United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
C. NUGENT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT MUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion For
Judgment on the Pleadings Against Chelsea Amata For Lack of
Standing and Judicial Estoppel. (ECF #20). Plaintiffs opposed
the Motion, and Defendants filed a Reply in Support. (ECF
#25, 30). After careful consideration, the Court has
determined that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss should be
GRANTED in part.
AND PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW 
putative class action suit claims that Dino Palmieri and Dino
Palmieri Salons, Inc. (collectively "Dino
Palmieri") failed to pay its stylists and certain other
employees for mandatory training classes, and took deductions
from their pay, resulting in a failure to pay minimum wage
for all hours worked in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") and Ohio law. The suit also raises
claims for breach of contract, fraud, and failure to promptly
pay wages. The Complaint does not indicate whether Ms. Amata
is still employed with Dino Palmieri, or when her employment
suit was filed on or about June 27, 2019 in the Cuyahoga
County Court of Common Pleas. The case was removed to this
United States District Court on July 1, 2019. Prior to the
filing of this suit, Ms. Amata filed a petition for
bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of
Ohio (Akron). Her petition was filed on October 17, 2018,
along with sworn declaration, and her debts were discharged
on February 5, 2019. She did not disclose her claims against
Dino Palmieri in any of her bankruptcy filings.
Amata does not challenge Defendants' representation that
she did not disclose her claims to the bankruptcy court, nor
does she deny that her claims in this case are based, at
least in part, on events that took place before she filed for
motion for judgment on the pleadings, brought pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12© is On a motion brought under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), this Court's inquiry is limited to
the content of the complaint, although matters of public
record, orders, items appearing in the record of the case,
and exhibits attached to the complaint may also be taken into
account. See Chester County Intermediate Unit v.
Pennsylvania Blue Shield, 896 F.2d 808, 812 (3rd Cir.
1990). The Sixth Circuit has also held that a reviewing court
may consider "exhibits attached to the defendant's
motion to dismiss so long as they are referred to in the
Complaint and are central to the claims contained
therein." Bassett v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic
Ass'n, 528 F.3d 426, 430 (6th Cir. 2008).
In evaluating a motion for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), the
district court must "consider the pleadings and
affidavits in a light most favorable to the [non-moving
party]." Jones v. City of Carlisle, Ky., 3
F.3d. 945, 947 (6th Cir. 1993) (quoting Welsh v.
Gibbs, 631 F.2d 436, 439 (6th Cir. 1980)).
construing the complaint in favor of the non-moving party, a
trial court will not accept conclusions of law or unwarranted
inferences cast in the form of factual allegations. See
City of Heath Ohio v. Ashland Oil Inc., 834 F.Supp. 971,
975 (S.D. Ohio 1993). "A plaintiffs obligation to
provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitle[ment] to
relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do." Bell Atl' Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)(quoting Papasan v. Allain,
478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986)).
"Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to
relief above the speculative level." Twombly at
555. In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, this Court must
determine not whether the complaining party will prevail in
the matter but whether it is entitled to offer evidence to
support the claims made in its complaint. See Scheuer v.
Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).
becomes the property of the bankruptcy court estate if it
could have been brought prior to the filing of the bankruptcy
petition. Tyler v. DH Capital Management, Inc., 736
F.3d 455, 463-63 (6th Cir. 2013); see also,
see also, Kimberlin v. Dollar General Corp., 520
Fed.Appx. 312, 313-14 (6th Cir. 2013).. This is
true "even if the debtor was unaware of the claim,"
and "even if further post-petition damages were
incurred." Id. In other words, "the duty
to disclose a potential claim as an asset in bankruptcy
arises when the wrongful conduct giving rise to the claim is
suffered, as opposed to when an actual complaint is
filed." Harrah v. DSW, Inc., 852 F.Supp.2d 900,
903 (N.D. Ohio 2012).
Amata does not dispute that she would have been aware that
training hours were not paid, and would have been aware of
any deductions taken from her paycheck throughout her
employment. Ignorance of the legal implications of these
facts does not excuse non-disclosure of claims in the context
of a bankruptcy petition. See, e.g., Id. at 907. For
this reason, Ms. Amata does not have standing to raise any
claim based on wrongful conduct occurring on or before the
date her bankruptcy petition, which was October 17, 2018. The
proper party to raise such claims would be the bankruptcy
trustee, however, the trustee has made no request to appear
in this action. Therefore, Plaintiffs have no standing to
pursue their request to amend the Complaint in order to add
unclear from the Complaint and the briefing, how long Ms.
Amata claims to have worked at Dino Palmieri and whether she
is claiming that there were post-petition periods of time
when she was not properly paid. If there is a factual basis
for her to claim of improper payment for time she worked for
Defendants after the filing of her bankruptcy petition she
maintains standing to pursue only those later claims. If all
of her claims are based on pay periods worked prior to ...