Harris v. Door Dash, Inc.

Background

The court had previously granted Kevin Jerome Harris permission to proceed without paying the filing fee and then screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Harris, who was proceeding without a lawyer, alleged that he drove for Door Dash between November 2020 and November 2021. He claimed that he was sometimes paid as little as $2.50 per hour, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and that Door Dash did not pay mileage, gas, hazard pay, or vehicle-repair expenses.

Harris also alleged that Door Dash deactivated his account after he completed 1,500 deliveries. He claimed that Door Dash’s representative could not confirm the accuracy of the company’s stated reason for the deactivation and that Door Dash falsely said he had worked only nine hours during a two-month period, although he had worked more than 100 hours. He asserted a claim under the False Claims Act.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that a complaint screened under § 1915 must be dismissed before service if it is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or shows a complete defense on its face. It also must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires a short and plain statement giving the defendant fair notice of the claim and the grounds for it.

For the FLSA minimum-wage claim, the court held that Harris’s allegation that he was sometimes paid as little as $2.50 per hour was insufficient without more detail. He needed to provide facts such as the hours he worked and the amount he was paid in a particular week, or an estimate of his average workweek and average rate of pay.

For the FLSA overtime claim, the court held that Harris had not alleged a specific workweek in which he worked more than 40 hours without receiving overtime pay. The court stated that mathematical precision was unnecessary, but the complaint needed facts showing at least one qualifying workweek or another reasonable estimate supporting the claim.

The court also concluded that the False Claims Act allegations were deficient because Harris did not allege a connection between Door Dash’s alleged false statement and a false or fraudulent claim paid or approved by the government.

Disposition

The court found that the complaint, as pleaded, did not comply with Rule 8. It gave Harris until February 21, 2022, to file an amended complaint if he believed he could cure some or all of the deficiencies. The court instructed him to use separate numbered paragraphs for factual allegations and claims, identify the facts supporting each claim, and make the amended complaint complete on its own rather than relying on earlier pleadings.

The court warned that failure to follow the federal rules, the district’s local rules, or the court’s order could result in a report and recommendation that the complaint be dismissed. It also warned that an amended complaint that failed to cure the identified deficiencies could lead to the same result. Judge Jacquelyn Corley signed the order as a United States Magistrate Judge.