Case 2:12-cv MSD-TEM Document 4 Filed 12/26/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID# 25

Transcription

1 Case 2:12-cv MSD-TEM Document 4 Filed 12/26/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID# 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division LAUREN GREY-IGEL, on behalf of : Herself and all others similarly situated, : : Plaintiffs, : : Case No. 2:12cv642 : v. : : CAMPUS APARTMENTS, LLC, et al., : : Defendant. : : DEFENDANTS ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO COMPLAINT Defendants, Campus Apartments, LLC, Campus Apartments Management, LLC, and Campus Apartments, Inc. (collectively Defendants ), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby file this Answer and Affirmative Defendants to the Complaint of plaintiff, Lauren Grey- Igel ( Grey-Igel or Plaintiff ), on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated (collectively, Plaintiffs ), in accordance with the numbered paragraphs thereof. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b), Defendants generally deny all averments of the Complaint except such designated averments or paragraphs as Defendants expressly admit below. Statement of the Case 1. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to 2. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to Jurisdiction and Venue 3. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to

2 Case 2:12-cv MSD-TEM Document 4 Filed 12/26/12 Page 2 of 11 PageID# Denied. The averments of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to 5. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to Parties 6. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that Grey-Igel is an adult individual. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of this paragraph, and they are therefore denied. 7. Admitted. 8. Admitted. 9. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to 10. Admitted. 11. Admitted. 12. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to 13. Admitted. 14. Admitted. 15. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to 16. Denied. 17. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to By way of further answer, neither Campus Apartments Management, LLC or Campus Apartments, Inc. ever employed Plaintiffs. Also, Defendants 2

3 Case 2:12-cv MSD-TEM Document 4 Filed 12/26/12 Page 3 of 11 PageID# 27 Campus Apartments Management, LLC and Campus Apartments, Inc. are not joint employers (together or with the remaining defendant) of Plaintiffs and cannot be liable on Plaintiffs claims. 18. No response is required to this paragraph. 19. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to 20. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to General Allegations 21. Admitted. 22. Admitted in part, denied in part. Defendants admit that the District is owned by Norfolk Housing, LLC. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of this paragraph, and they are therefore denied. 23. Admitted in part, denied in part. Defendants admit that the District is primarily occupied by students of Old Dominion University. Defendants deny the remaining allegations as conclusions of law to 24. Admitted in part, denied in part. Defendants admit that Defendant Campus Apartments Management, LLC was engaged to provide management services at The District in or about August The remaining defendants deny that they were so engaged. 25. Admitted in part, denied in part. Defendants admit that Defendant Campus Apartments Management, LLC provides management services to owners of properties used, at least in part, for student housing in approximately 24 states for approximately 70 colleges and universities. Defendants deny that, at any time pertinent hereto, the other defendants provided these management services to properties where Plaintiffs worked. 3

4 Case 2:12-cv MSD-TEM Document 4 Filed 12/26/12 Page 4 of 11 PageID# Admitted. 27. Denied. 28. Admitted in part, denied in part. Defendants admit that only defendant Campus Apartments, LLC employs those who have the title, Keystone and that Campus Apartments, LLC has a Keystone Program. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 29. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Heather R. Sizemore, the National Director of Residence Life CA-Keystone Program Director, oversees the employment of the Keystone program. The remaining allegations are denied. 30. Denied. 31. Denied as stated. An employee of Campus Apartments, LLC may have the same duties and responsibilities of an employee with the title Keystone without residing at a property managed by Campus. Therefore, there is no residency requirement. 32. Denied. Defendants incorporate by reference their response to paragraph 31 as though it were set forth fully herein. 33. Denied. The allegations in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no 34. Admitted in part, denied in part. Defendants admit that Keystones may be involved in the leasing of an apartment, sorting residents mail, and assisting in copying and faxing. Also, Keystones are generally responsible for marketing the property, building relationships with current and prospective residents, participating in conference calls with other Keystones, ensuring that the property is a sociable, pleasurable, and homelike environment, and preparing move-in and move-out packages. The remaining allegations are denied. 4

5 Case 2:12-cv MSD-TEM Document 4 Filed 12/26/12 Page 5 of 11 PageID# Admitted in part, denied as stated in part. Defendants admit that Keystones are expected to work on average a maximum of 20 hours per week. Defendants deny the remaining allegations to the extent they are intended to mean that any of the Defendants expect its Keystones to be on-call on the weekends, on holidays, during school breaks, or at any time, without being compensated therefore to the extent it is required under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the FLSA ). 36. Denied. 37. Denied. 38. Denied. 39. Denied. 40. Denied. The allegations in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no 41. Denied. The allegations in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no 42. Denied. The allegations in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no 43. Denied. The allegations in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no 44. Denied. The allegations in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no 45. Denied. The allegations in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no 5

6 Case 2:12-cv MSD-TEM Document 4 Filed 12/26/12 Page 6 of 11 PageID# Denied. The allegations in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no 47. Denied. The allegations in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no 48. Denied. The allegations in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no 49. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Grey-Igel was terminated on or about March 27, The remaining allegations are denied. 50. Denied. The allegations in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no Alleged Violations of FLSA 51. Denied. Defendants incorporate by reference herein their answers to the foregoing paragraphs as though they were set forth fully herein. 52. Denied. The allegations in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no 53. Denied. The allegations in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no 54. Denied. The allegations in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no 55. Denied. The allegations in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no 56. Denied. The allegations in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no 6

7 Case 2:12-cv MSD-TEM Document 4 Filed 12/26/12 Page 7 of 11 PageID# Denied. The allegations in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no 58. Denied. The allegations in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no 59. Denied. The allegations in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no 60. Denied. The allegations in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no 61. Denied. The allegations in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no 62. Denied. The allegations in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no 63. Denied. The allegations in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no 64. Denied. The allegations in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no 65. Denied. The allegations in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no 66. No response is necessary to this paragraph. ADDITIONAL DEFENSES Defendants allege and assert the following additional defenses (in addition to those stated above), undertaking the burden of proof only as to those defenses which are affirmative defenses under the law. In addition to the defenses asserted below, Defendants specifically reserve all 7

8 Case 2:12-cv MSD-TEM Document 4 Filed 12/26/12 Page 8 of 11 PageID# 32 rights to assert any other or additional defenses that are now or may become available or appear during, or as a result of, the proceedings or further investigation in this action. First Defense 1. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Second Defense 2. The Complaint fails to state a claim for joint employer liability under Iqbal/Twombly or otherwise. Third Defense 3. Neither plaintiff, Ms. Grey-Igel, nor any opt-in plaintiffs have been employees who have performed work as those terms are defined by the FLSA. Accordingly, they are not entitled to the FLSA s protections. Fourth Defense 4. The members of the class plaintiff seeks to represent are not similarly situated to her such that she is not a proper class representative and a class should not be certified. Fifth Defense 5. To the extent the FLSA applies to the claims raised in the Complaint, at all pertinent hereto, Defendants have acted in good faith and not in willful violation of the FLSA. Sixth Defense 6. At all times pertinent hereto and to the extent the FLSA applies to the claims raised in the Complaint, Defendants have had a reasonable good faith belief that they were not violating the FLSA. Seventh Defense 7. To the extent the FLSA applies to the claims raised in the Complaint, any and all deductions any of the Defendants made from Plaintiffs wages were lawful under the FLSA. 8

9 Case 2:12-cv MSD-TEM Document 4 Filed 12/26/12 Page 9 of 11 PageID# 33 Eighth Defense 8. Claims raised by all or certain opt-in plaintiffs are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Ninth Defense 9. Plaintiff and certain opt-in plaintiffs unreasonably failed to take advantage of appropriate opportunities to prevent, mitigate, accommodate, and/or correct any damages, harmful conduct, problem, or complaint. Tenth Defense 10. Any damage, loss, or injury Plaintiffs have suffered were not caused by or attributable to Defendants. Eleventh Defense 11. To the extent the FLSA applies to the claims raised in the Complaint, Defendants are entitled to a credit towards the minimum wage for the proper deductions they have made from Plaintiffs pay in accordance with the FLSA. Twelfth Defense 12. To the extent the FLSA applies to the claims raised in the Complaint, Defendants are entitled to a set off of any damages to which some or all of the Plaintiffs may be entitled. Thirteenth Defense 13. Plaintiffs have failed to join an indispensable party, Norfolk Housing, LLC. Fourteenth Defense 14. As a separate alternative defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiffs claims may be barred by any or all of the defenses set forth in Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The extent to which Plaintiffs claims may be barred by one or more of 9

10 Case 2:12-cv MSD-TEM Document 4 Filed 12/26/12 Page 10 of 11 PageID# 34 said defenses not specifically set out above cannot be determined until Defendants have had an opportunity to complete discovery. Defendants, therefore, incorporate all such affirmative defenses as fully set forth therein. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully demand judgment in their favor and against Plaintiffs on all claims in the Complaint plus costs and all other relief that the Court deems just and proper. Dated: December 26, 2012 By: /s/ C. Michael DeCamps, Esquire (VSB No ) Karen S. Elliott, Esquire (VSB No ) SANDS ANDERSON PC Bank of America Center 1111 East Main Street, Suite 2400 Richmond, VA Phone: (804) Fax: (804) mdecamps@sandsanderson.com kelliott@sandsanderson.com Attorneys for Defendants Charles A. Ercole, Esquire (#69192)* Lee D. Moylan, Esquire (#80915)* KLEHR HARRISON HARVEY BRANZBURG, LLP 1835 Market Street, 14 th Floor Philadelphia, PA Phone: (215) cercole@klehr.com lmoylan@klehr.com Attorneys for Defendants Pro Hac Vice Motions to Be Filed 10

11 Case 2:12-cv MSD-TEM Document 4 Filed 12/26/12 Page 11 of 11 PageID# 35 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 26th day of December, 2012, a true and accurate copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notification of such filing to the following: Joshua M. David, Esquire (VSB No ) Nicholas A. Nunes, Esquire (VSB No ) DAVID, KAMP & FRANK, LLC 739 Thimble Shoals Boulevard, Suite 105 Newport News, VA Phone: (757) Fax: (757) jdavid@davidkampfrank.com nanunes@davidkampfrank.com Counsel for Lauren Grey-Igel By: /s/ C. Michael DeCamps, Esquire (VSB No ) Karen S. Elliott, Esquire (VSB No ) SANDS ANDERSON PC Bank of America Center 1111 East Main Street, Suite 2400 Richmond, VA Phone: (804) Fax: (804) mdecamps@sandsanderson.com kelliott@sandsanderson.com Attorneys for Defendants 11