United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
WILLIO MILIEN, RISLER PRESENDIEU SYLAINE BAPTISTE, YOLETTE FILS-AIME, GUERLIN DORELYS, and MARIE PAUL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
MCCLURE PROPERTIES, LTD, and WEST COAST TOMATO, LLC, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER 
POLSTER CHAPPELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court upon review of Defendants
McClure Properties, Ltd.'s and West Coast Tomato,
LLC's Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended
Complaint filed on February 14, 2017. (Doc. 14). Plaintiffs
filed a Response on February 28, 2017. (Doc. 19). This matter
is ripe for review.
matter stems from allegations that Defendants' wage
payment practices violated state and federal laws. (Doc. 8 at
2). Plaintiffs instituted this action on December 16, 2016
(Doc. 1), but later filed, as a matter of right, a First
Amended Complaint on January 1, 2017. (Doc. 8).
five Plaintiffs in this action are either current or former
employees of Defendants. (Doc. 8 at 1). Defendants own and
operate a commercial tomato farm. (Doc. 8 at ¶¶
9-10). The central premise of Plaintiffs' claims is that
Defendants provided them payroll debit cards through a
third-party vendor. (Doc. 8 at ¶ 44). Once payments were
distributed, Plaintiffs accessed their wages from an
automatic teller machine ("ATM"), resulting in the
assessment of numerous administrative fees. (Doc. 8 at
¶¶ 47, 50). Furthermore, the ATM only dispensed
certain denominations of currency, often limiting Plaintiffs
to disbursements in specific increments. (Doc. 8 at ¶
50). This prevented Plaintiffs from making full withdrawals
where final amounts were less than the $20 disbursement
increment. (Doc. 8 at ¶ 50). In addition, due to ATM
withdrawal limits, Plaintiffs allege that to receive the full
amount of their wages, they were forced to make several
withdrawals, and, in turn, to incur more administrative fees.
(Doc. 8 at ¶ 50). Upon these facts, Plaintiffs bring
five causes of action:
• Count I-violation of Fla. Const. § 24, art. X for
unpaid minimum wages;
• Count II-violation of the Migrant and Season
Agricultural Worker Protection Act, 29U.S.C.
• Count III-violation of Fla. Stat. §§ 532.01
• Count IV-violation of Electronic Funds Transfer Act,
15 U.S.C. §§ 1693; and
• Count V-a common law unjust enrichment claim (Doc. 8
Defendants now move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Amended
Complaint. (Doc. 14).
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires "a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief[.]" Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure provides for dismissal when a plaintiff fails
"to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted." When considering a motion to dismiss under
Rule 12(b)(6), the reviewing court must accept all factual
allegations in the complaint as true and view them in a light
most favorable to the plaintiff. See Ashcroft v.
Iqbal,556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). This preferential
standard of review, however, does not permit all pleadings
adorned with facts to survive to the next stage of
litigation. The Supreme Court has been clear on this point -
a district court should dismiss a claim where a party fails
to plead facts that make the claim facially plausible.
See BellAtl. Corp. v. Twombly,550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007). A claim is facially plausible when the court can draw
a reasonable inference, based on the facts pled, that the
opposing party is liable ...