Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Chase v. Divine

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

October 22, 2013

MARKESHA MONIQUE CHASE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CHRIS L. DIVINE; JERRY D. HILLBURN, Defendants-Appellees, and JERRY MCGREGER; TERI KING; GREG PALMER; ALBERTSONS; C T CORPORATION, Defendants.

(D.C. No. 4:13-CV-00219-JED-TLW).

Before TYMKOVICH, ANDERSON, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT[*]

Robert E. Bacharach Circuit Judge.

Ms. Markesha Chase sued, seeking documentation and review of her payroll compensation into an investment fund during her employment at a grocery in the mid- to late-1990s. The district court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a valid claim, holding that the claims were time-barred and that any amendment would be futile. Ms. Chase appeals these rulings, and we affirm.

Ms. Chase's Pleadings and the District Court Proceedings

The Plaintiff names three store managers and the corporate owner as defendants and makes the following factual allegations:

There was a transfer of hours worked by me into an account that currently needs to be review, based on hours achieved and work I should be full compensated. I worked during the years of 1995 of the month of November and all of 1997 through December and again in of 1998 and 1999.
Jerry Hillburn was helping me to make a legit transfer along with Chris L. Divine into my legal social security account on the grounds of working under a school honor mention under employee identification number [] and [] these services were honor under penalty code and service I conduct myself in a well manor.

Based on these allegations, she requests the following relief:

To receive full compensation as time service on eligibility to retain work history and hedge fund

The complaint does not identify any legal basis for this relief.

After the Defendants filed their motion to dismiss, Ms. Chase filed a so-called motion "to proceed, " which the district court construed as a motion for a hearing. There Ms. Chase states that while she worked at the grocery, it allowed employees to invest in a fund through payroll deductions. She notes that she has not received requested documentation related to those investments and argues that she is protected under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. § 206.

The district court held a hearing on the Defendants' motion to dismiss. At that hearing, Ms. Chase clarified that she had worked at a grocery in Tulsa between 1995 and 1999 and that her complaint is based on a transfer of hours while she was employed there. Ms. Chase advised the court that the underlying misconduct ended in 1999.

The claims were dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a valid claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In ordering dismissal with prejudice, the court concluded that Ms. Chase's complaint did not state a cognizable claim for relief and that amendment would be futile because the limitations period had ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.