throbber

`
`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-00007-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/05/22 Page: 1 of 40 PAGEID #: 1
`
`In the United States District Court
`for the Southern District of Ohio
`Western Division
`
`
`Reuben West,
`
`
`On behalf of himself and those similarly
`situated,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Unlimited Potential Pizza, Inc.; Best Pizza,
`LLC; DW & KV Pizza, Inc.; Milford Pizza,
`Inc.; Sandeaver, Inc; Symmes Pizza, Inc.;
`TGD Food Group, Inc.; Weaver Dream
`Team, Inc.; MaryLu Weaver; John Doe 1-
`10; Doe Corporation 1-10
`
`
`
`Case No.
`
`Judge
`
`Magistrate Judge
`
`
`Jury Demand Endorsed Hereon
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`Class and Collective Action Complaint
`
`
`1.
`
`Reuben West, on behalf of himself and all similarly-situated individuals, brings this
`
`action against Unlimited Potential Pizza, Inc.; Defendants Best Pizza, LLC; DW & KV Pizza, Inc.;
`
`Milford Pizza, Inc.; Sandeaver, Inc; Symmes Pizza, Inc.; TGD Food Group, Inc.; Weaver Dream
`
`Team, Inc.; MaryLu Weaver; John Doe 1-10; Doe Corporation 1-10 (“Defendants”). Plaintiff seeks
`
`appropriate monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief based on Defendants’ willful failure to
`
`compensate Plaintiff and similarly-situated individuals with minimum wages as required by the Fair
`
`Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the Ohio Constitution, Article II, Section 34a (“Section 34a”),
`
`O.R.C. § 4113.15 (Ohio’s “Prompt Pay Act”), and O.R.C. § 2307.60, and unjust enrichment.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-00007-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/05/22 Page: 2 of 40 PAGEID #: 2
`
`2.
`
`Defendants operate several Jet’s Pizza franchises in Ohio and Michigan (the
`
`“Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores”).
`
`3.
`
`Defendants repeatedly and willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio
`
`Constitution, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act by failing to adequately reimburse delivery drivers for
`
`their delivery-related expenses, thereby failing to pay delivery drivers the legally mandated minimum
`
`wage for all hours worked.
`
`4.
`
`Defendants maintain a policy and practice of underpaying their delivery drivers in
`
`violation of the FLSA, Section 34a, and the Prompt Pay Act.
`
`5.
`
`All delivery drivers at the Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores, including Plaintiff, have
`
`been subject to the same employment policies and practices, including policies and practices with
`
`respect to wages and reimbursement for expenses.
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and similarly situated current and
`
`former delivery drivers nationwide who elect to opt in pursuant to FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) to
`
`remedy violations of the FLSA by Defendants.
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff also brings this action on behalf of himself and similarly situated current and
`
`former delivery drivers in Ohio, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, to remedy violations
`
`of Section 34a, the Prompt Pay Act, O.R.C. § 2307.60, and for unjust enrichment.
`
`
`
`Jurisdiction and Venue
`
`8.
`
`Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), this Court has jurisdiction over
`
`Plaintiff’s FLSA claims.
`
`9.
`
`Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s
`
`Ohio law claims.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-00007-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/05/22 Page: 3 of 40 PAGEID #: 3
`
`10.
`
`Venue in this Court is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the parties reside in
`
`this district, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim herein occurred in this district.
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Reuben West
`
`
`Parties
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff Reuben West is a resident of Ohio and, at all material times herein, Plaintiff
`
`worked within the boundaries of Southern District of Ohio.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff is an “employee” of all of the Defendants as defined in the FLSA and
`
`Section 34a.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff has given written consent to join this action.
`
`
`Defendants
`
`14.
`
`Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores are owned and/or operated by a number of entities and
`
`individuals, each of whom employ Plaintiff and the delivery drivers.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`Defendants operate the Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores.
`
`Defendants operate the Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores out of their headquarters in
`
`Clinton Township, Michigan.
`
`17.
`
`The Entity Defendants—Unlimited Potential Pizza, Inc.; Best Pizza, LLC; DW & KV
`
`Pizza, Inc.; Milford Pizza, Inc.; Sandeaver, Inc; Symmes Pizza, Inc.; TGD Food Group, Inc.; and
`
`Weaver Dream Team, Inc.—are all part of Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza franchise operation.
`
`18. MaryLu Weaver is the owner and operator of Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores and the
`
`Entity Defendants.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-00007-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/05/22 Page: 4 of 40 PAGEID #: 4
`
`19. MaryLu Weaver has entered into franchise agreements with Jet’s Pizza to operate
`
`Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores.
`
`20. MaryLu Weaver has entered into franchise agreements with Jet’s Pizza whereby she
`
`agrees to ensure that any Jet’s stores operated pursuant to the franchise agreement will comply with
`
`all laws, including wage and hour laws.
`
`21. MaryLu Weaver has the authority to and does hire and fire employees, supervise and
`
`control the work schedules and conditions of employees, determine the rate and method of pay,
`
`and/or maintain employee records.
`
`22.
`
`Defendants form a “single employer” as they are part of a single integrated enterprise
`
`and/or they are joint employers as they jointly operate a chain of Jet’s Pizza franchise stores and
`
`maintain interrelated operations, centralized control of labor relations, common management,
`
`common ownership, and financial control. Because the work performed by Plaintiff, and all other
`
`delivery drivers, benefited all Defendants and directly or indirectly furthered their joint interests,
`
`Defendants are collectively the joint employers of Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
`
`under the FLSA’s definition of “employer.”
`
`Unlimited Potential Pizza, Inc.
`
`23.
`
`Defendant Unlimited Potential Pizza, Inc. is a foreign corporation authorized to do
`
`business under the laws of Ohio.
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
`Unlimited Potential Pizza, Inc.’s principal place of business is in Michigan.
`
`Unlimited Potential Pizza, Inc. owns and operates one or more Jet’s Pizza franchise
`
`stores in Ohio.
`
`26.
`
`Unlimited Potential Pizza, Inc. is owned by MaryLu Weaver.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-00007-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/05/22 Page: 5 of 40 PAGEID #: 5
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`Unlimited Potential Pizza, Inc. is operated by MaryLu Weaver.
`
`Unlimited Potential Pizza, Inc. was the entity name on Plaintiff’s paystubs as of
`
`February 2021.
`
`29.
`
`Unlimited Potential Pizza, Inc. has substantial control over Plaintiff and similarly
`
`situated employees’ working conditions, and over the unlawful policies and practices alleged herein.
`
`30.
`
`Unlimited Potential Pizza, Inc. applies, or causes to be applied, substantially the same
`
`employment policies, practices, and procedures to all delivery drivers at all of its locations, including
`
`policies, practices, and procedures relating to payment of minimum wages, and reimbursement of
`
`automobile expenses.
`
`31.
`
`Unlimited Potential Pizza, Inc. has direct or indirect control of the terms and
`
`conditions of Plaintiff’s work and the work of similarly situated employees.
`
`32.
`
`At all relevant times, Unlimited Potential Pizza, Inc. maintained control, oversight,
`
`and direction over Plaintiff and similarly situated employees, including, but not limited to, hiring,
`
`firing, disciplining, timekeeping, payroll, reimbursements, pay rates, deductions, and other
`
`practices.
`
`33.
`
`Unlimited Potential Pizza, Inc. is an “employer” of Plaintiff and similarly situated
`
`employees as that term is defined by the FLSA and Section 34a.
`
`34.
`
`At all relevant times, Unlimited Potential Pizza, Inc. has been an enterprise engaged
`
`in “the production of goods for commerce” within the meaning of the phrase as used in the FLSA.
`
`35.
`
`Unlimited Potential Pizza, Inc.’s gross revenue exceeds $500,000 per year.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-00007-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/05/22 Page: 6 of 40 PAGEID #: 6
`
`Best Pizza, LLC
`
`36.
`
`Defendant Best Pizza, LLC is a domestic limited liability company authorized to do
`
`business under the laws of Ohio.
`
`37.
`
`38.
`
`Best Pizza, LLC’s principal place of business is in Ohio.
`
`Upon information and belief, Best Pizza, LLC owns and operates one or more Jet’s
`
`Pizza franchise stores in Ohio.
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`41.
`
`Upon information and belief, Best Pizza, LLC is owned by MaryLu Weaver.
`
`Upon information and belief, Best Pizza, LLC is operated by MaryLu Weaver.
`
`Best Pizza, LLC had substantial control over Plaintiff and similarly situated
`
`employees’ working conditions, and over the unlawful policies and practices alleged herein.
`
`42.
`
`Best Pizza, LLC applied or caused to be applied substantially the same employment
`
`policies, practices, and procedures to all delivery drivers at all of its locations, including policies,
`
`practices, and procedures relating to payment of minimum wages, and reimbursement of automobile
`
`expenses.
`
`43.
`
`Best Pizza, LLC had direct or indirect control of the terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s
`
`work and the work of similarly situated employees.
`
`44.
`
`At all relevant times, Best Pizza, LLC maintained control, oversight, and direction
`
`over Plaintiff and similarly situated employees, including, but not limited to, hiring, firing,
`
`disciplining, timekeeping, payroll, reimbursements, pay rates, deductions, and other practices.
`
`45.
`
`Best Pizza, LLC was an “employer” of Plaintiff and similarly situated employees as
`
`that term is defined by the FLSA and Section 34a.
`
`46.
`
`At all relevant times, Best Pizza, LLC has been an enterprise engaged in “the
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-00007-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/05/22 Page: 7 of 40 PAGEID #: 7
`
`production of goods for commerce” within the meaning of the phrase as used in the FLSA.
`
`47.
`
`Best Pizza, LLC’s gross revenue exceeded $500,000 per year.
`
`DW & KV Pizza, Inc.
`
`48.
`
`Defendant DW & KV Pizza, Inc. is a foreign corporation authorized to do business
`
`under the laws of Ohio.
`
`Ohio.
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`51.
`
`52.
`
`53.
`
`DW & KV Pizza, Inc.’s principal place of business is in Michigan.
`
`DW & KV Pizza, Inc. owns and operates one or more Jet’s Pizza franchise stores in
`
`Upon information and belief, DW & KV Pizza, Inc. is owned by MaryLu Weaver.
`
`Upon information and belief, DW & KV Pizza, Inc. is operated by MaryLu Weaver.
`
`DW & KV Pizza, Inc. has substantial control over Plaintiff and similarly situated
`
`employees’ working conditions, and over the unlawful policies and practices alleged herein.
`
`54.
`
`DW & KV Pizza, Inc. applies or causes to be applied substantially the same
`
`employment policies, practices, and procedures to all delivery drivers at all of its locations, including
`
`policies, practices, and procedures relating to payment of minimum wages, and reimbursement of
`
`automobile expenses.
`
`55.
`
`DW & KV Pizza, Inc. has direct or indirect control of the terms and conditions of
`
`Plaintiff’s work and the work of similarly situated employees.
`
`56.
`
`At all relevant times, DW & KV Pizza, Inc. maintained control, oversight, and
`
`direction over Plaintiff and similarly situated employees, including, but not limited to, hiring, firing,
`
`disciplining, timekeeping, payroll, reimbursements, pay rates, deductions, and other practices.
`
`57.
`
`DW & KV Pizza, Inc. is an “employer” of Plaintiff and similarly situated employees
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-00007-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/05/22 Page: 8 of 40 PAGEID #: 8
`
`as that term is defined by the FLSA and Section 34a.
`
`58.
`
`At all relevant times, DW & KV Pizza, Inc. has been an enterprise engaged in “the
`
`production of goods for commerce” within the meaning of the phrase as used in the FLSA.
`
`59.
`
`DW & KV Pizza, Inc.’s gross revenue exceeds $500,000 per year.
`
`Milford Pizza, Inc.
`
`60.
`
`Defendant Milford Pizza, Inc. is a foreign corporation authorized to do business under
`
`the laws of Ohio.
`
`61. Milford Pizza, Inc.’s principal place of business is in Michigan.
`
`62. Milford Pizza, Inc. owns and operates one or more Jet’s Pizza franchise stores in Ohio.
`
`63.
`
`64.
`
`Upon information and belief, Milford Pizza, Inc. is owned by MaryLu Weaver.
`
`Upon information and belief, Milford Pizza, Inc. is operated by MaryLu Weaver.
`
`65. Milford Pizza, Inc. has substantial control over Plaintiff and similarly situated
`
`employees’ working conditions, and over the unlawful policies and practices alleged herein.
`
`66. Milford Pizza, Inc. applies or causes to be applied substantially the same employment
`
`policies, practices, and procedures to all delivery drivers at all of its locations, including policies,
`
`practices, and procedures relating to payment of minimum wages, and reimbursement of automobile
`
`expenses.
`
`67. Milford Pizza, Inc. has direct or indirect control of the terms and conditions of
`
`Plaintiff’s work and the work of similarly situated employees.
`
`68.
`
`At all relevant times, Milford Pizza, Inc. maintained control, oversight, and direction
`
`over Plaintiff and similarly situated employees, including, but not limited to, hiring, firing,
`
`disciplining, timekeeping, payroll, reimbursements, pay rates, deductions, and other practices.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-00007-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/05/22 Page: 9 of 40 PAGEID #: 9
`
`69. Milford Pizza, Inc. is an “employer” of Plaintiff and similarly situated employees as
`
`that term is defined by the FLSA and Section 34a.
`
`70.
`
`At all relevant times, Milford Pizza, Inc. has been an enterprise engaged in “the
`
`production of goods for commerce” within the meaning of the phrase as used in the FLSA.
`
`71. Milford Pizza, Inc.’s gross revenue exceeds $500,000 per year.
`
`Sandeaver, Inc.
`
`72.
`
`Defendant Sandeaver, Inc. is a foreign corporation authorized to do business under the
`
`laws of Ohio.
`
`73.
`
`74.
`
`75.
`
`76.
`
`77.
`
`Sandeaver, Inc.’s principal place of business is in Michigan.
`
`Sandeaver, Inc. owns and operates one or more Jet’s Pizza franchise stores in Ohio.
`
`Upon information and belief, Sandeaver, Inc. is owned by MaryLu Weaver.
`
`Upon information and belief, Sandeaver, Inc. is operated by MaryLu Weaver.
`
`Sandeaver, Inc. has substantial control over Plaintiff and similarly situated employees’
`
`working conditions, and over the unlawful policies and practices alleged herein.
`
`78.
`
`Sandeaver, Inc. applies or causes to be applied substantially the same employment
`
`policies, practices, and procedures to all delivery drivers at all of its locations, including policies,
`
`practices, and procedures relating to payment of minimum wages, and reimbursement of automobile
`
`expenses.
`
`79.
`
`Sandeaver, Inc. has direct or indirect control of the terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s
`
`work and the work of similarly situated employees.
`
`80.
`
`At all relevant times, Sandeaver, Inc. maintained control, oversight, and direction over
`
`Plaintiff and similarly situated employees, including, but not limited to, hiring, firing, disciplining,
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-00007-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/05/22 Page: 10 of 40 PAGEID #: 10
`
`timekeeping, payroll, reimbursements, pay rates, deductions, and other practices.
`
`81.
`
`Sandeaver, Inc. is an “employer” of Plaintiff and similarly situated employees as that
`
`term is defined by the FLSA and Section 34a.
`
`82.
`
`At all relevant times, Sandeaver, Inc. has been an enterprise engaged in “the
`
`production of goods for commerce” within the meaning of the phrase as used in the FLSA.
`
`83.
`
`Sandeaver, Inc.’s gross revenue exceeds $500,000 per year.
`
`Symmes Pizza, Inc.
`
`84.
`
`Defendant Symmes Pizza, Inc. is a foreign corporation authorized to do business under
`
`the laws of Ohio.
`
`85.
`
`86.
`
`87.
`
`88.
`
`89.
`
`Symmes Pizza, Inc.’s principal place of business is in Michigan.
`
`Symmes Pizza, Inc. owns and operates one or more Jet’s Pizza franchise stores in Ohio.
`
`Upon information and belief, Symmes Pizza, Inc. is owned by MaryLu Weaver.
`
`Upon information and belief, Symmes Pizza, Inc. is operated by MaryLu Weaver.
`
`Symmes Pizza, Inc. has substantial control over Plaintiff and similarly situated
`
`employees’ working conditions, and over the unlawful policies and practices alleged herein.
`
`90.
`
`Symmes Pizza, Inc. applies or causes to be applied substantially the same employment
`
`policies, practices, and procedures to all delivery drivers at all of its locations, including policies,
`
`practices, and procedures relating to payment of minimum wages, and reimbursement of automobile
`
`expenses.
`
`91.
`
`Symmes Pizza, Inc. has direct or indirect control of the terms and conditions of
`
`Plaintiff’s work and the work of similarly situated employees.
`
`92.
`
`At all relevant times, Symmes Pizza, Inc. maintained control, oversight, and direction
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-00007-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/05/22 Page: 11 of 40 PAGEID #: 11
`
`over Plaintiff and similarly situated employees, including, but not limited to, hiring, firing,
`
`disciplining, timekeeping, payroll, reimbursements, pay rates, deductions, and other practices.
`
`93.
`
`Symmes Pizza, Inc. is an “employer” of Plaintiff and similarly situated employees as
`
`that term is defined by the FLSA and Section 34a.
`
`94.
`
`At all relevant times, Symmes Pizza, Inc. has been an enterprise engaged in “the
`
`production of goods for commerce” within the meaning of the phrase as used in the FLSA.
`
`95.
`
`Symmes Pizza, Inc.’s gross revenue exceeds $500,000 per year.
`
`TGD Food Group, Inc.
`
`96.
`
`Defendant TGD Food Group, Inc. is a foreign corporation authorized to do business
`
`under the laws of Ohio.
`
`TGD Food Group, Inc.’s principal place of business is in Michigan.
`
`TGD Food Group, Inc. owns and operates one or more Jet’s Pizza franchise stores in
`
`97.
`
`98.
`
`Ohio.
`
`99.
`
`Upon information and belief, TGD Food Group, Inc. is owned by MaryLu Weaver.
`
`100. Upon information and belief, TGD Food Group, Inc. is operated by MaryLu Weaver.
`
`101. TGD Food Group, Inc. has substantial control over Plaintiff and similarly situated
`
`employees’ working conditions, and over the unlawful policies and practices alleged herein.
`
`102. TGD Food Group, Inc. applies or causes to be applied substantially the same
`
`employment policies, practices, and procedures to all delivery drivers at all of its locations, including
`
`policies, practices, and procedures relating to payment of minimum wages, and reimbursement of
`
`automobile expenses.
`
`103. TGD Food Group, Inc. has direct or indirect control of the terms and conditions of
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-00007-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/05/22 Page: 12 of 40 PAGEID #: 12
`
`Plaintiff’s work and the work of similarly situated employees.
`
`104.
`
`At all relevant times, TGD Food Group, Inc. maintained control, oversight, and
`
`direction over Plaintiff and similarly situated employees, including, but not limited to, hiring, firing,
`
`disciplining, timekeeping, payroll, reimbursements, pay rates, deductions, and other practices.
`
`105. TGD Food Group, Inc. is an “employer” of Plaintiff and similarly situated employees
`
`as that term is defined by the FLSA and Section 34a.
`
`106.
`
`At all relevant times, TGD Food Group, Inc. has been an enterprise engaged in “the
`
`production of goods for commerce” within the meaning of the phrase as used in the FLSA.
`
`107. TGD Food Group, Inc.’s gross revenue exceeds $500,000 per year.
`
`Weaver Dream Team, Inc.
`
`108. Defendant Weaver Dream Team, Inc. is a foreign corporation authorized to do
`
`business under the laws of Ohio.
`
`109. Weaver Dream Team, Inc.’s principal place of business is in Michigan.
`
`110. Weaver Dream Team, Inc. owns and operates one or more Jet’s Pizza franchise stores
`
`in Ohio.
`
`111. Weaver Dream Team, Inc. is owned by MaryLu Weaver.
`
`112. Weaver Dream Team, Inc. is operated by MaryLu Weaver.
`
`113. Weaver Dream Team, Inc. has substantial control over Plaintiff and similarly situated
`
`employees’ working conditions, and over the unlawful policies and practices alleged herein.
`
`114. Weaver Dream Team, Inc. applies or causes to be applied substantially the same
`
`employment policies, practices, and procedures to all delivery drivers at all of its locations, including
`
`policies, practices, and procedures relating to payment of minimum wages, and reimbursement of
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-00007-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/05/22 Page: 13 of 40 PAGEID #: 13
`
`automobile expenses.
`
`115. Weaver Dream Team, Inc. has direct or indirect control of the terms and conditions
`
`of Plaintiff’s work and the work of similarly situated employees.
`
`116.
`
`At all relevant times, Weaver Dream Team, Inc. maintained control, oversight, and
`
`direction over Plaintiff and similarly situated employees, including, but not limited to, hiring, firing,
`
`disciplining, timekeeping, payroll, reimbursements, pay rates, deductions, and other practices.
`
`117. Weaver Dream Team, Inc. is an “employer” of Plaintiff and similarly situated
`
`employees as that term is defined by the FLSA and Section 34a.
`
`118.
`
`At all relevant times, Weaver Dream Team, Inc. has been an enterprise engaged in
`
`“the production of goods for commerce” within the meaning of the phrase as used in the FLSA.
`
`119. Weaver Dream Team, Inc.’s gross revenue exceeds $500,000 per year.
`
`MaryLu Weaver
`
`120. Defendant MaryLu Weaver is the owner of Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores.
`
`121. Upon information and belief, MaryLu Weaver is a Jet’s Pizza franchisee.
`
`122. Upon information and belief, MaryLu Weaver has entered into franchise agreements
`
`with Jet’s Pizza relating to each of Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores.
`
`123. MaryLu Weaver is an operator of Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza operation and Defendants’
`
`Jet’s Pizza stores.
`
`124. Upon information and belief, MaryLu Weaver is the owner of Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza
`
`stores.
`
`125. MaryLu Weaver operates and owns multiple Jet’s Pizza stores across Ohio and
`
`Michigan.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-00007-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/05/22 Page: 14 of 40 PAGEID #: 14
`
`126. MaryLu Weaver is individually liable to the delivery drivers at Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza
`
`stores under the definitions of “employer” set forth in the FLSA and Section 34a because she owns
`
`and operates Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores, serves as an owner and officer of the Defendants’ Jet’s
`
`Pizza stores, ultimately controls significant aspects of Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores’ day-to-day
`
`functions, and ultimately controls compensation and reimbursement of employees. 29 U.S.C. §
`
`203(d).
`
`127.
`
`At all relevant times, by virtue of her role as an owner, officer, and operator of the
`
`Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza operation, and the Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores, MaryLu Weaver has had
`
`financial control over the operations at each of the Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores.
`
`128.
`
`At all relevant times, by virtue of her role as an owner, officer, and operator of the
`
`Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza operation, and the Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores, MaryLu Weaver has had a
`
`role in significant aspects of the Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores’ day to day operations.
`
`129.
`
`At all relevant times, by virtue of her role as an owner, officer, and operator of the
`
`Defendant Entities, the Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza operation, and the Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores,
`
`MaryLu Weaver has had control over the Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores’ pay policies.
`
`130.
`
`At all relevant times, by virtue of her role as an owner, officer, and operator of the
`
`Defendant Entities, the Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza operation, and the Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores,
`
`MaryLu Weaver has had power over personnel and payroll decisions at the Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza
`
`stores, including but not limited to influence over delivery driver pay.
`
`131.
`
`At all relevant times, by virtue of her role as an owner, officer, and operator of the
`
`Defendant Entities, the Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza operation, and the Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores,
`
`MaryLu Weaver has had the power to hire, fire, and discipline employees, including delivery drivers
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-00007-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/05/22 Page: 15 of 40 PAGEID #: 15
`
`at the Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores.
`
`132.
`
`At all relevant times, by virtue of her role as an owner, officer, and operator of the
`
`Defendant Entities, the Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza operation, and the Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores,
`
`MaryLu Weaver has had the power to stop any illegal pay practices that harmed delivery drivers at
`
`the Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores.
`
`133.
`
`At all relevant times, by virtue of her role as an owner, officer, and operator of the
`
`Defendant Entities, the Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza operation, and the Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores,
`
`MaryLu Weaver has had the power to transfer the assets and liabilities of the Defendant entities.
`
`134.
`
`At all relevant times, by virtue of her role as an owner, officer, and operator of the
`
`Defendant Entities, the Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza operation, and the Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores,
`
`MaryLu Weaver has had the power to declare bankruptcy on behalf of the Defendant entities.
`
`135.
`
`At all relevant times, by virtue of her role as an owner, officer, and operator of the
`
`Defendant Entities, the Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza operation, and the Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores,
`
`MaryLu Weaver has had the power to enter into contracts on behalf of each of the Defendants’ Jet’s
`
`Pizza stores.
`
`136.
`
`At all relevant times, by virtue of her role as an owner, officer, and operator of the
`
`Defendant Entities, the Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza operation, and the Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores,
`
`MaryLu Weaver has had the power to close, shut down, and/or sell each of the Defendants’ Jet’s
`
`Pizza stores.
`
`137.
`
`At all relevant times, by virtue of her role as an owner, officer, and operator of the
`
`Defendant Entities, the Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza operation, and the Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores,
`
`MaryLu Weaver has authority over the overall direction of each of Defendants’ Jet’s stores and is
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-00007-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/05/22 Page: 16 of 40 PAGEID #: 16
`
`responsible for their operations.
`
`138. The Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores function for MaryLu Weaver’s profit.
`
`139. MaryLu Weaver has influence over how the Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores can run
`
`more profitably and efficiently.
`
`Doe Corporation 1-10
`
`140. Upon information and belief, Defendants own, operate, and control other entities
`
`and/or limited liability companies that also comprise part of the Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores, and
`
`qualify as “employers” of Plaintiff and the delivery drivers at the Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores as
`
`that term is defined by the FLSA and Ohio wage law.
`
`141. Upon information and belief, MaryLu Weaver owns and/or operates, in whole or in
`
`part, a number of other entities that make up part of the Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza operation.
`
`142. Upon information and belief, the franchisor, Jet’s Pizza, may also be liable as an
`
`employer of the delivery drivers employed at Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores.
`
`143. Upon information and belief, a sale of the store or stores took place at or around
`
`February 2021, and that the details of that transaction could reveal that other entities are liable for
`
`some or all of the claims asserted here (the “Predecessor Entities”).
`
`144. The identities of these additional Defendants should be revealed as discovery
`
`progresses and can be named at that time.
`
`John Doe 1-10
`
`145. Upon information and belief, there are additional individuals who also qualify as
`
`“employers” of Plaintiff and the delivery drivers at the Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores as that term is
`
`defined by the FLSA and Ohio wage law.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-00007-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/05/22 Page: 17 of 40 PAGEID #: 17
`
`146. Upon information and belief, MaryLu Weaver has entered into co-owner relationships
`
`with a number of her managers and business partners, and those individuals might also qualify as
`
`“employers” of Plaintiff and the delivery drivers at the Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores as that term is
`
`defined by the FLSA and Ohio wage law.
`
`147. Upon information and belief, a sale of the store or stores took place at or around
`
`February 2021, and that the details of that transaction could reveal that other individuals are liable for
`
`some or all of the claims asserted here (the “Predecessor Individuals”).
`
`148. The identities of these additional Defendants should be revealed as discovery
`
`progresses and can be named at that time.
`
`Facts
`
`Class-wide Factual Allegations
`
`149.
`
`During all relevant times, Defendants have operated the Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza
`
`stores.
`
`150.
`
`The primary function of the Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores is to sell pizza and other
`
`food items to customers, whether they dine in, carry out, or have their food delivered.
`
`151.
`
`Some or all of the Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores employ delivery drivers.
`
`152.
`
`Plaintiff and the similarly situated persons that Plaintiff seeks to represent are current
`
`and former delivery drivers employed by Defendants at the Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores.
`
`153.
`
`All delivery drivers employed at the Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores over the last three
`
`years have had essentially the same job duties—to deliver pizza and other food items to customers.
`
`154.
`
`Drivers at the Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores work “dual jobs”.
`
`155.
`
`At all relevant times, Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers have been paid
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-00007-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/05/22 Page: 18 of 40 PAGEID #: 18
`
`minimum wage, slightly above minimum wage, or minimum wage minus a tip credit for the hours
`
`they worked while completing deliveries.
`
`156.
`
`At all relevant times, Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers have been paid
`
`minimum wage or slightly above minimum wage for the hours they worked inside the restaurant.
`
`157.
`
`Defendants require delivery drivers to maintain and pay for operable, safe, and legally
`
`compliant automobiles to use in delivering Defendants’ pizza and other food items.
`
`158.
`
`Defendants require delivery drivers to incur and/or pay job-related expenses,
`
`including but not limited to automobile costs and depreciation, gasoline expenses, automobile
`
`maintenance and parts, insurance, financing charges, cellphone costs, GPS charges, and other
`
`equipment necessary for delivery drivers to complete their job duties.
`
`159.
`
`Pursuant to such requirements, Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
`
`purchase gasoline, vehicle parts and fluids, automobile repair and maintenance services, automobile
`
`insurance, suffered automobile depreciation and damage, financing charges, and incur cellphone and
`
`data charges all for the primary benefit of Defendants.
`
`160. Defendants require delivery drivers at Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores to provide
`
`cellphones to use while completing deliveries for Defendants.
`
`161. Defendants require delivery drivers to maintain and pay for operable cellphones to use
`
`in delivering Defendants’ pizza and other food items.
`
`162. The Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores do not reimburse the delivery drivers’ cellphone
`
`expenses.
`
`163. The Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores do not track or record the delivery drivers’
`
`cellphone expenses.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-00007-MWM Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/05/22 Page: 19 of 40 PAGEID #: 19
`
`164. Defendants reimburse delivery drivers’ automobile expenses based on a set amount
`
`for each delivery they complete.
`
`165. Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores do not track or record the delivery drivers’ actual
`
`automobile expenses.
`
`166. Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores do not collect receipts from their delivery drivers
`
`related to the expenses they incur while completing deliveries.
`
`167. Defendants do not collect receipts of delivery drivers’ gasoline purchases during
`
`weeks when the delivery drivers worked for Defendants.
`
`168. Defendants do not collect receipts of delivery drivers’ automobile maintenance,
`
`repair, and parts purchased or paid for during weeks when the delivery drivers worked for
`
`Defendants.
`
`169. Defendants do not collect receipts of delivery drivers’ monthly or annual automobile
`
`insurance costs.
`
`170. Defendants do not collect receipts of delivery drivers’ automobile registration costs.
`
`171. Defendants do not collect receipts of delivery drivers’ automobile financing or
`
`purchase costs.
`
`172. Defendants do not collect any other receipts from delivery drivers related to the
`
`automobile expenses they incur as delivery drivers at Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza stores.
`
`173. Defendants’ Jet’s Pizza s

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket