Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

DAMISSE v. PAUL, 1:15-cv-199-NT. (2016)

Court: District Court, D. Maine Number: infdco20160405a69 Visitors: 8
Filed: Apr. 04, 2016
Latest Update: Apr. 04, 2016
Summary: ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS NANCY TORRESEN , Chief District Judge . The Plaintiffs in this action are eight migrant workers of Haitian descent who traveled to Maine in 2009 to harvest blueberries. They assert claims under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (the " AWPA "), 29 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., against those who employed, housed, and transported them in connection with their blueberry harvesting work. First Am. Compl. (ECF No. 3). The Defendants have
More

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

The Plaintiffs in this action are eight migrant workers of Haitian descent who traveled to Maine in 2009 to harvest blueberries. They assert claims under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (the "AWPA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq., against those who employed, housed, and transported them in connection with their blueberry harvesting work. First Am. Compl. (ECF No. 3). The Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims for non-pecuniary damages "such as humiliation, inconvenience, physical discomfort, emotional distress and mental suffering." Mot. to Dismiss (ECF No. 34). The Defendants maintain that such damages are not available under the AWPA. Mot. to Dismiss 1-2 (citing 29 U.S.C. § 1854(c)(1) & (d)(1)). The parties have suggested that the "recoverability of emotional distress damages is an important threshold issue in this case." Pls.' Request for Oral Arg. on Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss 2 (ECF No. 68).

I do not agree with the parties that resolving whether one of multiple types of damages will be available constitutes a "threshold issue." If the Defendants are correct that non-pecuniary damages are unavailable, the claims in this matter would remain the same—only the amount of potential recovery would change. Picking off one type of relief requested when other types of relief remain available does not demonstrate a "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted," in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) terms. See Dingxi Longhai Dairy, Ltd. v. Becwood Tech. Grp. L.L.C., 635 F.3d 1106, 1108-09 (8th Cir. 2011); Bontkowski v. Smith, 305 F.3d 757, 762 (7th Cir. 2002); Williams v. Cutler, No. 1:14-cv-539-NT, at 16 n.14 (D. Me. Mar. 11, 2016); Charles v. Front Royal Volunteer Fire & Rescue Dept., Inc., 21 F.Supp.3d 620, 629 (W.D. Va. 2014); 5 Charles Allen Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proced. Civ. § 1255 Demand for Judgment—In General (3d ed. 2015); 5B Charles Allen Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proced. Civ. § 1357 Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6) (3d ed. 2015). I understand that the parties would like guidance on the issue of non-pecuniary damages to shape their discovery and have more informed settlement discussions, Report of Telephone Conference & Order 1 (ECF No. 72), but that desire for clarity does not overcome the limits of Rule 12(b)(6).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES the Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 34) and DENIES the Plaintiffs' motion for oral argument (ECF No. 68).

SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer