Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Acosta v. Schultz

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

November 19, 2019

R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Petitioner,
v.
TIMOTHY SCHULTZ, an individual, And SUSAN GALBREATH, an individual, Respondents.

          ORDER DENYING RESPONDENTS' MOTION TO DISMISS\SECRETARY OF LABOR'S PETITION TO ENFORCE ADMINISTRATIVE SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM [ECF No. 4]

          Victoria A. Roberts United States District Judge.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Timothy Schultz (“Schultz”) and Susan Galbreath (“Galbreath”) (collectively, “Respondents”) move to dismiss administrative subpoenas duces tecum ordered by R. Alexander Acosta, Secretary of Labor. Respondents object to the Court's Order granting enforcement of the subpoenas.

         Respondents present a detailed timeline in their motion.

         In 2016 the United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) opened a wage and hours investigation into Procorp, LLC (“Procorp”) under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Schultz was Procorp's sole owner and member. Galbreath was its employee. Procorp has since ceased doing business.

         Respondents cooperated with the investigation until the Secretary issued administrative subpoenas duces tecum. The subpoenas ordered them to appear at depositions and bring nine categories of documents.

         Respondents objected to the ninth category: “A list of all entities for which [Respondents] served or serves as a Resident Agent and a description of the work performed by each such entity.” [ECF No. 4-18, PageID.180; ECF No. 4-19, PageID.183]

         Respondents did not provide the lists and descriptions. Nor did they answer deposition questions concerning other business entities.

         The Secretary petitioned the Court for enforcement of the subpoenas. [ECF No. 1] There was no response to this petition.

         The Court granted it and ordered Respondents to comply with the subpoenas or show cause for noncompliance. [ECF No. 3] They then filed this “response and motion.” [ECF No. 4]

         Respondents ask the Court to “dismiss” the subpoenas duces tecum for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). They say that the Secretary fails to meet the requirements for administrative subpoenas duces tecum.

         The Court DENIES Respondents' motion.

         II. DISCUSSION

         A subpoena duces tecum is not a cognizable “claim, ” and therefore Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) does not apply. The proper procedural route for the relief Respondents ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.