WIXLIB

EnteredDocument 1Case 1:16-cv-24994-JLKonFLSD Docket 12/01/2016Page1 of 7UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDADAVIS, on behalf of himself andsimilarly situated,No-WARRENothers1-2. ‘-1 9 , INC., and,NAPOLES,ALEXANDER E.Plaintiff DemandsDefendants.Plaintiff WARREN DAVISsimilarlysituated("Mr. Davis"or"Plaintiff),(the "Collective"), by and through"defendant"), andTrialby JuryALEXANDER E. NAPOLESonbehalf of himself and othershis attorneys, Levine &complaining of defendants AL-FLEX lit, PLLC,"company","defendant") (collectively,"defendants"), hereby alleges:NATURE OF THE ACTION1.29 U.S.C.2.anThis is an action arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act,asamended ("FLSA"),201-216.Plaintiff,award of monetaryonothers, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief;behalf of himself anddamages for the economic losses caused by Defendants'specifically non-paymentof overtime wages;anaward of liquidatedprejudgment interest; reasonable attorneys' fees;fiirther relief that this Court deems just andcosts of thisequitable.1damagesaction; andunlawful conduct,under the FLSA;any such other and

Case 1:16-cv-24994-JLKDocument 1EnteredonFLSD Docket 12/01/2016Page2 of 7JURISDICTION AND VENUE3.Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.4.Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.1331, and 29 U.S.C.216(b).comprising the claims1391(b)(1),asfor relief occurred within this judicial1391(b)(2),asall actionsdistrict, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C.the Defendants reside within this judicial district.THE PARTIESresident of the State of Florida, Miami-Dade County.5.Plaintiff Davis is6.Defendant, Al-Flex, isaaFloridafor-profit corporation, locatedCounty, with its principal address at 4035SW 98 Street, Miami,to thisengagedComplaint operated asabusinessin interstatein Miami-DadeFlorida, which at all times relevantcommercethatemployed plaintiffand the Collective.Defendants7.Napolesisacorporate officer of, and exercised operational controlover, defendant Al-Flex.At all times relevant to this8.action, Defendantswere"enterprise engaged in interstate commerce" as defined by the FLSA,and thusan29 U.S.C.an203(r) and (s),entity covered by the FLSA.Defendants have9.for commerce,orhave(a) employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goodsemployees handling, selling,orotherwiseworkingthat have been moved in or produced for commerce by any person; and (b)of sales in"enterprise" andanexcessof five hundred thousand dollars2( 500, 000.00).onangoods or materialsannual gross volume

Case 1:16-cv-24994-JLKAt all times relevant to this10.Flexand,Document 1assuch, controlled theEnteredonFLSD Docket 12/01/2016action, defendant Napo les servedterms and conditions ofplaintiff'sasPagepresident3 of 7of Al-and the Collective'semployment, including setting rates of pay, hours worked, and job duties.11.within the12.At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiffwas an"employee"of Defendantsmeaning of applicable federal statutes and regulations.At all times relevant to this action, Defendantswere an"employer" withinthemeaning of applicable federal statutes and regulations.COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS13.dozens ofAt all times within theemployeesinThe unlawfulin all cases, haveemployment practicesacts and practicesat issue with theemployees and the named plaintiff in thiswillfully denied such employees overtimedeniedanalleged herein.respectto theaction are identical,assimilarlydefendants,wages.Past and current non-exempt employees employedsituated to the named plaintiff in this action should haveforwereDefendants engaged in the employment practice of denying overtime wages to non-situated non-exempt16.employedsubjected to the same terms and conditions of employment as Plaintiff.exempt employees, including plaintiff, pursuant to the15.Defendants haveFlorida, including plaintiff, in non-exempt positions, whoovertime wages, and were14.applicable statutory period,by defendants who are similarlyopportunity to have their claims heardalleged violations of the ELSA.17.Certifyingthis collective action will afford suchsimilarly situated employees theopportunity to receive notice ofthe action and allow them to opt-in to such action if they so desire.3

Case 1:16-cv-24994-JLKDocument 1EnteredFLSD Docket 12/01/2016onPage4 of 7FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS18.Plaintiff wasemployed by defendants from approximately July 5, 2016, to October31, 2016.19.In or around July 5,20.Plaintiff sagreed2016, defendants hired plaintiff at the rate of pay of 650/week.upon work schedule with defendants at the time of hireMonday through Friday, from 8 a.m.to 2:30 p.m.At all times relevant to this21.defendantsComplaint, plaintiff scontrol services to such businesses and homes22.nonto travel to defendants' customers' businesses andwereonexempt job duties withhomes, and provide pestbehalf of defendants.Despite plaintiff's initially agreedbegan working significantly morewasupon work schedule withhours for defendants fromdefendants, plaintiffapproximatelyhis second week ofemployment with defendants, until his termination.Specifically, plaintiff began working sixty (60) to seventy (70) hours per week for23.defendants,over24.hadtheForcourseof sixexample, a typical workweek of plaintiff s during the course ofhis employmentplaintiff working approximatelyapproximately 9 a.m.to 2:30 p.m.25.per(6) days per week each workweek, at Napoles instruction.Despiteweek, defendantsthe fact thatneverinitially agreed upon salarya.m.to 2:30 p.m.,a.m.To 7 p.m.Mondays through Fridays, thenwasfromSaturdays.plaintiff workedpaid plaintiff overtimeof 650/week, whichonaveragewages, andwassixty (60)neversolely agreedtoseventy (70) hourspaid plaintiff more than histocoverhours worked of 8Mondays through Fridays.Defendants' refusal to pay plaintiff overtime wages for hours above26.workweekon7intentional.4forty (40) each

Case 1:16-cv-24994-JLK27.Document 1On numerous occasionsEnteredonFLSD Docket 12/01/2016Page5 of 7during his employment, plaintiff asked Napo les to pay himovertime wages due to the facts that he wasworking more than his agreed upon schedule, and overforty (40) hours each workweek.occasion, Napo les refused.28.On eachOn several occasions in response toplaintiff's complaints regarding defendants'refusal to pay him overtime wages, Napo les told plaintiff that he would switch plaintiff to an hourlyrate from asalary,sothat he would becompensated properlyfor all hours worked.DespiteNapoles representations, however, Napoles never switched plaintiff to an hourly rate, nor ever paidplaintiff any amount above his initially agreed upon salary.29.As well, defendantsintentionally sought tocoverup the fact thatplaintiff workedsignificantly above forty (40) hours each workweek, by representing on plaintiff' s pay statementsthat heonly worked forty (40) hours each week and not includinghours that plaintiff worked above30.Defendantsonplaintiff's pay statements allforty (40) each workweek.were aware orshould have beenawarethat their paypractices,asalleged herein, were in violation ofthe FLSA, but willfully engaged in such unlawful pay practicesregardless.31.Defendants' non-payment of overtime wagesbelief of compliance with thewaswillful and withoutlaw; therefore, plaintiff and the Collectiveareagood faithentitled torecoverliquidated damages under the FLSA.FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS AS TO THE COLLECTIVEACTIONOvertime(UnpaidWages in Violation of the FLSA)32.numbered 1Plaintiffhereby repeatsandreallegesthrough 32, as if fully set forth herein.5eachallegationcontained inparagraphs

33.The FLSA prescribesfor each hour worked above34.DefendantsEnteredDocument 1Case 1:16-cv-24994-JLKonFLSD Docket 12/01/2016Page6 of 7overtime wage that employers must pay to their employeesanforty (40) in a workweek.weretheemployer of Plaintiff and allothersimilarly situatedemployees within the meaning of the FLSA.35.Plaintiff and all temployees under the FLSA; however, Defendants willfully denied overtime wages to Plaintiff andall othersimilarly situated employees pursuant to the pay practices alleged herein.36.Defendantswere awarethat Mr. Davis andsimilarlysituatedemployeeswereperforming uncompensated work for Defendant above forty (40) hours in a workweek.37.thisDefendantswere aware orshould have beenComplaint were unlawful, and defendants do not havewith the FLSA with respect to thecompensationawareathat thepractices described ingood faith belief that they compliedof Plaintiff and all otheremployees similarlysituated.38.Asaemployees similarlywages inanresult of defendants' unlawfulsituated have suffered economicamount to be determined atovertime wagesasproximateplusanequivalentdamagesconduct, Plaintiffin the form ofand all otherunpaidovertimetrial, and are entitled to recover the value of those unpaidamount ofliquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA,aswellinterest, attorneys' fees and costs.PRAYER FOR RELIEFWHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court certify the collective andclass; and enter a judgment containing the following relief:a)An ordertodeclaring Defendants haveunpaid overtime wages;6violated theprovisionsof the FLSA,relating

Case 1:16-cv-24994-JLKb)An orderDocument 1Enteredenjoining DefendantsfromonFLSD Docket 12/01/2016engagingPagein the unlawful activities7 of 7allegedabove;awarding monetary damages to Plaintiff and the Collective under theFLSA, for economic losses in the form of unpaid overtime wages;c)An orderd)An orderFLSA, ine)An award of prejudgment interestand the Collective;awarding liquidated damages to Plaintiff and the Collective under thean amount equal to the total amount of unpaid overtime wages;ontheunpaid overtime wages owed to PlaintiffAn award of Plaintiff's and the Collective's reasonableattorneys' fees;g)An award of the Plaintiff s and the Collective's costs of thish)Any such other and further relief thisaction; andCourt deems just and equitable.DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURYPursuant to Rule38(b)of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff demandsby jury in this action.Respectfully submitted,Dated: December1,2016New York, New YorkLEVINE & BLIT, PLLCRussell S.Moriarty, Esq.Attorneys for Plaintiff201 S. Biscayne Blvd.Suite 2800Miami, FL 33131RMoriarty@LevineBlit.com7atrial