ORDER

WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.

Plaintiff Azul Galvez brought this collective action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, against defendant Anheuser-Busch for recovery of unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). (Compl. ¶¶ 12-14.) Defendant now moves to compel arbitration of plaintiff's individual claims, for dismissal of collective claims, or, in the alternative, for immediate stay of judicial proceedings as to plaintiff's individual claims or to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must accept the allegations in the pleadings as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974), overruled on other grounds by Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984); Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322 (1972). To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must plead "only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). While a complaint "does not need detailed allegations" a plaintiff must provide "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of a cause of action's elements" will not suffice. Id. at 545.

To assert a plausible claim under the FLSA, plaintiffs must assert "at a minimum . . . that []he worked more than forty hours in a given workweek without being compensated for the hours worked in excess of forty during that week." Landers v. Quality Communs., Inc., 771 F.3d 638, 645 (9th Cir. 2015)(citations omitted). To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff seeking overtime wages may "estimat[e] the length of [his] average workweek during the applicable period and the average rate at which []he was paid, the amount of overtime wages []he believes []he is owed, or any other facts that will permit the court to find plausibility." Id.

Plaintiff's allegation that defendants' unlawful policies and practices resulted in "depriving him of all required overtime wages earned in excess of 40 hours per workweek under the FLSA" is conclusory. (Compl. ¶ 12). While plaintiff does not have to allege "`with mathematical precision' the amount of overtime compensation owed by the employer," plaintiff does not provide a given workweek where he was not compensated overtime wages as required under Landers. See Landers, 771 F.3d at 646 (citation omitted). Plaintiff does not provide any specific information regarding the amount of time he worked, the dates he worked, or the type of work he was asked or required to perform. Without more, the court cannot determine that the complaint is not merely possible but plausible. See id. ("Although these allegations `raise the possibility' of undercompensation in violation of the FLSA, a possibility is not the same as plausibility.").

The motion to dismiss the Complaint must therefore be granted. The court does not reach defendant's alternative motions to compel arbitration or to stay these proceedings. Plaintiff requests leave to amend to address any defects in the Complaint. Defendants do not argue that granting leave to amend will be futile, will prejudice them, or will cause undue delay. Plaintiff will therefore be given leave to amend the Complaint.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant's motion to dismiss be, and the same hereby, is GRANTED. Plaintiff is given 20 days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint consistent with this order.