United States District Court, D. New Jersey, Camden Vicinage
& LONDON, LLC By: Zachary R. Wall, Esq. Counsel for
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. By: Eric
C. Stuart, Esq. Michael Nacchio, Esq. Counsel for Defendant
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Ralph Chambers, Jeffrey Edmiston, Jr., and John Tomes bring
this suit against their former employer, Defendant Precision
Pipeline Solutions, LLC (hereafter “PPS”),
primarily asserting that PPS failed to pay them the
prevailing wage required under the New Jersey Prevailing Wage
Act, N.J.S.A. § 34:11-56.25 et seq.
(“NJPWA”). Plaintiffs further assert that the
alleged failure to pay the correct prevailing wages also
resulted in a failure to pay the correct amount of overtime,
in violation of both the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
§ 201 et seq. (“FLSA”), and the New Jersey
Wage and Hour Law, N.J.S.A. § 34:11-56a et seq.
(“NJWHL”). PPS moves, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6), to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, asserting
that the facts pled do not support a plausible conclusion
that PPS violated the NJPWA, and therefore all three claims
fail. The Court agrees; therefore PPS' Motion to Dismiss
will be granted.
Court has sifted through the many vague and marginally
relevant allegations to ascertain the specific and concrete
facts alleged to support the Plaintiffs' claims. The
following recitation of facts is the result of the
Court's efforts in that regard.
three Plaintiffs-- Ralph Chambers, Jeffrey Edmiston, Jr., and
John Tomes-- are pipefitters. (S.A.C. ¶¶ 7-9) All
three are alleged to have worked for PPS on the
“Rockford Eclipse Valves Replacement” project
“during 2015 and 2016.” (Id. at ¶
25-26) PPS is alleged to have “entered into a blanket
contract” with “public utility” South
Jersey Gas “for service agreement [sic] in which PPS
was to provide supervision, labor, and equipment” in
connection with the Rockford Eclipse Valve Replacement
project. (Id. at ¶¶ 11, 23) The project is
alleged to “consist of replacing 8, 000 RE Valves over
a two-year period.” (Id. ¶ 25) The
Rockford Eclipse Valve Replacement Project is alleged to be
“state funded and/or state-incentivized.”
(Id. ¶ 28)
allege that in connection with this work, PPS paid Plaintiffs
“approximately $15.00 per hour to $23.69 per
hour” when “the correct and mandatory prevailing
wage rate” was “approximately $46.00 to 63.53 per
hour.” (S.A.C. ¶¶ 48-49)
MOTION TO DISMISS STANDARD
withstand a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), “a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, 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 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 663.
“[A]n unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed me
accusation” does not suffice to survive a motion to
dismiss. Id. at 678. “[A] plaintiff's
obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his
‘entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels
and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements
of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly,
550 U.S. at 555 (quoting Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S.
265, 286 (1986)).
reviewing a plaintiff's allegations, a district should
conduct a three-part analysis:
First, the court must take note of the elements a plaintiff
must plead to state a claim. Second, the court should
identify allegations that, because they are no more than
conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth.
Third, when there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a
court should assume their veracity and then determine whether
they plausibly give rise to an entitlement for relief.
Malleus v. George, 641 F.3d 560, 563 (3d Cir. 2011)
(internal citations, quotations, and modifications omitted)
(quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 675, 679).