Linda Ash v. Anderson Merchandisers, LLC

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that complaint failed to contain specific factual allegations supporting a necessary element of the plaintiffs claim
• holding that, at the pleading stage, plaintiffs relying on a joint employer theory are “not required to determine conclusively which [defendant] was their employer ... or describe in detail the employer’s corporate structure”
• noting that, to state a claim under the FLSA, the plaintiffs had to allege that the defendants were their employer
• ruling that the district court did not abuse its discretion denying the Rule 59(e) motion filed two days after the judgment because the plaintiffs “had the opportunity to request leave to amend at any time before the district court ruled on the motion to dismiss”
• holding a complaint must contain “factual allegation[s] that could ‘allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged’”
• affirming 12(b)(6) dismissal of complaint that alleged employer status only because defendants were part of “integrated enterprise”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).