Disatell v. 1st Choice Mortgage Field Service, LLC

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JEFFERY DISATELL 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 25-1554
1ST CHOICE MORTGAGE FIELD
SERVICE, LLC
SECTION: “J”(2)
ORDER AND REASONS
Considering the foregoing Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 7), filed
by Defendant 1st Choice Mortgage Field Service, LLC,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is DENIED as moot for the
reasons explained below.
In both his initial Complaint and his first Amended Complaint, Plaintiff
Jeffery Disatell brings claims against Defendant 1st Choice Mortgage Field Service,
LLC, whom he alleges he worked for as a Field Inspector, under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (“FLSA”) for (1) “misclassifying him as an ‘independent contractor,’”
and (2) “failing to pay overtime for hours worked over forty (40) in a workweek, and/or
minimum wage compensation.” (Rec. Doc. 8, at 1; see also Rec. Doc. 1, at 1).
In its Motion to Dismiss, Defendant 1st Choice Mortgage Field Service, LLC
argued that the Court should dismiss Mr. Disatell’s Complaint based primarily on
three pleading deficiencies. However, Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss on
September 26, 2025, and since that time, Plaintiff has attempted to cure these
deficiencies in the first Amended Complaint (Rec. Doc. 8), which was filed on October
Case 2:25-cv-01554-CJB-DPC Document 12 Filed 11/12/25 Page 1 of 4

2
16, 2025.
First, Defendant claimed in its Motion to Dismiss that Plaintiff had failed to
plead not only individual coverage under the FLSA, but also enterprise coverage, i.e.,
that Defendant is an “‘enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods
for commerce.’” (Rec. Doc. 7-1, at 6–7 (quoting England v. Adm’rs of the Tulane Educ.
Fund, No. 16-3184, 2016 WL 3902595, at *2 (E.D. La. 2016))). Defendant’s claim is
now 	moot 	because 	Plaintiff 	specifically 	cured 	these 	defects 	in 	his 	Amended
Complaint. (Rec. Doc. 8, at 2–3 ¶¶ 12–23).
Second, Defendant contended that Plaintiff’s claim for overtime pay under the
FLSA should be dismissed because Plaintiff’s original Complaint did not allege the
specific factual basis for his claim (i.e., hours worked, relevant time periods, and/or
compensation due). However, Plaintiff attempted to cure this deficiency in his
Amended Complaint as well.
Next, 1st Choice Mortgage Field Service, LLC urged that Plaintiff’s minimum
wage claim under FLSA should be dismissed because it was not “[p]lausible or
[p]ossible.” (Rec. Doc. 7-1, at 11). More specifically, Defendant asserted that Plaintiff’s
original Complaint did not “identify a single workweek during which Plaintiff was
not paid minimum wage.” Id. However, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint alleges that
during the work week of October 23, 2023, to October 29, 2023, he was not paid an
overtime premium, despite his claim that he worked 47.15 hours that week, and he
plausibly 	pleads 	that 	during 	that 	same 	week, 	his 	effective 	hourly 	rate 	was
“approximately $4.21 per hour” after Plaintiff deducted his automobile expenses.
Case 2:25-cv-01554-CJB-DPC Document 12 Filed 11/12/25 Page 2 of 4

3
(Rec. Doc. 8, at 5).
Alternatively, Defendant maintains that Plaintiff’s overtime and minimum
wage claims should be limited to the specific periods he identified in his initial
Complaint. However, in the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff explains that “Defendant
possesses all payroll data including inspections assigned and performed, location of
inspections, type of inspection, and payments to Plaintiff for inspections, which will
permit the parties to calculate full damages in this matter.” (Rec. Doc. 8, at 6 ¶ 42).
Furthermore, the Fifth Circuit has explained that “Rule 12(b)(6) ‘do[es] not
require heightened fact pleading of specifics, but only enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.’” Molina-Aranda v. Black Magic Enters., L.L.C.,
983 F.3d 779, 788 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
570 (2007)). In Molina-Aranda, the Fifth Circuit also held that for a Plaintiff’s claim
under the FLSA, “even past the pleading stage, when an employer fails to keep proper
records, ‘the remedial nature of the FLSA and the great public policy which it
embodies militate against making the burden of proving uncompensated work an
impossible hurdle for the employee.’” Id. (quoting Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo,
577 U.S. 442, 456 (2016)).
In the instant case, the Court believes that Plaintiff’s claims under FLSA are
plausible on their face and that discovery will allow Plaintiff to develop the factual
basis of these claims more fully.
Case 2:25-cv-01554-CJB-DPC Document 12 Filed 11/12/25 Page 3 of 4

4
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss
(Rec. Doc. 7) is DENIED as moot.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 7th day of November, 2025.
____________________________________
CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-01554-CJB-DPC Document 12 Filed 11/12/25 Page 4 of 4