Parker v. Perdue Farms, Inc.

1

ROGER PARKER, Plaintiff, v. PERDUE FARMS, INC., et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 5:22-cv-00268-TES

United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Macon Division

December 8, 2022

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS

TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE.

Before the Court is Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint [Doc. 15]. After Defendants filed the instant Motion, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Perdue Farms, Inc., leaving only Perdue Foods, LLC as a named defendant. See [Doc. 19]; [Doc. 20].^[1]

BACKGROUND

On July 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed his Complaint [Doc. 1] alleging Perdue misclassified him-and others similarly situated-as independent contractors instead of employees. [Doc. 1, ¶ 1]. Because of that misclassification, Plaintiff seeks relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.; Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C § 2201(a), et seq.; and Packers &amp Stockyards Act, 7 U.S.C. § 192, et seq.; along with state law claims of fraud, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation. See generally [Doc. 1].

Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that Perdue Foods-the third largest broiler chicken company in the country-outsources “the process of raising birds to broiler growers,” like Plaintiff, and considers them “independent farmers.” [Doc. 1, ¶¶ 14-15]. In the recruiting process, Plaintiff alleges that Perdue promises these farmers “independence and financial success.” [Id. at ¶ 16]. However, Plaintiff contends that Perdue controls “virtually every aspect of [the] growers' operations.” [Id. at ¶ 18]. To be sure, Plaintiff contends that Perdue requires these farmers to agree to an exclusive contract-a Poultry Producer Agreement (“PPA”)-with Perdue, which prohibits any visits to other farms associated with another integrator and requires construction of their farms in conformity with specific instructions from Perdue. [Id. at ¶¶ 19-25]. Perdue also monitors and trains these farmers throughout their time under the contract. [Id. at ¶ 26]. Perdue also utilizes supervisors who visit farms “at least weekly” to ensure compliance with Perdue's requirements. [Id. at ¶ 37]. Perdue also controls the timing, delivery, and number of birds in each flock. [Id. at ¶ 56]. Likewise, Perdue controls the medications, feed, and other supplies that farmers can use in the operation. [Id. at ¶¶ 55-58].

Plaintiff complains that he, and farmers like him, have absolutely no control over their own farming operations other than being left to pay the bills that Perdue runs up. Plaintiff alleges that Perdue requires precise specifications, often makes changes to those required plans, and expects the farmers to pay for it. [Id. at ¶ 93].

Perdue filed the instant Motion on September 19, 2022, asking the Court to partially dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. Namely, Perdue asks the Court to dismiss Plaintiff's FLSA claims, state-law class action claims, state-law fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims, and Packers & Stockyards Act claims. See [Doc. 15-1]. The Court addresses each in turn.

LEGAL STANDARD

Perdue Foods seeks to dismiss Plaintiff's action against it for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2) and failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). First, to state a claim for relief, a plaintiff must provide a “short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1). To do so, a plaintiff need only provide a “prima facie case of jurisdiction.” Posner v. Essex Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 1209, 1214 (11th Cir. 1999). Indeed, the plaintiff need only provide affidavits or other evidence when the defendant files affidavits challenging personal jurisdiction. Id. Otherwise, the Court must accept as true the facts alleged in the plaintiff's complaint. Madara v. Hall, 916 F.2d 1510, 1514 (11th Cir. 1990).

When ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion, district courts must accept the facts set forth in the complaint as true. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 572 (2007). A complaint survives a motion to dismiss only if it alleges sufficient factual matter (accepted as true) that states a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. McCullough v. Finley, 907 F.3d 1324, 1333 (11th Cir. 2018) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009)). In fact, a well-pled complaint “may proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of those facts is improbable, and that a recovery is very remote and unlikely.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556 (citations omitted).

Although Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it does require “more than [ ] unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation[s].” McCullough, 907 F.3d at 1333 (citation omitted). To decide whether a complaint survives a motion to dismiss, district courts are instructed to use a two-step framework. Id. The first step is to identify the allegations that are “no more than mere conclusions.” Id. (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679). “Conclusory allegations are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Id. (citation omitted). After disregarding the conclusory allegations, the second step is to “assume any remaining factual allegations are true and determine whether those factual allegations ‘plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.'” Id. (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679).

Furthermore, a complaint attacked by a 12(b)(6) motion is subject to dismissal when it fails to “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. “A plaintiff must plead more than labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” McCullough, 907 F.3d at 1333 (internal quotations omitted); see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. “To be sure, a plaintiff may use legal conclusions to structure his complaint, but legal conclusions ‘must be supported by factual allegations.'” McCullough, 907 F.3d at 1333 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679). While courts, in ruling on a motion to dismiss, must take all of the factual allegations in the complaint as true; they are not bound to accept a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Courts must “identify conclusory allegations and then discard them-not ‘on the ground that they are unrealistic or nonsensical' but because their conclusory nature ‘disentitles them to the presumption of truth.'” McCullough, 907 F.3d at 1333 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681). The issue to be decided when considering a motion to dismiss is not whether the claimant will ultimately prevail, but “whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims.” Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974), overruled on other grounds by Davis v. Scheuer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984). The factual allegations in a complaint “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level” and cannot “merely create[] a suspicion of a legally cognizable right of action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 545, 555. Finally, complaints that tender “‘naked assertion[s]' devoid of ‘further factual enhancement'” will not survive against a motion to dismiss. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557) (alteration in original). Stated differently, the complaint must allege enough facts “to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence” supporting a claim. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556.

DISCUSSION

I. FLSA Claims

Perdue first asks the Court to dismiss Plaintiff's FLSA claims “on behalf of putative plaintiffs outside of Georgia” because the Court “lacks jurisdiction over Defendant[] with regard to those claims.” [Doc. 15-1, p. 5]. Second, Perdue contends that even if Plaintiff-and others similarly situated-were misclassified as independent contractors, they are covered by the FLSA's agriculture exemption. See 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(12).

a. Collective Action

In response to Perdue's Motion, Plaintiff argues that Perdue's personal jurisdiction argument is premature. As of the date of this Order, no out-of-state growers have opted into the action. Therefore, Plaintiff argues, and the Court agrees, that any personal jurisdiction determination over potential plaintiffs who aren't yet official parties to the case is premature.

Personal jurisdiction requires a claim-by-claim analysis. Turner v. Regions Bank, 770 F.Supp.2d 1244, 1248 (M.D. Ala. 2011) (citing Seiferth v. Helicopteros Atuneros, Inc., 472 F.3d 266, 274 (5th Cir. 2006)). The cases cited by Perdue also agree with this notion. See Vallone v. CJS Solutions Grp., LLC, 9 F.4th 861, 865 (8th Cir. 2021) (“Personal jurisdiction must be determined on a claim-by-claim basis.”). That is why courts cannot base “jurisdiction on hypotheticals.” General Pump & Well, Inc. v. Martix Drilling Prods. Co., No. CV608-045, 2009 WL 812340, at * 3 n.4 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 26, 2009) (citing Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300 (1998)). Instead, courts must review each claim by each party to determine if general or specific jurisdiction exists. See Fischer v. Fed. Express Corp., 42 F.4th 366, 372 (3rd Cir. 2022) (“[P]otential plaintiffs must still demonstrate personal jurisdiction over the defendant with respect to their own claims.”).

For that reason, the cases cited by Perdue were all at a different procedural posture. Namely, the courts were reviewing class certification or potential plaintiffs already trying to opt into the action, requiring the court to review each's assertion of jurisdiction. See Vallone, 9 F.4th at 864;^[2] Fischer, 42 F.4th at 370 (“Two out-of-state former FedEx employees submitted notices of consent.”); Canaday v. Anthem Co., Inc., 9 F.4th 392, 395 (6th Cir. 2021) (“Dozens of nurses opted into...