United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
AMANDA G. MITCHELL, Plaintiff,
WEST SERVICE CENTER, INC., Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
PAGE HOOD CHIEF JUDGE
5, 2017, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss. [Dkt. No. 5].
Plaintiff filed a response to the Motion to Dismiss on June
16, 2017. [Dkt. No. 8]. Defendant then filed a reply to
Plaintiff's response on June 30, 2017 [Dkt. No. 10]. For
the reasons that follow, the Court grants Defendant's
action arises out of an employment relationship between
Plaintiff, Amanda G. Mitchell, and Defendant, West Service
Center, Inc. Defendant is a vehicle repair and towing
operator located in Chesapeake, Virginia and is incorporated
in Virginia. Defendant conducts repairs and towing in the
local area surrounding Chesapeake, VA.
began working in Virginia for Defendant in 2009 as an offsite
night/weekend dispatcher. While there are conflicting
statements as to which side reached out, both Plaintiff and
Defendant agreed that Plaintiff could continue to work for
Defendant when she relocated to Michigan in 2011. As a
night/weekend dispatcher, Plaintiff responds to afterhours
calls from Defendant's customers for towing and repair
service. She then contacts tow truck drivers to connect them
with the customers.
alleges that Defendant did not compensate her for all hours
she worked while waiting for calls and only compensated her
for the calls themselves. [Dkt. No. 1 at PgID 5]. She claims
that she should have been paid for all hours she was
scheduled to work as she was “engaged to wait.”
Id. On February 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed a
three-count Complaint stemming from the alleged unpaid wages:
(1) Count I - violation of Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
(2) Count II - Michigan Workforce Opportunity Wage Act:
failure to pay for time worked and failure to pay overtime,
and (3) Count III - breach of contract.
5 2017, Defendant moved to dismiss to the Complaint on three
grounds: (1) Lack of Personal Jurisdiction - Rule 12(b)(2),
(2) Improper Venue - Rule 12(b)(3), and (3) Failure to State
a Claim upon Which Relief Can Be Granted - Rule 12(b)(6).
Defendant, also, moved in the alternative to transfer the
case to the United States District Court for the Easter
District of Virginia.
Applicable Law & Analysis
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(2))
Standard of Review
bears “the burden of establishing the districts
court's personal jurisdiction” over the Defendant.
Neogen Corp. v. Neo Gen Screening, Inc., 282 F.3d
883, 887 (6th Cir. 2002). As there has been no evidentiary
hearing on the matter the court will “consider the
pleadings and affidavits in a light most favorable to the
plaintiff.” Compuserve, Inc. v. Patterson, 89
F.3d 1257, 1262 (6th Cir. 1996) (citing Theunissen v.
Matthews, 935 F.2d 1454, 1458-59 (6th Cir. 1991).
Granting a motion to dismiss is only proper “if
all the specific facts which the
plaintiff…alleges collectively fail to state a prima
facie case for jurisdiction.” Id. (emphasis in
federal court, personal jurisdiction is determined by both
“(1) the law of the state in which it sits, and (2) in
accordance with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.” Neogen Corp., 282 F.3d at 888
(citing Reynolds v. Int'l Amateur Athletic
Fed'n, 23 F.3d 1100, 1115 (6th Cir. 1994)).
Plaintiff only asserts that this court has jurisdiction under
MCL §600.715, which provides for specific or limited
jurisdiction, and Defendant accepts Michigan's long arm
statute as applicable to this case. [Dkt. 5 at PgID 48].
Michigan's long arm statute creates jurisdiction to
“the maximum scope of personal jurisdiction permitted
by the due process clause of the Fourteen Amendment.”