Fair Labor Standards Act Amended Complaint

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

SAMPLE,

Plaintiff,                                     Case No.:

v.

SAMPLE DEFENDANT

Defendant.

————————————-/

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

 

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, SAMPLE, (hereinafter also referred to as “Plaintiff”), by and through her undersigned counsel and sues the Defendant, SAMPLE DEFENDANT, (hereinafter also referred to as “Defendant”), and states as follows:

INTRODUCTION

            1.             This is an action in excess of $15,000 (exclusive of fees an interest) by Plaintiff against his former employer for violation of the minimum wage and overtime provision pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), Florida’s Minimum Wage laws, and unjust enrichment pursuant to Florida common law. Plaintiff seeks damages and a reasonable attorney’s fee.

JURISDICTION

            2.             This action arises in part under 29 U.S.C. § 201, et. seq.  of the FLSA. The Court has jurisdiction over the FLSA claims pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

  1.             This action also arises pursuant to Fla. Const Art X Sec 24, Florida’s State Minimum Wage law (“FMW”) and Florida Common Law.  Plaintiff requests supplemental jurisdiction be extended over these related claims.

  2.             Defendant was an employer of Plaintiff as defined by the FLSA and FMW.

  3.             Plaintiff has satisfied all conditions precedent to filing this action or the same have been waived.

  4.             Beginning on or about September 2007, the Plaintiff agreed to work at the Sample Business in Florida (“the park”).

  5.             It was specifically agreed and understood that the Plaintiff would work 40 hours per week, plus overtime.  Defendant accepted the benefits of Plaintiff’s labor and suffered or permitted him to work for at least the past 3 years.

  6.             As compensation for said services, Plaintiff only received free rent with a value of approximately $200.00 on a monthly basis. As such, at all times material, Plaintiff was being paid less than the Federal and Florida Minimum Wages.

  7.             Plaintiff also worked overtime, for which he was not compensated.

  8.             Plaintiff has expended monies for expenses related to his employment for which he has not been repaid.

  9.             The Defendant employed the Plaintiff at the park.

  10.             Plaintiff has retained the undersigned and has agreed to pay him a reasonable fee for said services.

ENTERPRISE COVERAGE

  1.             Defendant, upon the information and belief of Plaintiff, is covered by the FLSA’s Enterprise Coverage.   Defendant is believed to have made more than $500,000 in the 3 years preceding the filing of this lawsuit evidenced, in part, via his ownership of the following:  1) the park at issue in this case (with no mortgage), 2) a home in Hawaii worth 1.7 million, 3) 14 homes in Jacksonville, and 4) a ranch in Augusta Georgia.  Moreover, Defendant is believed to have significant rental income from the aforementioned and/or other property.

  2.             The Defendant’s RV park rented spaces to interstate travelers from throughout the U.S. and even Canada and rents to them on various time intervals.   Approximately 90% of all the people renting RV spaces were from out of state as where their RV’s. The people in the mobile home section are about 60% out of state customers.  Plaintiff is aware of the following patrons of the park from at least the following locations: Ohio, North Carolina, New York State, Ontario, Texas, Georgia, New Jersey, Arizona, Montana, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Mississippi and Washington DC.

INDIVIDUAL COVERAGE

 

  1.             In the alternative, even if Defendant’s income did not reach the $500,000.00 mark in any of the years,[1] the Plaintiff has Individual Coverage via his job duties and their relationship with interstate commerce (as described in the preceding paragraph).

  2.             Plaintiff’s job duties included but are not limited to the following work related to the RV park’s interstate commerce by: 1) servicing rental units for the rental property often occupied by interstate travelers, 2) picking up supplies for the office, 3) making repairs to park owned mobile and RV units often occupied by interstate travelers, 4) collecting trash from interstate travelers RV and rental units staying at the park twice a week, 5) installing electrical hookups/power stations for RV spaces occupied by interstate travelers, 6) servicing water systems used by interstate travelers while staying in the park, 7) setting up the RV’s utilized by the interstate travelers and disconnecting them when they depart, 8)  facilitating the exit of RV interstate park users and preparing the lots for new travelers, and 9) collecting rents from interstate visitors to the park, 10)  contacting seasonal and return customers to schedule their visits, 11) and handing phone calls from out of state persons making reservations for the park and sometimes arranging for their payment of a deposit.

  3.             When the RV’s would come in to the park from interstate travel, Plaintiff would  hook them up to the lots, set them up and turn on their power, drain the sewer tanks and tie them in to the septic system, hook up the water, and make sure that everything was in working order.   Thereafter, Plaintiff took calls from those interstate travelers for repairs and twice a week haul away the trash to the county landfill (about 16 yards of waste for the entire park).  Finally, when these travelers departed, Plaintiff unhooked them and returned the space for stand by for the next traveler.

  4.             Plaintiff also made repairs to rental units housing interstate travelers and visitors when they departed.  There were approximately 18 units in the park.

20.            The average interstate traveler to the park stayed less than 6 months.

Count I – Florida Minimum Wage,  Fla. Const Art X Sec 24

            21.             Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-20 above.

  1.             Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff the Florida Minimum Wage for all hours worked in violation of Fla. Const Art X Sec 24.

  2.             Plaintiff was damaged by Defendant’s failure to pay him the Florida Minimum Wages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands a judgment against Defendant for the following:

(a)             Wages found to be due and owing;

(b)             An additional equal amount equal to the unpaid minimum wages found to be due and owing as liquidated damages;

(c)             Prejudgment interest in the event liquidated damages are not awarded;

(d)             A reasonable attorney’s fee and costs; and,

(e)             Such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

Count II – FLSA Overtime

            24.             Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-20 above.

  1.             Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff overtime due pursuant to the FLSA as described in part in Sec 7(a)(1) of the FLSA.

  2.             Plaintiff was damaged by Defendant’s failure to pay him overtime.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands a judgment against Defendant for the following:

(a)             Wages found to be due and owing;

(b)             An additional equal amount equal to the unpaid minimum wages found to be due and owing as liquidated damages;

(c)             Prejudgment interest in the event liquidated damages are not awarded;

(d)             A reasonable attorney’s fee and costs; and,

(e)             Such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

Count III – FLSA Minimum Wage

            27.             Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-20 above.

  1.             Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff the minimum wages due pursuant to the FLSA as described in part in Sec 6(a) of the FLSA.

  2.             Plaintiff was damaged by Defendant’s failure to pay him the Federal minimum wage.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands a judgment against Defendant for the following:

(a)             Wages found to be due and owing;

(b)             An additional equal amount equal to the unpaid minimum wages found to be due and owing as liquidated damages;

(c)             Prejudgment interest in the event liquidated damages are not awarded;

(d)             A reasonable attorney’s fee and costs; and,

(e)             Such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

Count IV – Unjust Enrichment

            30.             Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-20 above.

  1.             Defendant failed to reimburse Plaintiff for expenses he incurred while working for Defendant and for advanced rent and security deposit.

  2.             Plaintiff was damaged by Defendant’s failure to reimburse him for his expenses.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands a judgment against Defendant for the following:

(a)             Damages found to be due and owing;

(b)             Prejudgment interest in the event liquidated damages are not awarded; and,

(c)             Such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

Count V – Breach of Oral Contract

            33.             Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-20 above.

  1.             Defendant agreed to reimburse Plaintiff for expenses he incurred while working for Defendant, but has failed to do so.  He also failed to reimburse Plaintiff for advanced rent and security deposit funds.

  2.             Plaintiff was damaged by Defendant’s failure to reimburse him for his expenses.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands a judgment against Defendant for the following:

(a)             Damages found to be due and owing;

(b)             Prejudgment interest in the event liquidated damages are not awarded; and,

(c)             Such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

 

PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A JURY TRIAL ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE.

 

Dated:  July 11, 2012

 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/  Michael Massey

___________________                                                              Michael Massey

Florida Bar No. 153680

Massey & Duffy

855 E. Univ. Ave.

Gainesville, FL 32601

(352) 374-0878

 



[1] Plaintiff’s counsel has requested Defendant’s tax returns and has offered to execute a confidentiality statement to review the same.  These have not yet been produced.