Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 28 and Dkt. 28 Exhibit A”) should be denied. Defendants’ aver that the Motion to Amend the First Complaint is futile, intended to delay the adjudication of the Defendants’ Motion on the Pleadings and for Summary Judgment (Dkt.26) (“Motion”), and that same is being made in bath faith. Providing no legal basis for her position, Plaintiff simply proposes the same flawed legal theories that she asserted in her original Complaint, but now provides further allegations in her Proposed First Amended Complaint (Dkt 28-2 Exhibit “B”) as same allegedly pertains to both “enterprise and “individual” coverage theories. The Defendants’ contend that
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the Complaint …show more content…
Plaintiff has admitted she was a “” document preparer” (Paragraph 33 Dkt. 28 Exhibit “A”) when in fact she was an unlicensed legal document preparer trainee; that she was “From the commencement of Plaintiff’s employment through approximately November 1, 2015, Plaintiff was compensated at a rate of $12 per hour (Paragraph 41 Dkt. 28 Exhibit “A”) that “From approximately November 1, 2015 through March 2016, Plaintiff was compensated on a case by case basis (Paragraph 42); that Plaintiff, in her own handwriting, acknowledged in a written document that she was “part time” and that she was to be paid $ for a six month period ( ). Plaintiff signed the document indicating her remuneration as an independent contractor and the non-permanent status of her engagement. The Amended language contained in proposed First Amended Complaint remains void of any “factual” data that any of Defendants’ were “employers” or engaged in “interstate commerce.” As such, the FLSA is inapplicable to the case at bar. The Amended Complaint is silent as to any evidence suggesting Plaintiff was in fact an employee, how Defendant AZLDS
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the Complaint …show more content…
Plaintiff has admitted she was a “” document preparer” (Paragraph 33 Dkt. 28 Exhibit “A”) when in fact she was an unlicensed legal document preparer trainee; that she was “From the commencement of Plaintiff’s employment through approximately November 1, 2015, Plaintiff was compensated at a rate of $12 per hour (Paragraph 41 Dkt. 28 Exhibit “A”) that “From approximately November 1, 2015 through March 2016, Plaintiff was compensated on a case by case basis (Paragraph 42); that Plaintiff, in her own handwriting, acknowledged in a written document that she was “part time” and that she was to be paid $ for a six month period ( ). Plaintiff signed the document indicating her remuneration as an independent contractor and the non-permanent status of her engagement. The Amended language contained in proposed First Amended Complaint remains void of any “factual” data that any of Defendants’ were “employers” or engaged in “interstate commerce.” As such, the FLSA is inapplicable to the case at bar. The Amended Complaint is silent as to any evidence suggesting Plaintiff was in fact an employee, how Defendant AZLDS