The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge United States District Court
Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Joseph J. Sciamanna and Joseph J. Sciamanna, Inc. (hereinafter, the "Sciamanna Defendants" or "Mr. Sciamanna" and "Sciamanna, Inc.", respectively). For the reasons given below, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 18, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against the Sciamanna Defendants and three other defendants in Illinois State Court, alleging that Defendants violated the Illinois Employee Classification Act, 820 ILCS § 185, et seq., (hereinafter. "the Illinois ECA") in regard to their activities as subcontractors for the same general contractor at construction sites in Warrenville, Illinois and Schaumburg, Illinois. On August 14, 2008, the Sciamanna Defendants removed this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446 on the basis of original jurisdiction.
In their Complaint, Plaintiffs, a union, two members of the union, and an Illinois limited liability company, pursue a private right of action under the Illinois ECA (820 ILCS § 185/60). Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that:
* Mr. Sciamanna conducts business in Illinois under the name "Joseph J. Sciamanna, Inc., a Michigan corporation." Mr. Sciamanna failed to register Sciamanna, Inc., with the Illinois Secretary of State to transact business as a foreign corporation as required by the Illinois Business Corporation Act of 1983. Compl. ¶ 5.
* During the month of April 2008, the Sciamanna Defendants were engaged as construction subcontractors working for general contractor, Shiel Sexton, in both Schaumburg and Warrenville. Plaintiffs assert that both Sciamanna Defendants fall within the Illinois ECA's definition of "contractors." Id. at ¶¶ 12, 18-19.
* The Sciamanna Defendants violated Section 15 of the Illinois ECA (820 ILCS § 185/15) by failing to post a summary of the requirements of the Illinois ECA at both job sites. Id. at ¶¶ 21-22 (Count I).
* The Sciamanna Defendants violated Section 20 of the Illinois ECA (820 ILCS § 185/20) by misclassifying Plaintiffs Jesus Heurta and Ignacio Castillo as "employees" instead of "independent contractors." Id. at ¶¶ 24-37 (Count II).
In their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants first argue that the Complaint fails to state a claim against Mr. Sciamanna because the Illinois ECA does not provide a private cause of action against an individual officer or director of a corporation. Second, Defendants argue that the Complaint fails to state a claim against Sciamanna, Inc., because another related entity was the subcontractor on the sites referenced in the Complaint.
In deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court accepts all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and draws all reasonable inferences in a light favorable to the plaintiff. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007). "A complaint must always, . . . allege 'enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,' " Limestone Development Corp. v. Village of Lemont, Ill., 520 F.3d 797, 803 (7th Cir., 2008) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 127 S.Ct. at 1974). To avoid dismissal, the "allegations must plausibly suggest that the defendant has a right to relief, raising that ...