AUSTIN
v.
METRO DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring a claim for fraudulent filing of information returns because the 1099 forms indicated the income was paid to an LLC, not to her individually. The court granted dismissal of this count with leave to amend.
Plaintiff Jen Austin sued Metro Development Group, LLC and John Ryan, alleging she was improperly classified as an independent contractor and that fra…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Unpaid Wages cases and more on FLexlaw
1307-Orl-40TBS, 2017 WL 819919, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Mar.2, 2017). Although Plaintiff may have individual standing if she were the sole member of the LLC, this is certainly not ascertainable from the face of the complaint. Furthermore, the 1099 forms show that multiple entities – none of which are Metro or Ryan – issued the 1099 forms. Although Plaintiff alleges that Defendants “control” a number of closely related entities, she does not sufficiently identify these entities or describe their relationship to either Metro or Ryan. The bare allegations of the complaint are insufficient to impose any type of liability upon Defendants. See, e.g., Brown v. Family Dollar Corp., No. 6:17-cv-1521-Orl-40KRS, 2018 WL 2215222, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 15, 2018) (dismissing claims against parent company where plaintiff only alleged ownership and control with no additional facts to establish that the subsidiary was a mere instrumentality or alter ego of the parent company); Garcia v. Kashi Co., 43 F. Supp. 3d 1359, 1394-95 (S.D. Fla. 2014) (same). Consequently, Count I is due to be dismissed. The Court will grant Plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint to cure these deficiencies. Because the Court is dismissing Count I with leave to amend, it does not reach Defendants’ arguments as to Counts II, III, IV, V, or VI. The motion is therefore denied without prejudice as to these grounds, and Defendants may raise these arguments again should Plaintiff file an amended complaint that confers jurisdiction upon this Court. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: 1. “Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint” (Doc. 10) is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
2. The motion is GRANTED as to Count I.
3. Because the Court is dismissing Count I with leave to amend, it does not reach Defendants’ arguments as to Counts II, III, IV, V, or VI. The motion is therefore DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to these grounds. 4. Plaintiff directed to file an amended complaint on or before September 30, 2020. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 16th day of September, 2020.
a J) ie. /
\) -TOMBARBER i (sssi(i‘“‘C:sts~™S
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007)
- Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 (U.S. 1974)
- Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (U.S. 1986)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (U.S. 2007)
- Rickman v. Precisionaire, Inc., 902 F. Supp. 232 (M.D. Fla. 1995)
- Horsley v. Feldt, 304 F.3d 1125 (11th Cir. 2002)