Case 1:22-cv-02015-DDD-MEH Document 1 Filed 08/10/22 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF COLORADO
`
`
`Civil Case No. 1:22-cv- ________
`
`
`BRYAN JONES,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`MONTE FIORE, LLC, d/b/a Monte Fiore Farm,
`and
`NICHOLAS DANTE PERRINO, an individual,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. Plaintiff Bryan Jones (“Plaintiff”) worked as a Chief Operating Officer (COO) for
`
`Defendants’ cannabis farm and enterprise for approximately eight months, from November
`
`1, 2021 to July 1, 2022. Despite the existence of a written agreement setting forth a salary
`
`and other benefits commensurate with that of an executive of his level, Defendants hardly
`
`paid Plaintiff any wages at all, not even minimum wage for significant swaths of time.
`
`2. To challenge these and other wage violations, Plaintiff brings this action, by and through
`
`his attorneys, against Defendants Monte Fiore, LLC, d/b/a Monte Fiore Farm and Nicholas
`
`Dante Perrino, an individual, to recover unpaid or underpaid wages and other damages
`
`under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §
`
`201, et seq. (hereinafter “FLSA”), the Colorado Wage Claim Act, §8-4-101, et seq. and the
`
`Colorado Minimum Wage Act, C.R.S. §8-6-101, et seq., as implemented by the Colorado
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ANDERSONDODSON, P.C.
`11 Broadway
`Suite 615
`New York, NY 10004
`212.961.7639
`www.andersondodson.com
`
`DocuSign Envelope ID: CFF7E006-F175-4F5D-8A9D-B2DBDA84D361
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF COLORADO
`
`
`Civil Case No. 1:22-cv- ________
`
`
`BRYAN JONES,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`MONTE FIORE, LLC, d/b/a Monte Fiore Farm,
`and
`NICHOLAS DANTE PERRINO, an individual,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. Plaintiff Bryan Jones (“Plaintiff”) worked as a Chief Operating Officer (COO) for
`
`Defendants’ cannabis farm and enterprise for approximately eight months, from November
`
`1, 2021 to July 1, 2022. Despite the existence of a written agreement setting forth a salary
`
`and other benefits commensurate with that of an executive of his level, Defendants hardly
`
`paid Plaintiff any wages at all, not even minimum wage for significant swaths of time.
`
`2. To challenge these and other wage violations, Plaintiff brings this action, by and through
`
`his attorneys, against Defendants Monte Fiore, LLC, d/b/a Monte Fiore Farm and Nicholas
`
`Dante Perrino, an individual, to recover unpaid or underpaid wages and other damages
`
`under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §
`
`201, et seq. (hereinafter “FLSA”), the Colorado Wage Claim Act, §8-4-101, et seq. and the
`
`Colorado Minimum Wage Act, C.R.S. §8-6-101, et seq., as implemented by the Colorado
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ANDERSONDODSON, P.C.
`11 Broadway
`Suite 615
`New York, NY 10004
`212.961.7639
`www.andersondodson.com
`
`DocuSign Envelope ID: CFF7E006-F175-4F5D-8A9D-B2DBDA84D361
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-02015-DDD-MEH Document 1 Filed 08/10/22 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 10
`
`
`
`Minimum Wage Order (the “Minimum Wage Orders”) and then the Colorado Overtime
`
`and Minimum Pay Standards Orders (“COMPS”) (collectively, “CWCA”).
`
`3. Plaintiff also brings conversion claims based on Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff most
`
`of his owed wages. And Plaintiff brings unjust enrichment and breach of contract claims
`
`based on Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff according to the terms of his offer letter.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1331, by virtue of federal questions, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. of the FLSA.
`
`5. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims by authority of
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1367.
`
`6. Venue lies with this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. A
`
`significant portion of the events giving rise to the instant litigation occurred at the
`
`Defendants’ farm located at 3100 County Road 616, Walsenburg, CO 81089, CO, and one
`
`or more of the Defendants named herein resides in this district.
`
`
`
`PARTIES
`
`Defendant Monte Fiore, LLC d/b/a Monte Fiore Farm
`
`7. Defendant Monte Fiore, LLC d/b/a Monte Fiore Farm (hereinafter “Monte Fiore Farm”)
`
`is a limited liability company doing business within Douglas and Heurfano Counties, and
`
`whose principal place of business is located at 3100 County Road 616, Walsenburg, CO
`
`81089. Its registered agent is listed with the Colorado Department of State as Nicholas D.
`
`Perrino with an address of 4946 Delaware Drive, Larkspur, CO 80118.
`
`8. At all relevant times, Defendant Monte Fiore Farm had annual gross revenues in excess of
`
`$500,000.
`
`Jones v. Monte Fiore Farm
`USDC, District of Colorado
`
`
`
`
`ANDERSONDODSON, P.C.
`11 Broadway
`Suite 615
`New York, NY 10004
`212.961.7639
`www.andersondodson.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Complaint
`Page 2
`
`DocuSign Envelope ID: CFF7E006-F175-4F5D-8A9D-B2DBDA84D361
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-02015-DDD-MEH Document 1 Filed 08/10/22 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 10
`
`
`
`9. At all relevant times, Defendant Monte Fiore Farm was engaged in interstate commerce
`
`and/or the production of goods for commerce, within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 206(a) and 207(a).
`
`10. Defendant Monte Fiore Farm purchases farming supplies, equipment, and other necessary
`
`items to run its cannabis farm and serve its customers from out of state vendors selling such
`
`supplies, and equipment originating outside the state of Colorado. Further, Defendant
`
`Monte Fiore Farm advertises its cannabis farm and products to the entire world on the
`
`internet at https://www.montefiorefarms.com/. Agents of Defendant Monte Fiore Farm
`
`also accept payments, place orders, and otherwise conduct business by telephonic and/or
`
`online means, often entailing communications with companies or individuals out of state.
`
`11. At all times material to this action, Defendant Monte Fiore Farm was subject to the FLSA
`
`and was an “employer” of the Plaintiff, as defined by § 203(b) of the FLSA.
`
`Defendant Nicholas Dante Perrino
`
`12. Defendant Nicholas Dante Perrino, an individual, resides at 4946 Delaware Drive,
`
`
`
`Larkspur, CO 80119, in Douglas County.
`
`13. At all times material to this action, Defendant Perrino actively participated in the business
`
`of the company.
`
`14. Defendant Perrino is the owner of the company.
`
`15. At all times material to this action, Defendant Perrino exercised substantial control over
`
`the functions of the company’s employees including Plaintiff. For example, Defendant had
`
`the ability and authority to hire and fire employees and set rates of pay, and he did in fact
`
`hire Plaintiff and set his rate of pay.
`
`
`
`
`ANDERSONDODSON, P.C.
`11 Broadway
`Suite 615
`New York, NY 10004
`212.961.7639
`www.andersondodson.com
`
`Jones v. Monte Fiore Farm
`USDC, District of Colorado
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Complaint
`Page 3
`
`DocuSign Envelope ID: CFF7E006-F175-4F5D-8A9D-B2DBDA84D361
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-02015-DDD-MEH Document 1 Filed 08/10/22 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 10
`
`
`
`16. At all times material to this action, Defendant Perrino was an “employer” of the Plaintiff
`
`and others similarly situated, as defined by § 203(b) of the FLSA.
`
`Plaintiff Bryan Jones
`
`17. Plaintiff Bryan Jones is a resident of Douglas County, Colorado.
`
`18. Plaintiff Jones worked for Monte Fiore Farm as a Chief Operating Officer from November
`
`1, 2021 until July 1, 2022.
`
`19. At all times material to this action, Plaintiff Jones was an “employee” within the meaning
`
`of 29 U.S.C. § 203(e) and 7 C.C.R. 1103-1(2).
`
`20. Plaintiff Jones’s agreed upon compensation consisted of a $130,000 base salary plus
`
`commissions and “$1000 per month for health coverage.” Plaintiff’s offer letter also stated:
`
`“[a]ny unpaid payroll/health receives an additional 25% as bonus paid out every quarter
`
`and calculated monthly.”
`
`21. Over the course of his employment, Plaintiff Jones should have received 17 paychecks,
`
`one every two weeks, but he only received 7 payments in varying amounts spread out over
`
`
`
`the course of his 8-month employment. Most payments were below the amount he should
`
`have been consistently receiving biweekly. Many weeks and pay periods he received no
`
`compensation at all.
`
`22. Plaintiff was also not regularly paid his earned commissions or money for health coverage
`
`promised in his offer letter.
`
`LEGAL CLAIMS
`
`As And For A First Cause of Action:
`FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (FLSA) VIOLATIONS
`
`23. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each allegation contained in the
`
`paragraphs above, and by reference repleads and incorporates them as though fully set forth
`
`
`Complaint
`Page 4
`
`Jones v. Monte Fiore Farm
`USDC, District of Colorado
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ANDERSONDODSON, P.C.
`11 Broadway
`Suite 615
`New York, NY 10004
`212.961.7639
`www.andersondodson.com
`
`DocuSign Envelope ID: CFF7E006-F175-4F5D-8A9D-B2DBDA84D361
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-02015-DDD-MEH Document 1 Filed 08/10/22 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 10
`
`
`
`here.
`
`Failure To Pay Minimum Wage
`
`24. For many workweeks, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff at a rate at or above the minimum
`
`wage for all hours worked, in violation of the FLSA.
`
`Record-Keeping Failures
`
`25. At all relevant times, Defendants failed to make, keep, and preserve accurate records
`
`regarding the wages, hours, and other conditions of employment of Plaintiff, in
`
`contravention of the FLSA and affiliated Regulations, 29 U.S.C. §§ 211(c), 215(a)(5) and
`
`29 C.F.R. § 516.
`
`Willful & Not Based On Good Faith & Entitlement to Damages
`
`26. Defendants had no good faith basis for believing that their pay practices as alleged above
`
`were in compliance with the law.
`
`27. At all relevant times, Defendants knew of the FLSA’s requirements regarding minimum
`
`wages. In paying Plaintiff in the manner in which they did, Defendants knowingly violated
`
`
`
`the mandates of the FLSA.
`
`28. The foregoing conduct constitutes a “willful” violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 255(a).
`
`29. As a result of the violations by Defendant of the FLSA, the Plaintiff is entitled to all
`
`damages available under the FLSA which include, but are not limited to, all unpaid
`
`minimum wages, liquidated damages, attorney fees, costs, and interest, as set forth in the
`
`FLSA, more specifically 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
`
`As And For A Second Cause of Action:
`COLORADO WAGE ACT VIOLATIONS
`
`30. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each allegation contained in the
`
`
`
`paragraphs above, and by reference repleads and incorporates them as though fully set forth
`
`
`Complaint
`Page 5
`
`Jones v. Monte Fiore Farm
`USDC, District of Colorado
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ANDERSONDODSON, P.C.
`11 Broadway
`Suite 615
`New York, NY 10004
`212.961.7639
`www.andersondodson.com
`
`DocuSign Envelope ID: CFF7E006-F175-4F5D-8A9D-B2DBDA84D361
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-02015-DDD-MEH Document 1 Filed 08/10/22 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 10
`
`
`
`here.
`
`31. The Defendants were Plaintiff’s “employer” as that term is defined by the COMPS Order.
`
`7 C.C.R. 1103-1(1.6).
`
`32. Plaintiff is Defendants’ “employee” as that term is defined by the COMPS Order because
`
`he performed labor for the benefit of Defendants in which Defendants commanded when,
`
`where, and how much labor or services would be performed. 7 C.C.R. 1103-1(2).
`
`Failure to Pay Minimum Wage
`(Violation of the C.R.S. § 8-6-101 et seq.; Colorado Min. Wage Order 31, 7 C.C.R. § 1103-1)
`
`
`33. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff at a rate at or above the applicable minimum wage
`
`rate for all hours worked in the workweek.
`
`34. In 2021, Colorado’s minimum wage rate was $12.32 per hour, and in 2022 the minimum
`
`wage rate is $12.56 per hour.
`
`35. Some weeks (and pay periods) Defendants did not pay Plaintiff any compensation at all.
`
`Failure to Pay Wages When Due
`(Violation of the C.R.S. § 8-6-103)
`
`
`36. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff all his earned wages when due.
`
`
`
`37. Specifically, over the course of Plaintiff’s employment he should have received 17
`
`biweekly paychecks, each in the amount of $5,000 (gross) plus $500, totaling $93,500.
`
`Instead, Plaintiff received 7 payments spread out over 8 months totaling approximately
`
`$18,406.21 (gross).
`
`Failure to Pay All Earned Wages
`(Violation of the C.R.S. § 8-6-109)
`
`
`38. Plaintiff has been separated from employment with Defendants.
`
`39. Defendants have failed to pay Plaintiff all his wages and compensation earned during his
`
`employment.
`
`Jones v. Monte Fiore Farm
`USDC, District of Colorado
`
`
`
`
`ANDERSONDODSON, P.C.
`11 Broadway
`Suite 615
`New York, NY 10004
`212.961.7639
`www.andersondodson.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Complaint
`Page 6
`
`DocuSign Envelope ID: CFF7E006-F175-4F5D-8A9D-B2DBDA84D361
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-02015-DDD-MEH Document 1 Filed 08/10/22 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 10
`
`
`
`Failure to Pay Wages In Response to Wage Demand
`(Violation of the C.R.S. § 8-6-109)
`
`
`40. Plaintiff, through counsel, issued a Demand for Payment of Wages notice dated July 26,
`
`2022.
`
`41. Plaintiff, through counsel, issued an additional copy of this demand, attached to a
`
`cover letter dated July 26, 2022.
`
`42. Defendant has not tendered any payment in response to this demand.
`
`43. Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff owed wages in response to this demand was willful.
`
`44. Therefore, Defendant owes plaintiff statutory penalties in the amounts set forth in C.R.S.
`
`§ 8-4-109.
`
`Damages
`
`45. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover in this civil action the unpaid balance of the full amount
`
`of unpaid wages and underpaid minimum wages that are owed and appropriate penalties,
`
`together with reasonable attorney fees and court costs. C.R.S. § 8-6-118; 7 C.C.R § 1103-
`
`
`
`1(18).
`
`
`
`As And For A Third Cause of Action:
`CONVERSION/ THEFT OF SERVICES
`
`
`
`46. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each allegation contained in the
`
`paragraphs above, and by reference repleads and incorporates them as though fully set forth
`
`here.
`
`47. Pursuant to COMPS #37–38, § 8.4, failure to pay an employee less than the minimum wage
`
`and willful refusal to pay wages or compensation, or false denial of the amount of a wage
`
`claim, or the validity thereof, or that the same is due, with intent to secure for himself, any
`
`discount upon such indebtedness or any underpayment of such indebtedness or with intent
`
`
`
`
`ANDERSONDODSON, P.C.
`11 Broadway
`Suite 615
`New York, NY 10004
`212.961.7639
`www.andersondodson.com
`
`Jones v. Monte Fiore Farm
`USDC, District of Colorado
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Complaint
`Page 7
`
`DocuSign Envelope ID: CFF7E006-F175-4F5D-8A9D-B2DBDA84D361
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-02015-DDD-MEH Document 1 Filed 08/10/22 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`to annoy, harass, oppress, hinder, coerce, delay, or defraud the person to whom such
`
`indebtedness is constitute theft under C.R.S. § 18-4-401.
`
`48. By failing to pay the Plaintiff all his wages or compensation, Defendants have committed
`
`theft of services.
`
`49. Pursuant to C.R.S. § 18-4-405, Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff for three times the
`
`amount of the actual damages sustained in addition to costs of the action and reasonable
`
`attorney fees.
`
`As And For A Fourth Cause of Action:
`BREACH OF CONTRACT/UNJUST ENRICHMENT
`
`50. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each allegation contained in the
`
`paragraphs above, and by reference repleads and incorporates them as though fully set forth
`
`here.
`
`51. Plaintiff and Defendants had an implied employment contract insofar as the employment
`
`relationship is inherently contractual in nature.
`
`
`
`52. Plaintiff agreed to perform certain functions for Defendants, in exchange for certain
`
`compensation.
`
`53. Specifically, Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiff a base annual salary plus commissions and
`
`$1,000 per month for health coverage. Defendants also agreed to pay Plaintiff a bonus of
`
`25% on any unpaid payroll/health coverage amounts, paid out quarterly and calculated
`
`monthly.
`
`54. By failing to pay Plaintiff these amounts Defendants breached their contract of
`
`employment with Plaintiff.
`
`55. In the alternative, were a contract not found to exist, Defendants have been unjustly
`
`enriched by withholding monies that rightfully belong to Plaintiff.
`
`
`Jones v. Monte Fiore Farm
`USDC, District of Colorado
`
`
`
`
`
`Complaint
`Page 8
`
`
`
`
`ANDERSONDODSON, P.C.
`11 Broadway
`Suite 615
`New York, NY 10004
`212.961.7639
`www.andersondodson.com
`
`DocuSign Envelope ID: CFF7E006-F175-4F5D-8A9D-B2DBDA84D361
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-02015-DDD-MEH Document 1 Filed 08/10/22 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 10
`
`
`
`56. Defendants are liable to Plaintiff in the amount of compensation unlawfully withheld from
`
`him, and other appropriate damages. Plaintiff does not seek damages that are duplicative
`
`of damages arising out of other causes of action.
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant the following relief:
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`(A) Unpaid and underpaid wages due under the FLSA and the CWCA; and
`
`(B)
`
`Liquidated damages in the amount of their unpaid FLSA wages pursuant to 29
`
`(C)
`
`(D)
`
`(E)
`
`(F)
`
`(G)
`
`(H)
`
`U.S.C. § 216(b); and
`
`Statutory damages as provided for the CWCA; and
`
`Three times the amount of the actual damages sustained pursuant to C.R.S. § 18-4-
`
`405; and
`
`Any appropriate breach of contract and/or unjust enrichment damages.
`
`Interest; and
`
`The costs of this action together with reasonable attorneys' fees; and
`
`Such other and further relief as this Court deems necessary and proper.
`
`DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
`
`Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff demands a trial
`
`
`
`
`
`by jury on all questions of fact raised by the complaint.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ANDERSONDODSON, P.C.
`11 Broadway
`Suite 615
`New York, NY 10004
`212.961.7639
`www.andersondodson.com
`
`Jones v. Monte Fiore Farm
`USDC, District of Colorado
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Complaint
`Page 9
`
`DocuSign Envelope ID: CFF7E006-F175-4F5D-8A9D-B2DBDA84D361
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-02015-DDD-MEH Document 1 Filed 08/10/22 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 10
`
`Respectfully submitted, this 10th day of August, 2022.
`
`
`ANDERSONDODSON, P.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ Penn Dodson
`Penn A. Dodson
`penn@andersondodson.com
`11 Broadway, Suite 615
`New York, NY 10004
`Mary Elizabeth Melso
`mmelso@andersondodson.com
`14143 Denver West Pkwy.
`Suite 100-50
`Golden, CO 80401
`(212) 961-7639 tel.
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`VERIFICATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` I
`
`
`
` declare under penalty of perjury under the law of Colorado that the foregoing is true and
`correct.
`
`
`Executed on ______________________________ at ____________________________
` (date)
`
`
` (city or other location, and state)
`
`
` ________Bryan Jones
`______________________________
`
` Printed Name of Plaintiff Signature of Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`ANDERSONDODSON, P.C.
`11 Broadway
`Suite 615
`New York, NY 10004
`212.961.7639
`www.andersondodson.com
`
`Jones v. Monte Fiore Farm
`USDC, District of Colorado
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Complaint
`Page 10
`
`DocuSign Envelope ID: CFF7E006-F175-4F5D-8A9D-B2DBDA84D361
`
`8/10/2022
`
`Larkspur, Colorado
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
