Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Kenney v. Helix TCS, Inc.

United States District Court for the District of Colorado

January 5, 2018, Decided; January 5, 2018, Filed

Civil Action No. 17-cv-01755-CMA-KMT

Opinion

 [*1187]  ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Helix TCS, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. # 13.) Defendant argues that Plaintiff Robert Kenney's claim against it must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), or alternatively, for failing to state claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Id. at 1-2.) For the reasons stated below, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is denied.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Defendant's sole business purpose is to "provid[e] security, inventory control, and compliance services to the marijuana industry in Colorado." (Doc. # 13 at 2.) Between approximately February 2016 and April 2017, Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a security guard, alternatively referred to by Defendant as a "site supervisor."1  [*1188]  (Doc. # 1 at 2.) Plaintiff's job duties included [**2]  "monitoring security cameras, patrolling assigned locations, investigating and documenting all facility-related incidents, and enforcing client, local, state, and federal policies and regulations." (Id. at 3.) Defendant classified Plaintiff as an exempt employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-19, and paid him a salary. (Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that he and other similarly-situated security guards frequently performed non-exempt job duties that were "routine" and "predetermined" by Defendant or its clients and regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week. (Id.) Plaintiff contends that he was not an exempt employee under any applicable exemption of the FLSA and is thus owed overtime compensation under 29 U.S.C. § 207(a). (Id.)

On July 20, 2017, Plaintiff initiated this action against Defendant on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated2 under the collective action provisions of the FLSA. (Id. at 2); see 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). He asserts a single claim: willful failure to pay "overtime at rates not less than one and one-half times the regular rate," in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 207(a). (Doc. # 1 at 5.) Plaintiff seeks recovery of unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and costs. (Id. at 5-6.)

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

284 F. Supp. 3d 1186 *; 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7608 **; 2018 WL 400757

ROBERT KENNEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HELIX TCS, INC., Defendant.

Subsequent History: Motion granted by Kenney v. Helix TCS, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10124 (D. Colo., Jan. 23, 2018)

Motion granted by, Stay granted by Kenney v. Helix TCS, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17960 (D. Colo., Feb. 5, 2018)

Affirmed by Kenney v. Helix TCS, Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 28498 (10th Cir. Colo., Sept. 20, 2019)

CORE TERMS

motion to dismiss, subject matter jurisdiction, plaintiff's claim, federal law, exempt, defense motion, non-exempt, overtime