Preview:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE NANCY WHITEHOUSE,
ET AL.,

PLAINTIFFS v. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

NO. 2:12-CV-214-DBH

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS The plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration is DENIED. In my Order of January 2, 2013, I denied Prudential's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' retaliation claims in their Amended Complaint so far as the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is concerned. I granted the motion to dismiss all their state law retaliation claims, however, because the plaintiffs failed to oppose that part of the motion. Decision and Order on Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 33). The plaintiffs now say that in doing so, I got it wrong

("misapprehended"). Mot. for Reconsideration (ECF No. 36). The plaintiffs are incorrect. The Amended Complaint had four counts: "Violation of State and Federal Wage and Hour Law"; "Discrimination (Retaliation) Against Plaintiffs"; "Breach of Contract"; and "Final Wage Claims." Amended Complaint (ECF No. 26).

In its motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, Prudential focused on Count II and argued that "Plaintiffs' purported retaliation claims, however, fail to sufficiently allege a plausible claim for relief and seek damages not available as a matter of law. These purported retaliation[] claims should therefore be

dismissed at this time." Mot. to Dismiss at 2 (ECF No. 27)(emphasis added). Likewise, "all of Plaintiffs' individual retaliation claims, under the FLSA and state law, should be dismissed." Id. at 8 (emphasis added). Although the text of Prudential's memorandum focused on the federal statute, in a footnote it stated: "Plaintiff Whitehouse also asserts a retaliation claim under the Maine law, specifically referencing 26 M.R.S.

Download DBH_02262013_2-12cv214_WHITEHOUSE_V_PRUDENTIAL.pdf

Maine Law