Marie Roebuck v. Florida Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, Inc.

Fifth Circuit

Marie Roebuck v. Florida Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, Inc.

502 F.2d 1105

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 6, 1974

Docket74-2360

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 502 F.2d 1105 (Marie Roebuck v. Florida Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Marie Roebuck v. Florida Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, Inc., 502 F.2d 1105 (5th Cir. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiffs bring this suit as a class action seeking redress for alleged violations of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq. The defendants are state institutions and officials. The theory of the action is that plaintiffs have been wrongfully classified as “handicapped trainees” and as a result of such classification have been paid subminimum wages by the state. By means of in-junctive relief, the plaintiffs seek to require the state defendants to comply with the certification and pay requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 214(c) (June 1974 Supp.), formerly 29 U.S.C.A. § 214(d) (1974 Supp.). In addition, the plaintiffs seek back wages, attorney’s fees, and other appropriate relief.

On the defendants’ motion, the District Judge dismissed the action with prejudice against all state defendants on the authority of Employees, etc. v. Missouri Public Health Department, 411 U. S. 279, 93 S.Ct. 1614, 36 L.Ed.2d 251 (1973).

The appellees concede that Employees does not preclude a proceeding for injunctive relief. We have repeatedly held that a motion to dismiss a complaint cannot be properly granted if it alleges facts which would entitle plaintiffs to any relief. Cook & Nichol, Inc. v. Plimsoll Club, 451 F.2d 505 (5th Cir. 1971) and numerous other cases cited therein.

The appellees argue that the dismissal can be sustained on several other grounds: lack of standing of plaintiffs to bring the action, mootness, restrictions in the Fair Labor Standards Act against the injunctive relief sought by plaintiffs, and non-joinder of indispensable parties. Although some of these contentions may have been addressed to the District Court, it is apparent some were not. In any event, they have not been ruled upon and we decline to consider arguments not first decided by the District Court.

*1107 It being clear that the complaint should not have been dismissed on the authority of Employees, we vacate the order of dismissal and remand the cause to the District Court for further proceedings. This order relates only to the two plaintiffs who appealed to this Court and to the defendants named in the notice of appeal.

Vacated and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiffs bring this suit as a class action seeking redress for alleged violations of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq. The defendants are state institutions and officials. The theory of the action is that plaintiffs have been wrongfully classified as “handicapped trainees” and as a result of such classification have been paid subminimum wages by the state. By means of in-junctive relief, the plaintiffs seek to require the state defendants to comply with the certification and pay requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 214(c) (June 1974 Supp.), formerly 29 U.S.C.A. § 214(d) (1974 Supp.). In addition, the plaintiffs seek back wages, attorney’s fees, and other appropriate relief.

On the defendants’ motion, the District Judge dismissed the action with prejudice against all state defendants on the authority of Employees, etc. v. Missouri Public Health Department, 411 U. S. 279, 93 S.Ct. 1614, 36 L.Ed.2d 251 (1973).

The appellees concede that Employees does not preclude a proceeding for injunctive relief. We have repeatedly held that a motion to dismiss a complaint cannot be properly granted if it alleges facts which would entitle plaintiffs to any relief. Cook & Nichol, Inc. v. Plimsoll Club, 451 F.2d 505 (5th Cir. 1971) and numerous other cases cited therein.

The appellees argue that the dismissal can be sustained on several other grounds: lack of standing of plaintiffs to bring the action, mootness, restrictions in the Fair Labor Standards Act against the injunctive relief sought by plaintiffs, and non-joinder of indispensable parties. Although some of these contentions may have been addressed to the District Court, it is apparent some were not. In any event, they have not been ruled upon and we decline to consider arguments not first decided by the District Court.

*1107 It being clear that the complaint should not have been dismissed on the authority of Employees, we vacate the order of dismissal and remand the cause to the District Court for further proceedings. This order relates only to the two plaintiffs who appealed to this Court and to the defendants named in the notice of appeal.

Vacated and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

502 F.2d 1105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marie-roebuck-v-florida-department-of-health-rehabilitative-services-ca5-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack