`
`
`Lina Stillman, Esq.
`Stillman Legal, P.C.
`42 Broadway, 12t Floor
`New York, New York 10004
`Tel (212) 203-2417
`www.STILLMANLEGALPC.COM
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`----------------------------------------------------------------X
`FELIX MORALES INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
`BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED
`
`
`PLAINTIFF,
`
`
`FPL FOODS, INC. and ANTONICO FOODS CORP.
`(DBA LA BELLA MARKETPLACE) AND
`LEONARD PESCE.
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`----------------------------------------------------------------X
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`COLLECTIVE ACTION
`UNDER 29 U.S.C. § 216(b)
`
`ECF Case
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff FELIX MORALES, bring this Class and Collective Action Complaint on behalf of
`
`himself and similarly situated co-workers against FPL FOODS, INC. and ANTONICO FOODS
`
`CORP. (DBA LA BELLA MARKETPLACE) AND LEONARD PESCE, (collectively,
`
`“Defendants”) pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., the
`
`New York Labor Law (“NYLL”), N.Y. Lab. Law § 650 et seq., as recently amended by the
`
`Wage Theft Prevention Act (“WTPA”), N.Y. Lab Law § 195(3), N.Y. Lab Law § 191, and
`
`related provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (“NYCRR”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00318-LDH-RML Document 1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: 2
`
`
`
`NATURE OF ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This Collective Action Complaint seeks to recover overtime compensation,
`
`unlawful deductions s for Plaintiffs and similarly situated co-workers who have been employed
`
`by Defendants to work at La Bella Marketplace for some or all the time period relevant to this
`
`action (the relevant time period being set by the federal and state claims’ respective statutes of
`
`limitations).
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendants who were ostensibly employed as
`
`Grocery Clerks at La Bella Marketplace located in Brooklyn.
`
`3.
`
`As described herein, Individuals Defendants Leonard Pesce (“Individual
`
`Defendants”) employ Plaintiffs’ for the purposes of the instant claims.
`
`4.
`
`FPL FOODS, INC. and ANTONICO FOODS CORP. (DBA LA BELLA
`
`MARKETPLACE) are New York Corporations with headquarters at 7907 13th Ave, Brooklyn,
`
`NY 11228.
`
`5.
`
`Individual Defendants Leonard Pesce operate and control Defendant Corporations
`
`and, by extension, Defendant Corporations’ employees, for part or all of the time period relevant
`
`to this action.
`
`6.
`
`At all relevant times, Plaintiffs regularly work for Defendants in excess of 40
`
`hours per week, without receiving appropriate overtime compensation for any of the hours that
`
`they worked
`
`7.
`
`Defendants’ conduct extended beyond Plaintiffs to all other similarly situated
`
`employees.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00318-LDH-RML Document 1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 3 of 17 PageID #: 3
`
`
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff now brings this Class and Collective Action on behalf of himself and
`
`other similarly situated individuals, for federal and state claims relating to unpaid overtime
`
`wages and failure to maintain records, Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq.,
`
`the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”), N.Y. Lab. Law § 650 et seq., as recently amended by the
`
`Wage Theft Prevention Act (“WTPA”), N.Y. Lab Law § 195(3), and related provisions from
`
`Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (“NYCRR”).
`
`9.
`
`In connection with the above-mentioned allegations and claims, Plaintiffs seeks
`
`compensatory damages as well as applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorney’s fees and
`
`costs.
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiffs seek certification of this action as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. §
`
`216(b) on behalf of himself, individually, and all other similarly situated employees and former
`
`employees of Defendants
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`11.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC §§1331, and 1337
`
`and jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims pursuant to 28 USC § 1367.
`
`12.
`
`This Court also has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims under the FLSA pursuant
`
`to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
`
`13.
`
`This Court is empowered to issue a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 USC §§
`
`2201 and 2202.
`
`14.
`
`The venue is proper in the Eastern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1391(b)(1) because Corporate Defendants reside in this District, certain Plaintiffs reside in this
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00318-LDH-RML Document 1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 4 of 17 PageID #: 4
`
`
`District and because a substantial part of the events that are the subject of the litigation transpired
`
`in this District.
`
`COLLECTIVE-WIDE FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiffs bring their FLSA claims on behalf of themselves, and all similarly
`
`situated persons who work or have worked for Defendants on or after January 19, 2016, who
`
`elect to opt-in to this action (the “FLSA Collective”).
`
`16.
`
`All of the work that Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective have performed has been
`
`assigned by Defendants and/or Defendants have been aware of all of the work that Plaintiff and
`
`the FLSA Collective have performed.
`
`17.
`
`As part of their regular business practice, Defendants have intentionally, willfully,
`
`and repeatedly engaged in a pattern, practice, and/or policy of violating the FLSA with respect to
`
`Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective. This policy and pattern or practice include, but is not limited
`
`to:
`
`a. Willfully failing to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40
`
`hours per week;
`
`b. Willfully failing to keep records that satisfy statutory requirements.
`
`18.
`
`At all relevant times, Plaintiff and other members of the FLSA Class who are
`
`and/or have been similarly situated, have had substantially similar job requirements and pay
`
`provisions, and have been subject to Defendants’ common practices, policies, programs,
`
`procedures, protocols and plans of willfully failing and refusing to pay them the require overtime
`
`pay at a one and one-half his regular rates for work in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00318-LDH-RML Document 1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 5 of 17 PageID #: 5
`
`
`under the FLSA, Plaintiffs’ wages for which Defendants did not qualify under the FLSA, and
`
`willfully failing to keep records required by the FLSA.
`
`19.
`
`The claims of Plaintiff stated herein are similar to those of the other employees
`
`and Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective all perform or performed the same primary duties.
`
`20.
`
`Defendants are aware that FLSA required them to pay employees performing
`
`non-exempt duties, including Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective overtime premium for hours
`
`worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`Defendants’ unlawful conduct has been widespread, repeated, and consistent.
`
`Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the
`
`Class’s members. Plaintiff understands that as class representatives they assume a fiduciary
`
`responsibility to the class to represent its interests fairly and adequately. Plaintiff recognizes that
`
`as class representatives, they must represent and consider the interests of the class just as they
`
`would represent and consider their own interests. Plaintiff understands that in decisions
`
`regarding the conduct of the litigation and its possible settlement, they must not favor their own
`
`interests over the Class’s interests. Plaintiff recognizes that any resolution of a class action must
`
`be in the best interest of the Class. Plaintiff understands that in order to provide adequate
`
`representation, they must be informed of developments in litigation, cooperate with class
`
`counsel, and testify at deposition/trial. Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and experienced
`
`in complex class actions and employment litigation. There is no conflict between Plaintiff and
`
`the Class.
`
`23.
`
`A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
`
`adjudication of this litigation. The members of the Class have been damaged and are entitled to
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00318-LDH-RML Document 1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 6 of 17 PageID #: 6
`
`
`recovery as a result of Defendants’ violation of the NYLL as well as its common and uniform
`
`policies, practices, and procedures. Although the relative damages suffered by individual
`
`members of the Class are not de minimis, such damages are small compared to the expense and
`
`burden of individual prosecution of this litigation. For example, Class members lack the financial
`
`resources to conduct a thorough examination of Defendants’ timekeeping and compensation
`
`practices and to prosecute vigorously a lawsuit against Defendants to recover such damages. In
`
`addition, class litigation is superior because it will obviate the need for unduly duplicative
`
`litigation that might result in inconsistent judgments about Defendants’ practices.
`
`PARTIES
`
`Plaintiff
`
`24.
`
`Plaintiffs Felix Morales, (“Plaintiff Morales”) is an adult individual residing in
`
`Brooklyn, NY. Plaintiff Morales was employed by Defendants. Plaintiff was employed by
`
`Defendants from October 6, 2020, until January 8, 2022.
`
`25.
`
`At all relevant times to this complaint, Plaintiff Morales was employed by
`
`Defendants to work as a Clerk at their specialty grocery store located at 7907 13th Ave,
`
`Brooklyn, NY 11228.
`
`26.
`
`Plaintiff consent to be a party pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and bring these
`
`claims based upon the allegations herein as representative parties of a prospective class of
`
`similarly situated individuals under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and as representatives of the Proposed
`
`Class.
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00318-LDH-RML Document 1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 7 of 17 PageID #: 7
`
`
`
`27.
`
`Individual Defendants have owned, operated, and controlled La Bella
`
`Marketplace, all times relevant to this complaint.
`
`28.
`
`On information and belief, FPL FOODS, INC. is a corporation organized and
`
`existing under the laws of the State of New York.
`
`29.
`
`On information and belief, ANTONICO FOODS CORP. is a corporation
`
`organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York.
`
`30.
`
`Upon information and belief both FPL FOODS, INC. and ANTONICO FOODS
`
`CORP. individually and collectively have more than $500,000.00 in gross annual income for the
`
`years relevant to the instant action (independent of excise taxes).
`
`31.
`
`On information and belief, the operations of FPL FOODS, INC. and ANTONICO
`
`FOODS CORP. individually and collectively implicate interstate commerce insofar as these
`
`Defendants rely heavily on products that has been transported across state lines.
`
`32.
`
`Defendant LEONARD PESCE is an individual who has been the de facto and de
`
`jure owner, officer and/or agent of Defendant Corporation during the relevant time period, and
`
`he issued individually. Defendant LEONARD PESCE has possessed and exercised operational
`
`control over Defendant Corporations, for example, he has at times relevant to this litigation
`
`determined the wages and compensation of Defendants’ employees, including Plaintiff, and
`
`established the schedules of the employees, maintained employee records, and had the authority
`
`to hire and fire employees. LEONARD PESCE has a prominent role in the setting of salaries for
`
`Corporate Defendants’ employees and hires and fires Corporate Defendants’ employees.
`
`COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`Defendants Constitute Joint Employers
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00318-LDH-RML Document 1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 8 of 17 PageID #: 8
`
`
`
`33.
`
`Defendants operate a specialty market where the Plaintiff worked. At all relevant
`
`times, Individual Defendant LEONARD PESCE possess or possessed operational control over
`
`Defendant Corporations; possess or possessed an ownership interest in Defendant Corporations,
`
`and control or controlled significant functions of Defendant Corporations.
`
`34.
`
`Corporate Defendants and Individual Defendants are associated and joint
`
`employers, act in the interest of each other with respect to employees, pay employees by the
`
`same method, and share control over the employees.
`
`35.
`
`At relevant times, each Corporate Defendant possessed substantial
`
`control over Plaintiffs’ and other similarly situated employees’ working conditions, and over the
`
`policies and practices with respect to the employment and compensation of Plaintiff, and all
`
`similarly situated individuals, referred to herein.
`
`36.
`
`Corporate Defendants jointly employed Plaintiffs, and all similarly
`
`situated individuals, and are Plaintiffs’ and all similarly situated individuals’ employers within
`
`the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. and the NYLL.
`
`37.
`
`In the alternative, Corporate Defendants constitute a single employer of
`
`Plaintiffs and/or similarly situated individuals, as the corporate divisions between them are
`
`fictional.
`
`38.
`
`At all relevant times, Individual Defendants were Plaintiffs’ employers
`
`within the meaning of the FLSA, NYLL and other law.
`
`39.
`
`Individual Defendant had the power to hire and fire Plaintiffs, control the
`
`terms and conditions of employment, and determine the rate and method of any compensation in
`
`exchange for Plaintiffs’ services.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00318-LDH-RML Document 1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 9 of 17 PageID #: 9
`
`
`
`40.
`
`Individual Defendants supervised Plaintiffs’ work schedules and
`
`conditions of his employment.
`
`41.
`
`Individual Defendants also determined the rate and method of payment
`
`for Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees.
`
`42.
`
`Individual Defendants also controlled and guided what limited
`
`recordkeeping that took place which Plaintiffs contends is deficient pursuant to FLSA and NYLL
`
`requirements.
`
`Individual Plaintiff Felix Morales
`
`43.
`
`Plaintiff Morales is a former employee of Defendants, primarily
`
`employed in performing the duties of a Clerk in the seafood session.
`
`44.
`
`Plaintiff did not work at his own convenience, having to report to work
`
`according to a schedule devised by Defendants. Furthermore, once scheduled for a shift, Plaintiff
`
`did not come and go at his pleasure but rather was controlled by Defendants.
`
`45.
`
`Plaintiff is non-exempt under FLSA and the NYLL. Among other things,
`
`Plaintiff did not occupy what law would characterize as “professional,” “executive” or even
`
`“administrative” positions, as Plaintiffs’ employment for Defendants was physical labor.
`
`Plaintiffs did not receive salary and these primary duties
`
`46.
`
`Plaintiff commences this action as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. §
`
`216(b).
`
`47.
`
`Plaintiff Morales was employed by Defendants from approximately
`
`October 6, 2020, until January 8, 2022.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00318-LDH-RML Document 1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 10 of 17 PageID #: 10
`
`
`
`48.
`
`Plaintiff Morales regularly handled goods in interstate commerce, such as
`
`produce that was produced outside of the State of New York.
`
`49.
`
` Plaintiffs Morales’s work duties required neither discretion nor
`
`independent judgment.
`
`50.
`
`Throughout his employment with Defendants, Plaintiffs Morales
`
`regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
`
`51.
`
`From approximately October 2020 to beginning of December 2020,
`
`Plaintiff worked approximately 50 hours per week with different shifts each lasting about (11)
`
`hours.
`
`52.
`
`From December 2020 until his departure in 2022, Plaintiff Morales
`
`regularly worked 51 hours per week or 11 hours per day, 5 days per week, from 9 A.M until 8
`
`P.M.
`
`53.
`
`54.
`
`Plaintiff was paid his wages in cash and was paid $15 per hour.
`
`Plaintiff had to punch in and out, worked (5) days per week, and did
`
`receive a half-hour break during his shifts.
`
`55.
`
`Plaintiff was not paid at the time and a half required by law for hours
`
`beyond (40) per week.
`
`56.
`
`Defendants did not provide Plaintiffs Morales with each payment of
`
`wages an accurate statement of wages, as required by NYLL 195(3).
`
`57.
`
`Defendants never provided Plaintiffs Morales with written notice of his
`
`rate of pay, employer’s regular payday, and such other information as required by NYLL
`
`§195(1).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00318-LDH-RML Document 1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 11 of 17 PageID #: 11
`
`
`
`Defendants’ General Employment Practices
`
`58.
`
`Defendants regularly require Plaintiff to work in excess of forty (40)
`
`hours per week without paying him the proper overtime wages or spread of hours’ compensation.
`
`59.
`
`Defendants willfully disregarded and purposefully evaded record-keeping
`
`requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law by failing to maintain
`
`accurate and complete timesheets and payroll records.
`
`60.
`
`By employing this practice, Defendants avoided paying Plaintiff at the
`
`overtime rate of time and a half for most or all of their hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours
`
`per week.
`
`61.
`
`Defendants failed to post required wage and hour posters and did not
`
`provide Plaintiff with statutorily required wage and hour records or statements of their pay
`
`received, in part so as to hide Defendants’ violations of the wage and hour laws, and to take
`
`advantage of Plaintiffs’ relative lack of sophistication in wage and hour laws.
`
`62.
`
`Upon information and belief, these practices by Defendants were done
`
`willfully to disguise the actual number of hours Plaintiff (and similarly situated individuals)
`
`worked, and to avoid paying Plaintiff properly for
`
`63.
`
`Defendants did not provide Plaintiff, and similarly situated employees,
`
`with the wage statements and annual pay notices require by NYLL §§195(1) and 195(3).
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00318-LDH-RML Document 1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 12 of 17 PageID #: 12
`
`
`
`64.
`
`Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and other employees with accurate
`
`wage statements at the time of payment of wages, containing: the dates of work covered by that
`
`payment of wages; name of employee; name of employer; address and phone number of
`
`employer; rate or rates of pay and basis thereof, whether paid by the hour, shift, day, week,
`
`salary, piece, commission, or other; gross wages; deductions; allowances, if any, claimed as part
`
`of the minimum wage; net wages; the regular hourly rate or rates of pay; the overtime rate or
`
`rates of pay; the number of regular hours worked, and the number of overtime hours worked, as
`
`require by NYLL §195(3).
`
`65.
`
`Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and other employees, at the time of
`
`hiring and on or before October 6, of each subsequent year, a statement in English and the
`
`employee’s primary language, containing: the rate or rates of pay and basis thereof, whether paid
`
`by the hour, shift, day, week, salary, piece, commission, or other; allowances, if any, claimed as
`
`part of the minimum wage, including tip, meal, or lodging allowances; the regular pay day
`
`designated by the employer; the name of the employer; any "doing business as" names used by
`
`the employer; the physical address of the employer's main office or principal place of business,
`
`and a mailing address if different; and the telephone number of the employer, as require by New
`
`York Labor Law §195(1).
`
`
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Violation of FLSA Overtime/Unlawful Deduction/Recordkeeping Provisions)
`
` Plaintiff repeats and realleges all paragraphs above as though fully set
`
`66.
`
`forth herein.
`
`67.
`
`At all times relevant to this action, Defendants were Plaintiffs’ employers
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00318-LDH-RML Document 1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 13 of 17 PageID #: 13
`
`
`(and employers of the putative FLSA Class members) within the meaning of the Fair Labor
`
`Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d). Defendants had the power to hire and fire Plaintiff (and the
`
`FLSA class members), control the terms and conditions of employment, and determine the rate
`
`and method of any compensation in exchange for their employment.
`
`68.
`
`At all times relevant to this action, Defendants were engaged in
`
`commerce or in an industry or activity affecting commerce.
`
`69.
`
`Defendants constitute an enterprise within the meaning of the Fair Labor
`
`Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 203 (r-s).
`
`70.
`
`Defendants, in violation of the FLSA, failed to pay Plaintiff (and the
`
`FLSA Class members) overtime compensation at rates of one and one-half times the regular rate
`
`of pay for each hour worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek, in violation of 29 U.S.C. §
`
`207 (a)(1).
`
`71.
`
`Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiffs (and the FLSA Class members)
`
`overtime compensation was willful within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 255(a).
`
`72.
`
`Defendants took unlawful deductions from Plaintiffs’ earned wages and
`
`the FLSA Collective’s earned wages.
`
`73.
`
`Defendants, in violation of the FLSA, failed to pay Plaintiff agreed-upon
`
`wages by virtue of their withholding policies, time-clock policies, and chargeback policies as
`
`described herein.
`
`74.
`
`75.
`
`
`
`Defendants failed to satisfy the FLSA’s recordkeeping requirements.
`
`Defendants acted willfully in their violations of the FLSA’s requirements.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00318-LDH-RML Document 1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 14 of 17 PageID #: 14
`
`
`
`76.
`
` Plaintiff (and the FLSA Collective) was damaged in an amount to be
`
`determined at trial.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Violation of the Overtime/ Pay/Recordkeeping/Wage Statement Provisions of
`NYLL/)
`
`Plaintiffs repeats and realleges all paragraphs above as though fully set
`
`
`
`77.
`
`forth herein.
`
`78.
`
`At all times relevant to this action, Defendants were Plaintiffs’ employers
`
`within the meaning of the N.Y. Lab. Law §§ 2 and 651. Defendants had the power to hire and
`
`fire Plaintiff, control terms and conditions of employment, and determine the rates and methods
`
`of any compensation in exchange for employment.
`
`79.
`
`Defendants, in violation of the NYLL and associated rules and
`
`regulations, failed to pay Plaintiff’s overtime compensation at rates of one and one-half times the
`
`regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek, in violation of
`
`N.Y. Lab. Law § 190 et seq. and supporting regulations of the New York State Department of
`
`Labor.
`
`80.
`
`Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff (and the Class members) in a timely
`
`fashion, as required by Article 6 of the New York Labor Law.
`
`81.
`
`Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff (and the Class members) overtime
`
`compensation was willful within the meaning of N.Y. Lab. Law § 663.
`
`82.
`
`Defendants, in violation of the NYLL, failed to pay Plaintiff agreed-upon
`
`wages by virtue of their withholding policies, time-clock policies, and chargeback policies as
`
`described herein.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00318-LDH-RML Document 1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 15 of 17 PageID #: 15
`
`
`
`83.
`
`84.
`
`forth herein.
`
`Plaintiff was damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.
`
`Plaintiff repeats and reallege all paragraphs above as though fully set
`
`85.
`
`Plaintiff (and the Class members) was damaged in an amount to be
`
`determined at trial.
`
`86.
`
`Plaintiff repeats and realleges all paragraphs above as though fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`87.
`
`Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with a written notice, in English
`
`and in Spanish (Plaintiffs’ primary language), of his rate of pay, regular pay day, and such other
`
`information as require by NYLL §195(1).
`
`88.
`
`Defendants are liable to Plaintiff in the amount of $30,000 together with
`
`costs and attorney’s fees.
`
`89.
`
`Plaintiff repeats and realleges all paragraphs above as though set forth
`
`fully herein.
`
`90.
`
`Defendants did not provide Plaintiff with wage statements upon each
`
`payment of wages, as required by NYLL 195(3).
`
`91.
`
`Defendants acted willfully in his violation of the above-described NYLL
`
`requirements.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully request that this Court enter judgment
`
`against Defendants:
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00318-LDH-RML Document 1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 16 of 17 PageID #: 16
`
`
`
`(a) Designating this action as a collective action and authorizing prompt issuance of
`
`notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) to all putative class members, apprising them of the
`
`pendency of this action, its nature, and his right to join, and permitting them promptly to file
`
`consents to be Plaintiff in the FLSA claims in this action;
`
`(b) Designating Plaintiff as Class Representatives, reasonable service awards for each
`
`Plaintiff, and his counsel of record as Class Counsel;
`
`(c) Declaring that Defendants have violated the overtime wage provisions of, and
`
`associated rules and regulations under, the FLSA as to Plaintiff and the FLSA class members;
`
`(d) Declaring that Defendants have violated the recordkeeping requirements of, and
`
`associated rules and regulations under, the FLSA with respect to Plaintiffs’ and the FLSA class
`
`members’ compensation, hours, wages, and any deductions or credits taken against wages;
`
`(e) Declaring that Defendants’ violation of the provisions of the FLSA were willful
`
`as to Plaintiff and the FLSA class members;
`
`(f) Awarding Plaintiff and the FLSA class member’s damages for the amount of
`
`unpaid overtime wages, and damages for any improper deductions or credits taken against wages
`
`under the FLSA as applicable;
`
`(g) Awarding Plaintiff and the FLSA class members liquidated damages in an amount
`
`equal to 100% of his damages for the amount of unpaid overtime wages, and damages for any
`
`improper deductions or credits taken against wages under the FLSA as applicable pursuant to 29
`
`U.S.C. § 216(b);
`
`(h) Declaring that Defendants have violated the overtime wage provisions of, and
`
`rules and orders promulgated under, the NYLL as to Plaintiff and the members of the Class;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00318-LDH-RML Document 1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 17 of 17 PageID #: 17
`
`
`
`(i) Declaring that Defendants have violated the recordkeeping requirements of the
`
`NYLL with respect to Plaintiffs’ and the FLSA Class member’s compensation, hours, wages;
`
`and any deductions or credits taken against wages;
`
`(j) Awarding Plaintiff damages for Defendants’ violation of the NYLL notice and
`
`recordkeeping provisions, pursuant to NYLL §§198(1-b), 198(1-d);
`
`(k)
`
`Awarding Plaintiff damages for Defendant’s violation of the NYLL frequency of
`
`payment violation of Labor Law § 191(1)(a) which requires weekly payment of manual workers.
`
`(l) Awarding Plaintiff and the FLSA class members liquidated damages in an amount
`
`equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the total amount overtime compensation shown to be
`
`owed pursuant to NYLL § 663 as applicable;
`
`(m) Awarding Plaintiff and the FLSA class member’s pre-judgment and post-
`
`judgment interest as applicable;
`
`(n)
`
` Awarding Plaintiff and the FLSA class members the expenses incurred in this
`
`action, including costs and attorney’s fees; and
`
`(o) All such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
`
`Dated: New York, New York
`January 18, 2022
`
`
`LINA STILLMAN, ESQ.
`
`___/s/ Lina Stillman ____________
`By:
`STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`