Mata v. United States of America, No. SA:13-CV-220-DAE, slip op. (W.D. Tex. Jan. 3, 2014)(Ezra, J.)

Mata is an employee of a government contractor that stocks Coca-Cola products at Lakeland Air Force Base. She was hurt while stocking 12-packs at the Troop Mall and blamed the work of another government contractor for the incident. Slip op. at 2. Her suit against the government drew a motion to dismiss. Id. at 3. She did not respond to the motion until nearly two months after the deadline, but then moved for leave to respond (with the response attached) and moved for leave to amend her complaint. Id. The District Court concluded that the lawyer’s supposed confusion over the deadline did not amount to an extenuating circumstance, but that the other factors—length of delay, egregiousness of the failure, disruption of the docket, and prejudice—weighed in favor of leave. Id. at 4-6. Furthermore, the District Court allowed her to amend her complaint on many of the same considerations, along with the fact that the amended pleading addressed the government’s primary defense—that the responsible party was another independent contractor. Id. at 6-14.

Mohammadi v. Nwabuisi, No. A-12-CV-42-DAE, slip op. (W.D. Tex. Jan. 2, 2014)(Ezra, J.)

The District Court tried this Fair Labor Standards Act (FSLA) case with out a jury in late September 2013 over the course of three days. The 59-page findings of fact and conclusions of law detail the evidence the District Court accepted and rejected in arriving at the number of improperly compensated and uncompensated hours Mohammadi worked for the in-home health care companies owned by Nwabuisi. In all, the District Court awarded $38,100.49 in unpaid wages and the same amount in FSLA liquidated damages.

Quest v. Bandera County, No. 5:13-CV-506-DAE, slip op. (W.D. Tex. Dec. 26, 2013)(Ezra, J.)

Terminated from her position as Chief Deputy of Motor Vehicles by Bandera County’s elected Tax Assessor/Collector, who cited “a mistake on two title forms” as the reason for dismissal, Quest claimed her dismissal violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA).  Slip op. at 1-2.  Bandera County filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, contending that (a) it was not an ADEA “employer” because the elected Tax Assessor/Collector was vested with hiring/firing authority, and (b) Quest had failed to adequately allege causation.  Id. at 5. 

The District Court noted that the ADEA’s statutory exception for “personal staff” of elected officials did not lend itself to Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal; “[t]he question whether a person or entity is an ‘employee’ or employer’ for purposes of the ADEA is a highly factual inquiry.”  Id. at 8.  The District Court sided with the County, however, on the adequacy of Quest’s causation allegations.  She alleged age discrimination, but she failed to allege any facts pointing to age as the cause for her dismissal.  Thus, the District Court dismissed Quest’s ADEA claim with leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days.  Id. at 13-16.