The opinion of the court was delivered by: MCAVOY
Plaintiff, Peter Kraemer, a pro se complainant, brings this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 207, and attaches a pendent state claim for breach of contract. To support these claims, plaintiff asserts only the following ostensibly factual allegations in his complaint:
4. Defendants' conduct is unlawful for failure to pay for overtime performed in behalf of defendants.
5. Defendants failed to perform on two (2) year employment contract commencing from January 4, 1992 to December 31, 1993.
(Complaint at 1). Defendants now move to dismiss the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. In opposition to these motions, plaintiff has submitted an affidavit and a memorandum of law. Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted, and plaintiff is granted leave to amend the complaint.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure embrace the concept of simplified notice pleading. See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 2 L. Ed. 2d 80, 78 S. Ct. 99 (1957). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), a claim for relief must set forth a jurisdictional statement, a short and plain statement of the claim, and a demand for relief.
Motions to dismiss a complaint under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6) are designed to test the legal sufficiency of a plaintiff's claims. In considering such a motion, this Court must accept as true all material facts alleged in the complaint and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652, 92 S. Ct. 594 (1972). When a plaintiff appears pro se, the complaint "must be held to 'less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'" Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251, 97 S. Ct. 285 (1976) (quoting Haines, 404 U.S. at 520). Despite the liberality of the pleading requirement, naked allegations that are too conclusory cannot survive a motion to dismiss. See Albert v. Carovano, 851 F.2d 561, 572 (2d Cir. 1988) (citing Martin v. New York State Dep't of Mental Hygiene, 588 F.2d 371 (2d Cir. 1978)). In determining the sufficiency of the complaint, the Court only considers:
the factual allegations in . . . [the] complaint, which are accepted as true, . . . documents attached to the complaint as an exhibit or incorporated in it by reference, . . . matters of which judicial notice may be taken, or . . . documents either in plaintiffs' possession or of which plaintiffs had knowledge and relied on in bringing suit.
Brass v. American Film Technologies, Inc., 987 F.2d 142, 150 (2d Cir. 1993). Therefore, the Court cannot consider plaintiff's supporting documents that fall outside of these categories.
In light of these considerations, defendants' motion to dismiss must be granted. Although plaintiff properly included a statement of the court's jurisdiction and a prayer for relief, plaintiff's complaint provides no factual details to support the conclusory allegations regarding his substantive claims.
Section 207 of the Fair Labor Standards Act dictates that
no employer shall employ any of his employees . . . for a workweek longer than forty hours unless such employee receives compensation . . . at a rate not less than one and one-half ...