Case 1:21-cv-03033-NYW-KLM Document 31 Filed 02/14/22 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 14
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-03033-WJM-KLM
`
`JAMES BOWLING, individually and on behalf of all
`others similarly situated.
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`DaVita, INC.
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`FLSA COLLECTIVE ACTION
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`INTRODUCTION AND NATURE OF ACTION
`
`I.
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff James Bowling (“Bowling” or “Plaintiff”) brings this suit as a
`
`collective action under the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 201-219, and the Portal-to-Portal Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 251-262 (collectively, the “FLSA”)
`
`, on his individual behalf and on behalf of the members of the proposed FLSA collective
`
`action defined below. Plaintiff and class members worked as hourly paid nurses and
`
`technicians at DaVita, Inc. (“DaVita” or “Defendant”), a nationwide healthcare provider
`
`who is headquartered in Denver, Colorado. Plaintiff and class members did not receive
`
`bona fide meal break periods. Instead, they were required and permitted to work through
`
`or subject to interruption for Defendant during their meal break periods and were not paid
`
`for such time.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`An employer is not required to pay an employee for meal periods if the
`
`employer can satisfy its burden of showing that the employee received a bona fide meal
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-03033-NYW-KLM Document 31 Filed 02/14/22 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 14
`
`period. However, Defendant required nurses and technicians at DaVita to remain
`
`responsible for patient care throughout their shifts, including during meal periods. Nurses
`
`and technicians frequently went without meals, and even when they did attempt to eat,
`
`their meal periods were regularly interrupted by work demands. In short, Defendant used
`
`the nurses’ and technicians’ meal periods for the predominant benefit of DaVita.
`
`Notwithstanding Defendant’s practice of requiring nurses and technicians to be available
`
`for work and to in fact work throughout their meal periods, Defendant deducted thirty (30)
`
`minutes from the total time worked by nurses and technicians each shift so as to account
`
`for these hypothetical meal periods, thereby enabling Defendant to receive the benefit of
`
`an additional thirty minutes of unpaid work for each shift worked by class members.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Defendant’s practice of failing to relieve nurses and technicians of their
`
`duties during meal periods, while simultaneously deducting thirty minutes from the total
`
`time paid per shift (on the pretext of accounting for meal periods which nurses and
`
`technicians were not in fact free to take without constant interruption), had the effect of
`
`depriving nurses and technicians of overtime compensation due to them under the FLSA
`
`in the weeks in which they worked more than forty (40) hours in a week. On information
`
`and belief, all of DaVitas’ non-exempt, hourly paid direct patient care nurses and
`
`technicians were subjected to this illegal pay practice.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff brings this suit under the collective action provisions of the FLSA
`
`because he and the putative collective action members are similarly situated under the
`
`FLSA in the following particulars: (a) they are or were hourly-paid direct patient care
`
`nurses and technicians subject to Defendant’s company-wide policy of pay deductions
`
`for meal periods; (b) they are and were required and permitted to be available to perform
`
`uncompensated work during those meal periods, and in fact did perform uncompensated
`2
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-03033-NYW-KLM Document 31 Filed 02/14/22 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 14
`
`work during those periods; (c) the meal periods are and were predominantly for the benefit
`
`of Defendant; and (d) Plaintiff and class members suffered overtime wage losses as a
`
`result of Defendant’s failure to pay wages at the federally required overtime rate for these
`
`thirty minutes meal periods in the weeks in which the nurses and technicians worked
`
`more than forty hours in a week.
`
`5.
`
`Accordingly, Plaintiff is similarly situated to the following classes of
`
`employees:
`
`FLSA Collective Action:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`All current and former hourly paid nurses and technicians employed at all
`DaVita locations to provide direct patient care at any time during the three
`years before this Complaint was filed up to the present who, as a result of
`Defendant’s practice of deducting 30 minutes from each shift worked and
`not paying for same, did not receive all of the overtime pay to which they
`were entitled under the FLSA in the weeks of their employment in which said
`nurses and technicians worked more than forty (40) hours per week.
`
`II.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`6.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over the FLSA claims under 29 U S.C. § 216 et
`
`seq. and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
`
`
`
`7.
`
`Venue is proper in the District of Colorado pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)
`
`& (c)(2) because Defendant operates its headquarters in the District of Colorado, and
`
`because the events giving rise to these claims occurred in this judicial district.
`
`III.
`
`PARTIES
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiff James Bowling and Collective Action Members
`
`
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff James Bowling is an individual residing in Galveston County,
`
`Texas. Plaintiff has standing to file this lawsuit.
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-03033-NYW-KLM Document 31 Filed 02/14/22 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 14
`
`
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff worked for Defendant from on or about August 2016 through on or
`
`about May 2021. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant and paid on an hourly-rate
`
`basis. Plaintiff's written consent to become a party plaintiff to this action was attached to
`
`his Original Complaint as Exhibit 1. (See ECF No. 1-1).
`
`
`
`10. Collective Action Members are all of Defendant’s current and former hourly-
`
`paid, direct patient care nurses and technicians who work or worked at all DaVita locations
`
`three years prior to the filing of Plaintiff’s Original Complaint (ECF No. 1) to the present,
`
`and who are due unpaid overtime wages for compensable work performed during unpaid
`
`“meal breaks” as a result of Defendant deducting thirty minutes of time from each shift
`
`worked by class members.
`
`B.
`
`Defendant DaVita, Inc.
`
`
`
`11. Defendant DaVita Spohn Health System Corporation
`
`is a foreign
`
`corporation organized under the laws of the state of Delaware.
`
`
`
`
`
`12. Defendant has been served and has made an appearance.
`
`IV.
`
`FLSA COVERAGE
`
`13. At all material times, Defendant has been an employer within the meaning
`
`of Section 203(d) of the FLSA because the medical facility employed personnel such as
`
`Plaintiff and Collective Action Members to operate DaVita. Plaintiff and Collective Action
`
`Members worked exclusively for and under the sole direction and control of Defendant
`
`and for Defendant’s financial gain. Plaintiff and Collective Action Members are nurses
`
`and technicians whose services are integral to the medical care business which
`
`Defendant operates. Plaintiff and Collective Action Members are economically dependent
`
`on Defendant’s business: Defendant cannot operate DaVita without nurses and
`
`technicians; and without a medical facility like DaVita, Plaintiff and Class Members do not
`4
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-03033-NYW-KLM Document 31 Filed 02/14/22 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 14
`
`have access to medical equipment, facilities and patients to earn a living as nurses and
`
`technicians. Furthermore, Plaintiff and Collective Action Members are classified as W-2
`
`employees of Defendant.
`
`
`
`14. At all material times, Defendant has been a “single enterprise” within the
`
`meaning of Section 203(r) of the FLSA because it acted through unified operation and
`
`common control to further its common purpose of operating DaVita.
`
`
`
`15. At all material times, Defendant has been an enterprise in commerce within
`
`the meaning of Section 203(s)(1)(A) of the FLSA (“Traditional Enterprise Coverage”)
`
`because:
`
`i)
`
`Defendant had and continues to have employees engaged in commerce or
`
`in the production of goods for commerce, or have had employees handling,
`
`selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that have been moved
`
`in or produced for commerce by any person. By way of example and not by
`
`limitation, as a part of their work, Plaintiff and/or Defendant’s employees (1)
`
`used computers and
`
`telecommunications equipment
`
`that were
`
`manufactured and shipped across state lines; (2) used medical supplies and
`
`equipment, including but not limited to, latex gloves, masks, medications,
`
`thermometers,
`
`stethoscopes, wheelchairs,
`
`ambulatory
`
`devices,
`
`incontinency and personal care products, gowns, linens, and cleaning
`
`products; and (3) utilized
`
`third-party medical services
`
`for various
`
`diagnostics testing and reports/recommendations and lab work test (e.g.,
`
`dialysis, blood work, basic metabolic panel, complete metabolic panel,
`
`urinalysis, C-Doff, etc.).
`
`5
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-03033-NYW-KLM Document 31 Filed 02/14/22 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 14
`
`ii)
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant had an annual gross business
`
`volume in excess of $500,000 per year.
`
`
`
`16. At all material times, Defendant has been an enterprise in commerce within
`
`the meaning of Section 203(s)(1)(B) of the FLSA (“Named Enterprise Coverage”)
`
`because:
`
`i)
`
`Defendant is engaged in the operation of an institution primarily engaged in
`
`the care of the sick and the aged. Specifically, “DaVita is a health care
`
`provider focused on transforming care delivery to improve quality of life for
`
`patients around the globe. The company is one of the largest providers of
`
`kidney care services in the U.S. and has been a leader in clinical quality
`
`and innovation for more than 20 years. As of June 30, 2021, DaVita served
`
`204,300 patients at 2,828 outpatient dialysis centers, at home, and in the
`
`hospital in the United States. The company also operated 331 outpatient
`
`dialysis centers in ten countries worldwide.”1 Because Defendant operates
`
`an institution primarily engaged in the care of the sick and elderly it is per
`
`se an “enterprise in commerce” pursuant to Section 203(s)(1)(B).
`
`
`
`17. At all material times, Plaintiff was an individual employee who engaged in
`
`commerce or in the production of goods for commerce as required by 29 U.S.C. §
`
`207(a)(2)(C) (“Individual Coverage”) because Plaintiff had direct and substantial
`
`involvement with interstate commerce in ways which were regular, recurring, and a
`
`substantial part of their work. By way of example and not by limitation, Plaintiff
`
`incorporates the examples listed above in paragraph 18(i) of this complaint.
`
`
`1 https://investors.davita.com/ (last visited on 11/10/2021).
`6
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-03033-NYW-KLM Document 31 Filed 02/14/22 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 14
`
`V.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`18.
`
`“DaVita is a health care provider focused on transforming care delivery to
`
`improve quality of life for patients around the globe. The company is one of the largest
`
`providers of kidney care services in the U.S. and has been a leader in clinical quality and
`
`innovation for more than 20 years. As of June 30, 2021, DaVita served 204,300 patients
`
`at 2,828 outpatient dialysis centers, at home, and in the hospital in the United States. The
`
`company also operated 331 outpatient dialysis centers in ten countries worldwide.”2 It
`
`employs specialized nursing and technician care to ensure the health and well-being of
`
`each of its patients. To provide continuous medical services to its patients, DaVita
`
`employs over 55,000 teammates in the United States.3 Based on information and belief,
`
`DaVita has employed thousands of nurses and technicians during the applicable FLSA
`
`three-year period.
`
`
`
`19. Plaintiff is a nurse who worked for DaVita from approximately August 2016
`
`to on or about May 2021. He was paid approximately $38.50 per hour by the time of his
`
`separation from employment with Defendant.
`
`
`
`20. Plaintiff and Collective Action members are regularly scheduled to work
`
`numerous six-hour shifts per week at DaVita. However, Plaintiff and the class members
`
`have the option to pick up additional shifts, and frequently do so. In Plaintiff’s case, he
`
`was regularly scheduled to work over 50 hours a week, and in some instances, worked
`
`close to 70 hours per week. Accordingly, Plaintiff and class members regularly worked
`
`more than 40 hours per week at DaVita.
`
`
`2 https://investors.davita.com/ (last visited on 11/10/2021).
`3 https://www.davita.com/about (last visited on 11/10/2021).
`7
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-03033-NYW-KLM Document 31 Filed 02/14/22 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 14
`
`
`
`21. Plaintiff alleges that as a result of a common policy equally applicable to
`
`him and to every member of the FLSA Collective Action , Defendant ailed to pay them at
`
`the time-and-one-half overtime rate required by federal law for work performed in those
`
`weeks in which they worked more than forty (40) hours in a week. Specifically, Plaintiff
`
`and the class members were not compensated at any rate whatsoever for thirty minutes
`
`of each of their six-hour shifts worked when Plaintiff and the Collective Action members
`
`had meal breaks that were routinely interrupted to perform job duties.
`
`Uncompensated work during meal breaks.
`
`
`
`22. DaVita generated its payroll documentation for Plaintiff and class members
`
`by using PeopleNet time management software. The hours to be paid were tracked by
`
`PeopleNet. Plaintiff and the Collective Action members clocked in/out for their required
`
`30-minute meal breaks from each six-hour shift worked, whether automatically through
`
`PeopleNet or manually by Defendant’s managers as a matter of policy and/or practice.
`
`Each pay period, the amount of time tracked by the software, after deduction of thirty
`
`minutes per six-hour shift, was uploaded for processing into the payroll processing
`
`software.
`
`
`
`23. All of DaVita’s hourly-paid direct patient care nurses and technicians are
`
`and were subject to Defendant’s policy to deducting thirty minutes per shift from the
`
`recorded time worked.
`
`
`
`24. Plaintiff anticipates that Defendant will argue that the thirty minute
`
`deductions from each shift worked were warranted so as to account for uninterrupted
`
`thirty minute lunch breaks during which no work was performed and for which no
`
`compensation is owed. In point of fact, however, Plaintiff and his nurse and technician
`
`colleagues routinely worked through their lunch breaks, and even when they did manage
`8
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-03033-NYW-KLM Document 31 Filed 02/14/22 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 14
`
`to spend a few minutes eating, that time was regularly interrupted by other nurses and
`
`technicians on duty, nurse managers, patients’ families, and other DaVita staff.
`
`
`
`25. Defendant is and was familiar with the demands of the health care industry
`
`in general and of providing medical services at DaVita in specific, and they deliberately
`
`chose to keep their labor costs down by staffing an insufficient number of personnel per
`
`shift. Rather than hiring and staffing a sufficient number of nurses and technicians per
`
`shift to allow the nurses and technicians to take full, uninterrupted meal breaks, Defendant
`
`required and permitted these overworked nurses and technicians to work during their
`
`meal breaks for the benefit of Defendant. Defendant knew and expected that Plaintiff and
`
`class members would work through their unpaid “meal breaks,” and this was in fact a daily
`
`occurrence at DaVita. Defendant’s supervisors and management routinely interrupted
`
`the meal breaks of Plaintiff and Collective Action members and made work demands upon
`
`them. Defendant’s supervisors and management were actively involved in scheduling the
`
`shifts worked by Plaintiff and the Collective Action members, and they had actual
`
`knowledge that their staffing and work policies were causing Plaintiff and class members
`
`to work through meal breaks to the predominant benefit of Defendant.
`
`
`
`26. Plaintiff and Collective Action members were expected to complete orders
`
`on assigned patients, to answer calls, to respond to medical emergencies, to advise other
`
`staff on patient care and status issues, to answer questions from DaVita staff or family
`
`members, and in general to respond immediately to work demands during “meal breaks.”
`
`
`
`27. Defendant knew and/or had reason to know that Plaintiff and Collective
`
`Action members performed work during their unpaid “meal breaks”. Indeed, Defendant
`
`required Plaintiff and Collective Action members to remain available to respond to work
`
`demands at any time during the shift, including during meal breaks. Moreover, Plaintiff
`9
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-03033-NYW-KLM Document 31 Filed 02/14/22 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 14
`
`and Collective Action members performed work for Defendant during the unpaid meal
`
`breaks in plain sight of Defendant’s management, quite often at Defendant’s
`
`management’s specific request.
`
`
`
`28. Despite Defendant’s actual knowledge that Plaintiff and Collective Action
`
`members worked during supposed “meal breaks,” Defendant willfully failed to
`
`compensate Plaintiff and Collective Action members for such work, electing instead to
`
`accept the benefits of Plaintiff and the Collective Action members’ work without
`
`compensating them for such work.
`
`
`
`29. Given that Defendant’s supervisors and managers knew from direct
`
`observation and from their general knowledge of DaVita’s operations that Plaintiff and
`
`Collective Action members (a) regularly worked through the deducted meal break time
`
`without compensation; and (b) regularly accumulated overtime hours even after deduction
`
`of the uncompensated thirty minute per shift, Defendant had both actual and constructive
`
`knowledge that Plaintiff and Collective Action members were not being compensated for
`
`meal periods worked at any rate whatsoever, much less at the agreed hourly rate or at
`
`the federally mandated time-and-one-half rate required for overtime.
`
`Calculation of damages.
`
`
`
`30. Evidence reflecting the number of uncompensated meal break hours
`
`worked by each class member, as well as their applicable regular and overtime rate, is in
`
`the possession of Defendant. Actual damages can be calculated easily once Defendant
`
`has produced complete payroll records for the class. The absence of a bona fide meal
`
`break makes all unpaid meal break time compensable, and all that remains is to establish
`
`the number of shifts worked by Collective Action members in the weeks in which they
`
`worked more than 40 hours. Each shift worked will entitle class members to half an hour
`10
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-03033-NYW-KLM Document 31 Filed 02/14/22 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 14
`
`of pay at their time-and-one-half rate, depending upon whether the week in question is
`
`one in which forty or more hours were worked. The information needed to calculate
`
`damages―specifically the dates of the shifts worked, the total number of hours worked
`
`per week, and the base hourly rate of pay for each worker―exists right now in
`
`Defendant’s timekeeping and payroll databases. The damage calculation itself will be a
`
`straightforward accounting process.
`
`
`
`COLLECTIVE ACTION CLAIM
`VI.
`VIOLATION OF 29 U.S.C. § 207 - OVERTIME
`
`31. Plaintiff incorporates all allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs.
`
`
`
`32. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Plaintiff seeks to prosecute his FLSA claims
`
`
`
`
`
`as a collective action on behalf of the members of the putative class.
`
`
`
`33.
`
`The action is filed on behalf of all of Defendant’s hourly-paid direct patient
`
`care nurses and technicians who worked at all DaVita locations during the three years
`
`preceding the filing of this action through entry of judgment in this case, whose overtime
`
`pay was docked pursuant to a meal break deduction policy notwithstanding the fact that
`
`the nurses and technicians performed compensable work during the supposed meal
`
`break periods (the “FLSA Class”).
`
`
`
`34.
`
`This FLSA Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
`
`impracticable. Although the precise number of such persons is currently unknown to
`
`Plaintiff, and although the data which would identify the size of the FLSA Class is within
`
`the sole control of Defendant, upon information and belief there are thousands of nurses
`
`and technicians encompassed by the class, most of whom would not be likely to file
`
`individual suits because they lack adequate financial resources, access to attorneys or
`
`knowledge of their claims.
`
`11
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-03033-NYW-KLM Document 31 Filed 02/14/22 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 14
`
`
`
`35. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the FLSA Class
`
`members and has retained counsel experienced and competent in the field of wage and
`
`hour law and class action litigation. Plaintiff has no interest that is contrary to or in conflict
`
`with the interests of the members of the FLSA Class.
`
`
`
`36. A collective action is superior to individual adjudication of the claims at issue
`
`in this controversy, since the claims are substantially similar and since joinder of all
`
`members is impracticable. Furthermore, inasmuch as the damages suffered by individual
`
`members of the class may be relatively small, the expense and burden of individual
`
`litigation make it virtually impossible for the members of the class to seek redress
`
`individually for the wrongs done to them. Management of the suit as a collective action
`
`will serve judicial economy.
`
`
`
`37. Questions of law and fact common to the FLSA Class members
`
`predominate over questions that may affect only individuals because Defendant has
`
`acted on grounds generally applicable to all FLSA Class members. Among the common
`
`questions of law and fact common to Plaintiff and other collective action class members
`
`are:
`
`whether Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class members were expected to
`and/or required to work during unpaid meal breaks, and in fact did
`so;
`
`Whether Defendant’s control of the conditions of the “meal break”
`was for the predominant benefit of DaVita and whether it made such
`time compensable as a matter of law;
`
`whether Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and the FLSA Class
`members overtime compensation for some of their hours worked in
`excess of forty hours per workweek in violation of the FLSA, as a
`result of Defendant’s deduction of, and failure to pay for, half an hour
`meal break periods in each shift worked in weeks in which overtime
`hours were otherwise worked;
`
`a.
`
`
`b.
`
`
`c.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-03033-NYW-KLM Document 31 Filed 02/14/22 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 14
`
`d.
`
`
`e.
`
`whether Defendant’s violations of the FLSA were willful as that term
`is understood in the context of the FLSA; and
`
`whether Defendant is liable for damages claimed hereunder,
`including but not limited to unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
`damages, attorneys’ fees and costs.
`
`
`38. Plaintiff knows of no difficulty that would be encountered in the management
`
`
`
`of this litigation that would preclude its maintenance as a collective action.
`
`
`
`39.
`
`The FLSA 216(b) collective action class may be defined as:
`
`All former and current hourly paid nurses and technicians employed
`at all DaVita locations nationwide to provide direct patient care at any
`time during the three years before this Complaint was filed up to the
`present who, as a result of Defendant’s practice of deducting half-an-
`hour from each shift worked and not paying for same, did not receive
`all of the overtime pay to which they were entitled under the FLSA in
`the weeks of their employment in which said nurses and technicians
`worked more than forty (40) hours per week.
`
`
`VII. DAMAGES
`FLSA Collective Action Damages.
`
`A.
`
`
`
`40. Plaintiff and Collective Action Members are entitled to recover their unpaid
`
`overtime compensation.
`
`
`
`41. Plaintiff and Collective Action Members are also entitled to an amount equal
`
`to all of their unpaid overtime compensation as liquidated damages. 29 U.S.C. § 207 and
`
`216(b).
`
`
`
`42. Plaintiff and Collective Action Members are also entitled to recover their
`
`attorney's fees and costs as provided for by the FLSA. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
`
`VIII. PRAYER
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`FLSA COLLECTIVE ACTION RELIEF ― OVERTIME
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully request judgment to be entered
`
`against Defendant awarding Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Action Members:
`
`13
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-03033-NYW-KLM Document 31 Filed 02/14/22 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 14
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`overtime compensation for all unpaid overtime hours worked in
`excess of forty (40) in a week at the rate of one and one-half times
`their regular rates of pay;
`
`an amount equal to the sum of the unpaid overtime compensation,
`as liquidated damages allowed under the FLSA;
`
`reasonable attorney’s fees, costs and expenses of this action as
`provided
`for by the FLSA;
`
`pre-judgment and post judgment interest at the highest rates allowed
`by law on all damages; and
`
`such other and further relief, at law or in equity, to which Plaintiff and
`the FLSA Collective Action Members may be entitled.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SHELLIST | LAZARZ | SLOBIN LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Ricardo J. Prieto
` Ricardo J. Prieto
` Texas Bar No. 24062947
`
`rprieto@eeoc.net
` Melinda Arbuckle
` Texas Bar No. 24080773
` marbuckle@eeoc.net
`
`11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
` Houston, Texas 77046
` Telephone: (713) 621-2277
` Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF &
`PUTATIVE FLSA COLLECTIVE ACTION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that all Parties have been served with this document through their counsel
`
`of record via the Court’s ECF system.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Ricardo J. Prieto
`Ricardo J. Prieto
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`