On November 28, 2016, plaintiffs filed their brief in opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss their overtime claims and strike allegations from the amended complaint. Plaintiffs’ brief argues, among other things, that the court had already decided that their allegations support a finding that plaintiffs are “employed” by defendants. The law does not require a complaint to prove a plaintiff’s employment on an hour-by-hour basis.
As for defendants’ motion to strike allegations, it is indisputable that defendants automatically deduct auto loan and insurance payments from plaintiffs’ weekly earnings. Matters of fact should not be stricken. Plaintiffs also argued that their allegations regarding UberX demonstrate defendants’ reckless disregard for whether UberBLACK drivers earned minimum wages. Finally, defendants failed to show how they were prejudiced by these allegations.
Read plaintiffs’ brief here: plaintiffs-opposition-brief-to-defendants-motion-to-dismiss-the-overtime-claims