Transcription
Case: 1:18-cv-00138-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/23/18 Page: 1 of 14 PAGEID #: 1IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIOWESTERN DIVISIONAT CINCINNATIMICHAEL JOHNSON,On behalf of himself and all similarlysituated individuals,Plaintiffs,vs.CINCINNATI BELL, INC.CINCINNATI BELL TELEPHONECOMPANY, LLCDefendants.::::::::::::::::Case No.: 1:18-cv-138JUDGECOLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPlaintiff Michael Johnson (“Plaintiff” or “Plaintiff Johnson”), on behalf of himself andother similarly situated individuals, brings this collective and class action lawsuit, pursuant to 29U.S.C. § 216(b), against Defendants Cincinnati Bell, Inc. and Cincinnati Bell TelephoneCompany, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) to recover for violations of the Fair Labor StandardsAct (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq., Ohio’s Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act(“OMFWSA”), O.R.C. §§ 4111.01, 4111.03 and 4111.10, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act(“OPPA”), O.R.C. § 4113.15 (the OMFWSA and the OPPA will be referred to collectively as the“Ohio Acts”).1
Case: 1:18-cv-00138-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/23/18 Page: 2 of 14 PAGEID #: 2The following allegations are based on personal knowledge as to Plaintiff’s own conductand are made on information and belief as to the acts of others.JURISDICTION AND VENUE1.This Court has federal question jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Section16(b) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.2.This Court’s jurisdiction in this matter is also predicated upon 28 U.S.C. §1367 asthis Complaint raises additional claims pursuant to the laws of Ohio over which this Courtmaintains supplemental subject matter jurisdiction because they form a part of the same case orcontroversy.3.Venue is proper in this forum pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391, because Defendantshave employed the Plaintiff and others similarly situated in the Southern District of Ohio, asubstantial part of the events or omission giving rise to the claim have occurred in the SouthernDistrict of Ohio, and Defendants have done substantial business in the Southern District of Ohio.PARTIES4.Plaintiff Michael Johnson (“Plaintiff” or “Plaintiff Johnson”) is an individualresiding in Cincinnati, Ohio.5.Plaintiff Johnson was employed by Defendants as an Outbound SalesRepresentative (“OSR”) from approximately December 2015 to approximately May 2016.6.Plaintiff Johnson’s consent form is attached hereto as Exhibit A.7.Defendant Cincinnati Bell Inc. is a corporation registered to do business in theState of Ohio, and can be served by and through its Registered Agent, Corporation ServiceCompany, at 50 West Broad Street, Suite 1330, Columbus OH 43215.8.Defendant Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company, LLC is a domestic limitedliability company registered to do business in the State of Ohio with a principal business address2
Case: 1:18-cv-00138-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/23/18 Page: 3 of 14 PAGEID #: 3of 221 E. Fourth Street, Cincinnati Ohio 45202. Defendant can be served by and through itsRegistered Agent, Corporation Service Company, at 50 West Broad Street, Suite 1330,Columbus OH 43215.FACTS9.Defendants are in the business of providing integrated communications solutions,including local and long distance voice, data, high-speed Internet, and video entertainmentservices, to residential and business customers throughout Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana. Seehttps://www.cincinnatibell.com/about-us/history (last visited February 22, 2018).10.Upon information and belief, Defendants’ business enterprise has an annual grossvolume of sales made or business done in excess of 500,000.00.11.Defendants jointly employ individuals engaged in commerce or in the handling,selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that have been moved in or produced incommerce by any person.12.Defendants are enterprises covered by the FLSA.13.During relevant times, Defendants have employed numerous workers in theConsumer Sales Department to provide Defendants’ services, including Plaintiff and similarlysituated individuals. All of these individuals make up the putative FLSA Class and Ohio ActsClass.1 While exact job titles may differ, Plaintiff and the putative Class Members weresubjected to the same or similar illegal pay practices for similar work performed.14.Plaintiff and the putative Class Members’ duties did not (and currently do not)include managerial responsibilities or the exercise of independent discretion or judgment.15.The work performed by Plaintiff and the putative Class Members did not (andcurrently do not) require any special skill, extensive training, or expert knowledge.1The terms “putative Class Members” includes potential members of both the FLSA Class (defined at ¶38) and theOhio Acts Class (defined at ¶47).3
Case: 1:18-cv-00138-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/23/18 Page: 4 of 14 PAGEID #: 416.Plaintiff and the putative Class Members did not (and currently do not) have theauthority to hire or fire other employees, and they were not (and currently are not) responsiblefor making hiring or firing recommendations, nor have Plaintiff and the putative Class Memberssupervised two or more employees.17.Plaintiff and the putative Class Members’ duties did not (and currently do not)concern work directly related to the management or general business operations of Defendants ortheir customers.18.Plaintiff and the putative Class Members were not employed by a “retail orservice establishment” as defined under Section 7(i) of the FLSA, as 75% of Defendants’ annualvolume of sales of goods or services is not for resale.19.Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an Outbound Sales Representative(“OSR”) out of Defendants’ Consumer Sales Department from approximately December 2015 toapproximately May 2016.20.While working for Defendants, Plaintiff and putative Class Members regularlyworked in excess of (40) hours per workweek, often times up to forty-five (45) hours perworkweek, sometimes more.21.While working for Defendants, Plaintiff and putative Class Members wereresponsible for engaging current and prospective customers in order to sell residential service forhome phone, long distance, internet, wireless, and video products through outbound dialing and,to some extent, social media.22.Plaintiff, along with all other putative Class Members, fulfilled these duties inDefendants’ office located at the Atrium II building in downtown Cincinnati.4
Case: 1:18-cv-00138-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/23/18 Page: 5 of 14 PAGEID #: 523.Upon information and belief, Defendants used a Time Card system to track theConsumer Sales Department employees’ daily hours worked at the Atrium II building, includingPlaintiff’s and putative Class Members’ hours.24.Defendants compensated OSRs, including Plaintiff and putative Class Members,in the form of a fixed weekly amount plus monthly commissions. For example, as an OSR,Plaintiff’s compensation consisted of a fixed weekly amount of 519.20 per week, plus monthlycommissions.25.Defendants paid commissions to OSRs, including Plaintiff and putative ClassMembers, at the end of the month following the month in which the commissions were earned,e.g., commissions earned in January 2016 were paid by Defendants in the final pay period ofFebruary 2016.26.Plaintiffs and putative Class Members did not and currently do not perform workthat exempts them from the overtime requirements of the FLSA and Ohio Wage Act.27.Under the FLSA, commission payments should have been included in Plaintiffand the putative Class Members’ regular rates of pay before any and all overtime multiplierswere applied. 29 C.F.R. § 778.120.28.However, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other putative Class Members thefull and proper overtime compensation for hours worked over forty (40) in a workweek becauseDefendants failed to include monthly commission payments in the regular rate calculation forpurposes of overtime.29.Defendants did not supplement the overtime payments to Plaintiff or putativeClass Members with additional compensation to account for the increase in their regular rates ofpay attributable to their monthly commission payments, as required under the FLSA. See 29C.F.R. § 778.120(a).5
Case: 1:18-cv-00138-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/23/18 Page: 6 of 14 PAGEID #: 630.As a result of failing to include commission payments in the regular rate,Defendants denied Plaintiff and the putative Class Members full and proper overtime pay as aresult of a widely applicable, illegal pay practice. Plaintiff and the putative Class Membersregularly worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week but did not receive the correct overtimecompensation.31.In failing to pay Plaintiff and putative Class Members the required overtimecompensation for any overtime hours worked, Defendants have acted willfully and with recklessdisregard of clearly applicable FLSA provisions.Facts relating to Plaintiff Johnson32.At the time of Plaintiff’s termination in May 2016, Plaintiff was expecting toreceive a final commission check in the amount of approximately 5,063.50.33.Around approximately September 2016, Plaintiff was informed by Defendants’Human Resources Department that there would be no further earnings due to Plaintiff becausethe amount of deactivations surpassed his expected commission amount.34.Plaintiff subsequently contacted Defendants’ Human Resources department andrequested documentation to verify the deactivations described above, but Plaintiff was ultimatelyunable to obtain the documents from Defendants.35.Additionally, on October 4, 2016, Plaintiff submitted a records request toDefendants pursuant to the Ohio Constitution, Article II Section 34a and related Ohio RevisedCode Provisions, requesting information relating to Plaintiff’s occupations, pay rates andcompensation, hours and location of work, and a copy of all itemized monthly sales documentsfrom which Plaintiff’s commissions were calculated.36.Defendants responded to the records request on October 18, 2016; however, asidefrom time sheets and gross earnings reports, Defendants failed to produce any documents or6
Case: 1:18-cv-00138-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/23/18 Page: 7 of 14 PAGEID #: 7information relating to Plaintiff’s commissions, and as of the date of this Complaint, Plaintiff hasnot received any payment for his final commission check.COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS37.All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.38.Plaintiff brings his FLSA claims pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b) as arepresentative action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals of the opt-inclass, consisting of:All individuals employed by Defendants as Outbound Sales Representativesor other similar job positions who worked at least forty (40) hours per weekduring any time within the past three years (the “FLSA Class” or the “FLSAClass Members”).39.Plaintiff’s FLSA claim should proceed as a collective action because Plaintiff andthe putative FLSA Class Members, having worked pursuant to the common policies describedherein, are “similarly situated” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and the associateddecisional law.40.Defendants’ failure to pay full and proper overtime compensation results fromgenerally applicable policies and practices, and does not depend on the personal circumstances ofthe individual FLSA Class Members.41.Thus, Plaintiff’s experiences are typical of the experiences of the putative FLSAClass Members, and the specific job titles or precise job requirements of the various putativeFLSA Class Members do not prevent collective treatment.42.Absent a collective action, many members of the proposed FLSA Class likely willnot obtain redress of their injuries and Defendants will retain the proceeds of its rampantviolations.7
Case: 1:18-cv-00138-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/23/18 Page: 8 of 14 PAGEID #: 843.Moreover, individual litigation would be unduly burdensome to the judicialsystem. Concentrating the litigation in one forum will promote judicial economy and parityamong the claims of the individual members of the classes and provide for judicial consistency.44.The precise size and identity of the proposed FLSA Class should be ascertainablefrom the business records, tax records, and/or employee or personnel records of Defendants.45.Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Proposed FLSA Class of similarly situated plaintiffsshould be certified as defined above as in Paragraph 38.CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS46.All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.47.Plaintiff brings his Ohio Acts claims as class actions pursuant to Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 23 on behalf of all individuals employed by Defendants as Outbound SalesRepresentatives or other similar job positions who worked at least forty (40) hours perweek during any time within the past three (3) years. (“Ohio Acts Class” or “Ohio ActsClass Members”).48.Class action treatment of Plaintiff’s Ohio Acts claims is appropriate because, asalleged below, all of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23’s class action requisites are satisfied.49.The Ohio Acts Class, upon information and belief, includes over 100 individuals,all of whom are readily ascertainable based on Defendants’ standard payroll records and are sonumerous that joinder of all class members is impracticable.50.Plaintiff is a member of the Ohio Acts Class, his claims are typical of the claimsof other class members, and he has no interests that are antagonistic to or in conflict with theinterests of other class members.51.Plaintiff and his counsel will fairly and adequately represent the class membersand their interests.8
Case: 1:18-cv-00138-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/23/18 Page: 9 of 14 PAGEID #: 952.Questions of law and fact are common to all class members, because, inter alia,this action concerns Defendants’ companywide pay policies. The legality of these policies willbe determined through the resolution of generally applicable legal principles to a common set offacts.53.Class certification is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)because common questions of law and fact predominate over questions affecting only individualclass members and because a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair andefficient adjudication of this litigation.CAUSES OF ACTIONCOUNT I(FLSA Collective Action - Unpaid Overtime)54.All previous paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.55.At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendants have been employers within themeaning of Section 3(d) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).56.At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendants have been enterprises within themeaning of Section 3(r) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(r).57.At all times hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiff and the FLSA Class Members are (orwere) individual employees who were engaged in commerce or in the production of goods forcommerce as required by 29 U.S.C. §§ 206-207.58.The FLSA requires that employees receive “time and one-half” overtime premiumcompensation for hours worked over 40 per week.59.During all relevant times, Plaintiff and the FLSA Class Members were not exemptfrom receiving FLSA overtime benefits.9
Case: 1:18-cv-00138-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/23/18 Page: 10 of 14 PAGEID #: 1060.Plaintiff and the FLSA Class Members worked more than forty (40) hours inworkweeks during times relevant to this case, however, Defendants violated the FLSA by failingto pay Plaintiff and FLSA Class Members the full and proper overtime compensation for hoursworked over forty (40) in a workweek.61.In violating the FLSA, Defendants acted willfully, without a good faith basis andwith reckless disregard of clearly applicable federal law.62.Accordingly, Plaintiff and the putative FLSA Class Members are entitled toovertime wages for all hours worked pursuant to the FLSA in an amount equal to one-and-a-halftimes their regular rate of pay, plus liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees and costs.COUNT II(Ohio Acts Class – Unpaid Overtime)63.All previous paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.64.Ohio Law requires that employees receive overtime compensation “not less thanone and one-half times” (1.5) the employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours worked over forty(40) in one workweek, “in the manner and methods provided in and subject to the exemptions ofsection 7 and section 13 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1937.” See O.R.C. § 4111.03(A); seealso 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).65.Plaintiff and the Ohio Acts Class Members were or have been employed byDefendants within the past three (3) years, and have been covered employees entitled to theprotections of the Ohio Acts.66.Defendants are employers covered by the requirements set forth in the Ohio Acts.67.Plaintiff and Ohio Acts Class Members have not been exempt from receivingovertime benefits under the Ohio Acts.10
Case: 1:18-cv-00138-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/23/18 Page: 11 of 14 PAGEID #: 1168.Plaintiff and the Ohio Acts Class Members worked more than forty (40) hours inworkweeks during times relevant to this case, however, Defendants violated the Ohio Acts byfailing to pay Plaintiff and other Ohio Acts Class Members the full and proper overtimecompensation for hours worked over forty (40) in a workweek.69.Plaintiff and the Ohio Act Class Members are entitled to unpaid overtime andother compensation, liquidated damages, interest and attorneys’ fees, and all other remediesavailable as compensation for Defendants’ violations of R.C. §4111.03, by which the Plaintiffand Ohio Act Class Members have suffered and continue to suffer damages.COUNT III(Ohio Acts Class - Violations of the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, R.C. 4113.15)70.All previous paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.71.During all relevant times, Defendants have been entities covered by the OPPAand Plaintiff and Ohio Acts Class Members have been jointly employed by Defendants withinthe meaning of the OPPA.72.The OPPA requires that the Defendants pay Plaintiff and the Ohio Acts ClassMembers all wages, including unpaid overtime, on or before the first day of each month, forwages earned by them during the first half of the preceding month ending with the fifteenthday thereof, and on or before the fifteenth day of each month, for wages earned by them duringthe last half of the preceding calendar month. R.C. § 4113.15(A).73.During all relevant times to this action, Plaintiff and the Ohio Acts ClassMembers were not paid all wages, including overtime wages at one and one-half times theirregular rates within thirty (30) days of performing the work.74.The wages of Plaintiff and the Ohio Acts Class Members remain unpaid for morethan thirty (30) days beyond their regularly scheduled payday.11
Case: 1:18-cv-00138-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/23/18 Page: 12 of 14 PAGEID #: 1275.In violating the OPPAs, Defendants acted willfully, without a good faith basisand with reckless disregard of clearly applicable Ohio law.COUNT IV(Recordkeeping Violations of the Ohio Wage Law)76.All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged as if fully rewritten herein.77.The Ohio Wage Law requires employers to maintain and preserve payroll orother records containing, among other things, the hours worked each workday and the totalhours worked each workweek. See O.R.C. § 4111.08. See also, 29 C.F.R. §§ 516.2 et seq.78.During times relevant to this action, Defendants have been covered employers,required to comply with the Ohio Wage Law’s mandates.79.During times relevant to this action Plaintiff and the Ohio Acts Class Membershave been covered employees entitled to the protection of the Ohio Wage Law.80.During times relevant to this action, Defendants have violated the Ohio WageAct with respect to Plaintiff and the Ohio Acts Class Members by failing to properly maintainaccurate records of all hours Plaintiff and the Ohio Acts Class Members worked each workdayand within each workweek.81.In violating the Ohio Wage Act, Defendants have acted willfully and withreckless disregard of clearly applicable Ohio Wage Act provisions.PRAYER FOR RELIEFWHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for declaratory relief and damages as follows:A. Certifying the proposed FLSA collective action;B. Directing prompt issuance of notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) to the FLSA Classapprising them of the pendency of this action, and permitting them to timely assert theirrights under the FLSA and pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b);12
Case: 1:18-cv-00138-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/23/18 Page: 13 of 14 PAGEID #: 13C. Certifying the proposed Ohio Class under Ohio Law;D. Leave to add additional plaintiffs by motion, the filing of written consent forms, or anyother method approved by the Court;E. Awarding to the Plaintiff and the FLSA Class Members unpaid compensation, includingovertime wages as to be determined at trial together with any liquidated damages allowedby the FLSA;F. Awarding to the Plaintiff and the Ohio Class Members unpaid compensation, includingovertime wages as to be determined at trial together with any liquidated damages allowedby Ohio Law;G. Granting Plaintiff leave to amend to file additional claims for relief or differentcauses of action should information become available through investigation anddiscovery;H. Awarding Plaintiff, the FLSA Class Members and the Ohio Class Memberssuch other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper;I. Issuing an injunction prohibiting Defendants from engaging in present, ongoing andfuture violations of the FLSA and Ohio Law;J. Litigation costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees; andK. Rendering a judgment against Defendants for all damage, relief, or any other recoverywhatsoever.DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURYPursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff demandstrial by jury on all questions of fact raised by the Complaint.13
Case: 1:18-cv-00138-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/23/18 Page: 14 of 14 PAGEID #: 14Dated: February 23, 2018Respectfully submitted,BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMANGOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP/s/ Robert E. DeRoseRobert E. DeRose (OH Bar No. 0055214)Molly K. Tefend (OH Bar No. 0093574)250 E. Broad Street, 10th FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215T: (614) 221-4221F: (614) izlish.com-andMANGANO LAW OFFICES CO., L.P.A./s/ Ryan K. HymoreRyan K. Hymore (OH Bar No. 0080750)3805 Edwards Road, Suite 550Cincinnati, Ohio 45209T: (513) 255-5888F: (216) 397-5845rkhymore@bmanganolaw.comCo-Counsel for Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class14
Case: 1:18-cv-00138-SJD Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 02/23/18 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 15Exhibit A
DocuSign Envelope ID: A319589A-2CB9-49F3-ADCC-F9FA0721ECB6Case: 1:18-cv-00138-SJD Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 02/23/18 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 16CONSENT TO JOIN AND PARTICIPATE AS PARTY PLAINTIFFI was employed by Cincinnati Bell Inc., and I hereby consent to sue DefendantCincinnati Bell Inc. for potential unpaidand costs under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. and anystate law requiring me to opt in to the suit. I understand this lawsuit is being brought underthe FLSA and applicable state laws. I agree to be bound by any judgment of the Court. Ifurther agree to be bound by a collective and class action settlement herein negotiated byme and my attorneys and approved by the Court as fair and reasonable. I hereby designateBarkan Meizlish Handelman Goodin DeRose Wentz, LLP and Mangano Law Offices Co., LPAto represent me in this action.Date:SIGNATURENAME (Please Print Clearly)
JS 44 (Rev. 06/17)Case: 1:18-cv-00138-SJD Doc #: 1-2 Filed: 02/23/18 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 17CIVIL COVER SHEETThe JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except asprovided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for thepurpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)I. (a) PLAINTIFFSDEFENDANTSMICHAEL JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and all similarly situatedindividuals,(b) County of Residence of First Listed PlaintiffCINCINNATI BELL, INC. AND CINCINNATI BELL TELEPHONECOMPANY, LLCHamilton County, OhioCounty of Residence of First Listed Defendant(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)NOTE:(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OFTHE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.Attorneys (If Known)Robert E. DeRose, 250 E. Broad St, 10th Fl, Columbus, OH 43215T: (614) 221-4221Ryan K. Hymore, 3805 Edwards Rd, Ste 550, Cincinnati, OH 45209II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only)’ 1U.S. GovernmentPlaintiff’ 3Federal Question(U.S. Government Not a Party)’ 2U.S. GovernmentDefendant’ 4Diversity(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff(For Diversity Cases Only)PTFCitizen of This State’ 1’’’’’’ 2’2Incorporated and Principal Placeof Business In Another State’ 5’ 5Citizen or Subject of aForeign Country’ 3’3Foreign Nation’ 6’ ��’’’’’’Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.TORTS110 Insurance120 Marine130 Miller Act140 Negotiable Instrument150 Recovery of Overpayment& Enforcement of Judgment151 Medicare Act152 Recovery of DefaultedStudent Loans(Excludes Veterans)153 Recovery of Overpaymentof Veteran’s Benefits160 Stockholders’ Suits190 Other Contract195 Contract Product Liability196 FranchiseREAL PROPERTY210 Land Condemnation220 Foreclosure230 Rent Lease & Ejectment240 Torts to Land245 Tort Product Liability290 All Other Real Property’’’’’’’PERSONAL INJURY310 Airplane315 Airplane ProductLiability320 Assault, Libel &Slander330 Federal Employers’Liability340 Marine345 Marine ProductLiability350 Motor Vehicle355 Motor VehicleProduct Liability360 Other PersonalInjury362 Personal Injury Medical MalpracticeCIVIL RIGHTS440 Other Civil Rights441 Voting442 Employment443 Housing/Accommodations445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other448 Educationand One Box for Defendant)PTFDEFIncorporated or Principal Place’ 4’ 4of Business In This StateCitizen of Another StateIV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)CONTRACTDEF’ 1FORFEITURE/PENALTYPERSONAL INJURY’ 365 Personal Injury Product Liability’ 367 Health Care/PharmaceuticalPersonal InjuryProduct Liability’ 368 Asbestos PersonalInjury ProductLiabilityPERSONAL PROPERTY’ 370 Other Fraud’ 371 Truth in Lending’ 380 Other PersonalProperty Damage’ 385 Property DamageProduct LiabilityPRISONER PETITIONSHabeas Corpus:’ 463 Alien Detainee’ 510 Motions to VacateSentence’ 530 General’ 535 Death PenaltyOther:’ 540 Mandamus & Other’ 550 Civil Rights’ 555 Prison Condition’ 560 Civil Detainee Conditions ofConfinement’ 625 Drug Related Seizureof Property 21 USC 881’ 690 OtherLABOR’ 710 Fair Labor StandardsAct’ 720 Labor/ManagementRelations’ 740 Railway Labor Act’ 751 Family and MedicalLeave Act’ 790 Other Labor Litigation’ 791 Employee RetirementIncome Security ActBANKRUPTCY’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158’ 423 Withdrawal28 USC 157PROPERTY RIGHTS’ 820 Copyrights’ 830 Patent’ 835 Patent - AbbreviatedNew Drug Application’ 840 TrademarkSOCIAL SECURITY’ 861 HIA (1395ff)’ 862 Black Lung (923)’ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))’ 864 SSID Title XVI’ 865 RSI (405(g))FEDERAL TAX SUITS’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiffor Defendant)’ 871 IRS—Third Party26 USC 7609IMMIGRATION’ 462 Naturalization Application’ 465 Other ImmigrationActionsOTHER STATUTES’ 375 False Claims Act’ 376 Qui Tam (31 USC3729(a))’ 400 State Reapportionment’ 410 Antitrust’ 430 Banks and Banking’ 450 Commerce’ 460 Deportation’ 470 Racketeer Influenced andCorrupt Organizations’ 480 Consumer Credit’ 490 Cable/Sat TV’ 850 Securities/Commodities/Exchange’ 890 Other Statutory Actions’ 891 Agricultural Acts’ 893 Environmental Matters’ 895 Freedom of InformationAct’ 896 Arbitration’ 899 Administrative ProcedureAct/Review or Appeal ofAgency Decision’ 950 Constitutionality ofState StatutesV. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)’ 1 OriginalProceeding’ 2 Removed fromState Court’ 3’ 6 MultidistrictLitigation Transfer(specify)Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):Remanded fromAppellate Court’ 4 Reinstated orReopened’ 5 Transferred fromAnother District’ 8 MultidistrictLitigation Direct File29 U.S.C. Section 216(b)VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:unpaid overtime wages under federal and state law with class and collective action allegations’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTIONVII. REQUESTED INUNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.COMPLAINT:VIII. RELATED CASE(S)(See instructions):IF ANYJUDGEDATECHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:’ Yes’ NoJURY DEMAND:DEMAND DOCKET NUMBERSIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD/s/Ryan K. Hymore02/23/2018FOR OFFICE USE ONLYRECEIPT #AMOUNTPrintAPPLYING IFPSave As.JUDGEMAG. JUDGEReset
Case: 1:18-cv-00138-SJD Doc #: 1-2 Filed: 02/23/18 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 18JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 06/17)INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44Authority For Civil Cover SheetThe JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers asrequired by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, isrequired for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk ofCourt for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:I.(a)(b)(c)Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, useonly the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify f
7. Defendant Cincinnati Bell Inc. is a corporation registered to do business in the State of Ohio, and can be served by and through its Registered Agent, Corporation Service Company, at 50 West Broad Street, Suite 1330, Columbus OH 43215. 8. Defendant Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company, LLC is a domestic limited
