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.

Matson v. SCO, Silver Care Operations, LLC

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

February 23, 2018

LISA MATSON, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
SCO, SILVER CARE OPERATIONS, LLC d/b/a/ ALARIS HEALTH AT CHERRY HILL, SOUTH CENTER STREET NURSING LLC d/b/a ALARIS HEALTH AT ST. MARY'S, and AVERY EISENREICH, Defendants.

          DANIEL ARI HOROWITZ, MATTHEW D. MILLER, SWARTZ SWIDLER LLC, On behalf of Plaintiff

          STUART WEINBERGER, GOLDBERG & WEINBERGER LLP, On behalf of Defendants.

          OPINION

          NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

         This is a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (NJWHL) matter. Plaintiff argues she, and those similarly situated, were not paid proper overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA and NJWHL. Before the Court is Defendants' July 5, 2017 Motion to Dismiss. For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

         I.

         The Court takes its facts from Plaintiff's June 7, 2017 Amended Complaint. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a Registered Respiratory Therapist from October 2013 to December 7, 2016. Plaintiff earned $33 per hour as a Registered Respiratory Therapist.

         Defendant Avery Eisenreich owns SCO, Silver Care Operations, LLC d/b/a Alaris Health at Cherry Hill (“Cherry Hill”) and South Center Street Nursing LLC d/b/a Alaris Health at St. Mary's (“St. Mary's”), as well as other Alaris facilities. The payrolls for employees at Cherry Hill, St. Mary's, and other Alaris facilities are processed centrally by Defendants' payroll administrator Joanne Rocco.

         Until April 2015, Plaintiff worked exclusively at the Cherry Hill location. In April 2015, Plaintiff also began working at the St. Mary's location. After that point, during at least nine two-week pay periods, Plaintiff worked at both the Cherry and St. Mary's locations during the same workweeks. This resulted in Plaintiff typically working over forty total hours per workweek. According to Plaintiff, these hours were not aggregated for the purpose of paying Plaintiff overtime wages.

         Plaintiff argues Defendants failed to aggregate the total hours worked by Plaintiff at Defendants' facilities for the purpose of paying overtime when she worked at more than one of the facilities. Plaintiff alleges Defendants consequently failed to pay at least one and a half times her regular rates for all hours worked in excess of forty hours a week during the weeks she worked at multiple locations.

         Plaintiff's Amended Complaint asserts three counts: (1) violations of the FLSA, (2) violations of the NJWHL, and (3) civil conspiracy.[1] Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss on July 5, 2017.

         II.

         This Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as Plaintiff brings this action to remedy alleged violations of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. This Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law wage claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.[2]

         III.

         When considering a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a court must accept all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347, 351 (3d Cir. 2005). It is well settled that a pleading is sufficient if it contains ...


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.