martinez filed this action on April 17, 2018, asserting two
claims: Count I - Failure to Pay Overtime Wages in violation
of FLSA and Count II - Failure to Timely Pay Wages Due in
violation of Arizona Wage Statute.[2] (Doc. 1.) On May 17, 2018,
Defendants filed an Answer. (Doc. 9.)
On July
19, 2018, Plaintiff filed the Verified First Amended
Complaint (FAC), adding an additional defendant[3] and three claims:
Count III - Failure to Pay Minimum Wage in violation of FLSA;
Count IV - Failure to Pay Minimum Wage in violation of
Arizona Minimum Wage Statutes; and Count V - FLSA
Retaliation. (Doc. 30.) On August 9, 2018, Defendants filed
their Answer to the Amended Complaint and Defendant Titan
filed a Counterclaim. (Doc. 33.) The Answer asserts numerous
affirmative defenses, including offset for monies Plaintiff
owes Titan “as detailed in the Counterclaim.”
(Doc. 33.) The Counterclaim asserts four state law claims:
(1) breach of contract; (2) breach of implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing; (3) unjust enrichment; and (4)
negligence. (Doc. 33, Counterclaim.) The Counterclaim
includes the following allegations. Plaintiff abandoned his
job on February 2, 2018. (Id. at ¶ 5.) Prior to
his abandonment, Titan paid for and supplied Plaintiff with a
safety device known as a YoYo, which cost $400.00, and
Plaintiff agreed in writing to reimburse Titan for half of
the cost of the YoYo, through four payroll deductions of
$50.00. (Id. at ¶ 2). Plaintiff also agreed to
either return the YoYo or reimburse Titan for its $200.00
contribution toward purchasing the YoYo if Plaintiff left his
job within 12 months of receiving the YoYo. (Id. at
¶ 4.) Titan recouped $100 of the $200 owed by Plaintiff
through payroll deductions. (Id. at ¶ 7.)
Plaintiff left his job before 12 months had expired, and did
not return the YoYo or reimburse Titan for the $300.00 he
owes under the agreement. (Id. at ¶¶ 6, 7,
8.)
Titan
also supplied Plaintiff with tools valued at $472.21 for his
personal use, for which Plaintiff agreed to reimburse Titan
via four payroll deductions of $118.05, beginning February 2,
2018. (Id. at ¶¶ 9, 10.) Only one of these
deductions was processed, resulting in a balance due of
$354.16. (Id. at ¶ 11.)
Titan
also alleges that Plaintiff refueled a vehicle rented by
Titan with the wrong type of fuel, causing damage to the
vehicle and resulting in Titan having to reimburse the
vehicle's owner in the amount of $1, 138.60.
(Id. at ¶¶ 14, 16.)
Titan
asserts Plaintiff owes it a total of $1, 792.76.
(Id. at ¶ 21.) For that reason, Titan claims
that it “withheld Plaintiff's final paycheck in the
gross amount of $848.90 as a partial offset against the debt
owed as permitted by Arizona law, A.R.S. § 23-352, and
as specified in the Employee Handbook.” (Id.
at ¶¶ 22.)
Despite
its claim for offset, on June 20, 2018, Titan “tendered
back to Plaintiff the amount of $399.55, representing the net
minimum wage allegedly due to Plaintiff for his final pay
period of work.” (Id. at ¶ 23.) Thus,
Titan claims that Plaintiff owes Titan $1, 389.53 ($1, 792.76
minus $403.23, the partial offset from Plaintiff's final
paycheck). (Id. at ¶ 24.)
On
August 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed the pending Motion for
Partial Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 35), and on August
23, 2018, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Dismiss
Counterclaims. (Doc. 37.) Subsequently, on August 24, 2018,
Plaintiff filed an Answer to Titan's
Counterclaims.[4] (Doc. 38.)
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Judgment on the
Pleadings
A Rule
12(c) motion is properly granted when, taking all the
allegations in the pleading as true, the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Knappenberger v.
City of Phoenix, 566 F.3d 936, 939 (9th Cir. 2009);
Gen. Conference Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventists v.
Seventh-Day Adventist Congregational Church, 887 F.2d
228, 230 (9th Cir. 1989). All allegations of fact by the
party opposing the motion are accepted as true, and are
construed in the light most favorable to that party. Gen.
Conference Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventists, 887 F.2d at
230. “As a result, a plaintiff is not entitled to
judgment on the pleadings when the answer raises issues of
fact that, if proved, would defeat recovery. Similarly, if
the defendant raises an affirmative defense in his answer it
will usually bar judgment on the pleadings.”
Id.
Plaintiff
argues that he is entitled to judgment against Titan on
Counts III and IV, the claims that Titan failed to pay
minimum wage in violation of the FLSA and the Arizona Minimum
Wage Statute. (Doc. 35 at 2, 4.) Plaintiff requests an award
of liquidated damages in the amount of $874.24, and
attorney's fees and costs. (Id. at 8.)
Titan
admits that it withheld Plaintiff's final paycheck as an
offset for the value of tools it claims Plaintiff stole from
Titan and damage Plaintiff caused to a company vehicle. Titan
denies that the withholding gives rise to an FLSA liquidated
damages claim due to the good faith defense set forth in 29
U.S.C. § 260, or that it gives rise to an actionable
...