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.

Gutwirth v. Woodford Cedar Run Wildlife Refuge

United States District Court, D. New Jersey, Camden Vicinage Division

August 12, 2014

REBECCA GUTWIRTH, Plaintiff,
v.
WOODFORD CEDAR RUN WILDLIFE REFUGE, et al., Defendants

Page 486

For REBECCA GUTWIRTH, Plaintiff: SANDER D. FRIEDMAN, WESLEY GLENN HANNA, LEAD ATTORNEYS, LAW OFFICE OF SANDER D. FRIEDMAN, LLC, WEST BERLIN, NJ.

For WOODFORD CEDAR RUN WILDLIFE REFUGE, JEANNE M. GURAL, Defendants: LAWRENCE B. BERG, LEAD ATTORNEY, MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN, CHERRY HILL, NJ.

Page 487

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

ANN MARIE DONIO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Rebecca Gutwirth's motion for leave to file an amended complaint in order to assert claims for unjust enrichment and breach of contract. Defendant Woodford Cedar Run Wildlife Refuge and Jeanne M. Gural (hereinafter, " Defendants" ) oppose Plaintiff's motion on the basis that federal law preempts the proposed amendments.[1] The Court conducted oral argument on the pending motion on July 10, 2014. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff's motion.

Plaintiff filed the initial complaint in this action on January 2, 2014. (See COMPLAINT [Doc. No. 1].) Plaintiff generally alleges in her complaint that Defendants' payroll policy fails to appropriately compensate employees for otherwise compensable overtime. (See generally id. at ¶ ¶ 11-15.) Plaintiff further asserts that Defendants purportedly require employees to accept " 'comp time'" in lieu of overtime compensation. (Id.) Plaintiff also asserts that Defendants subjected her to retaliation and ultimately terminated her employment after Plaintiff made " verbal and written

Page 488

complaints" concerning Defendants' payroll policies. (Id. at ¶ ¶ 14-15.) Plaintiff therefore alleges that Defendants' conduct violates the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 207 (hereinafter, the " FLSA" ); the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a4 (hereinafter, the " NJWHL" ); and the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 34:19-1, et seq. (hereinafter, " CEPA" ). (See generally COMPLAINT [Doc. No. 1].)

In the pending motion, Plaintiff moves to amend her complaint in order to assert two (2) additional claims arising out of Defendants' overtime policy. With respect to the Plaintiff's proposed unjust enrichment claim, Plaintiff's proposed pleading alleges that:

35. The above allegations are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth.
36. Defendants have been unjustly enriched by requiring Plaintiff to work and not pay her wages for that time worked.
WHEREFORE, Becca Gutwirth requests judgment as follows:
(A) Awarding all sums by which Defendant has been ...

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.