Plaintiff v. Rams Hauling – Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), Unpaid Wages, Violation of the Overtime Provision, Unpaid Overtime, Employee.

Plaintiff v. Rams Hauling – Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), Unpaid Wages, Violation of the Overtime Provision, Unpaid Overtime, Employee.

Rams Hauling caseU.S. DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

ANTHONY SCARSELLA,
DENNIS SIMPSON,
JASON MANTOVANI, &
EDWIN R. ROSADO,

PLAINTIFFS,

v.

RAMS HAULING &
DEVELOPMENT, INC.,
RAMS AUTO CENTER, INC., &
HERMAN J. RAMHARRACK, INDIVIDUALLY,

DEFENDANTS.
______________________________/

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Come now PLAINTIFFS ANTHONY SCARSELLA (“SCARSELLA”), DENNIS SIMPSON (“SIMPSON”), JASON MANTOVANI (“MANTOVANI”), and EDWIN R. ROSADO (“ROSADO”) by and through undersigned counsel and sue DEFENDANTS RAMS HAULING & DEVELOPMENT, INC. (“RAMS HAULING”), RAMS AUTO CENTER, INC. (“RAMS AUTO”), and HERMAN J. RAMHARRACK (“RAMHARRACK”), individually, and state as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. This is an action by PLAINTIFFS against their former employer for unpaid overtime and unpaid wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and Chapter 448, Florida Statutes. PLAINTIFFS seek damages and reasonable attorneys fees and costs.
JURISDICTION
2. This action arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et. seq. The Court has original jurisdiction over the FLSA claims pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
3. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law unpaid wages claims brought under Sections 448.08, Florida Statutes. The facts regarding PLAINTIFFS’ state law claims are so related to the FLSA claims that they form part of the same case or controversy.
VENUE
4. The venue of this Court over this controversy is proper based upon the claims arising in Palm Bay, Brevard County, Florida.
PARTIES
5. At all times material hereto SCARSELLA has resided in Brevard County, Florida.
6. At all times material hereto, SCARSELLA was the employee of DEFENDANTS within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(1).
7. SCARSELLA was employed by DEFENDANTS as a truck driver.
8. SCARSELLA was employed by DEFENDANTS for the time period August 2003 through June 2004.
9. At all times material hereto, SIMPSON has resided in Brevard County, Florida.
10. At all times material hereto, SIMPSON was the employee of DEFENDANTS within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(1).
11. SIMPSON was employed by DEFENDANTS as a truck driver.
12. SIMPSON was employed by DEFENDANTS for the time period October 2003 through April 2004.
13. At all times material hereto, MANTOVANI has resided in Brevard County, Florida.
14. At all times material hereto, MANTOVANI was the employee of DEFENDANTS within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(1).
15. MANTOVANI was employed by DEFENDANTS as a truck driver.
16. MANTOVANI was employed by DEFENDANTS for the time period March 2003 through June 2004.
17. At all times material hereto, ROSADO has resided in Brevard County, Florida.
18. At all times material hereto, ROSADO was the employee of DEFENDANTS within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(1).
19. ROSADO was employed by DEFENDANTS as a truck driver.
20. ROSADO was employed by DEFENDANTS at various times in 2001 and 2002 and for the time period June 2003 through December 2003.
21. At all times material hereto, RAMS HAULING has been a valid Florida corporation and has conducted business in Brevard County, Florida.
22. At all times material hereto, RAMS HAULING was engaged in commerce within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(b).
23. At all times material hereto, RAMS HAULING was an employer within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).
24. At all times material hereto, RAMS HAULING was an enterprise within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(r), (s).
25. At all times material hereto, RAMS HAULING had an annual gross dollar volume of sales made or business done of not less than five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) per 29 U.S.C. § 203(s).
26. At all times material hereto, RAMS AUTO has been a valid Florida corporation and has conducted business in Brevard County, Florida.
27. At all times material hereto, RAMS AUTO was engaged in commerce within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(b).
28. At all times material hereto RAMS AUTO was an employer within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).
29. At all times material hereto, RAMS AUTO was an enterprise within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(r), (s).
30. At all times material hereto, RAMS AUTO had an annual gross dollar volume of sales made or business done of not less than five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) per 29 U.S.C. § 203(s).
31. At all times material hereto, RAMHARRACK has resided in Brevard County, Florida.
32. At all times material hereto, RAMHARRACK owned and operated RAMS HAULING.
33. At all times material hereto, RAMHARRACK was acting directly or indirectly in the interest of RAMS HAULING in relation to PLAINTIFFS’ employment and was substantially in control of the terms and conditions of PLAINTIFFS’ work.
34. At all times material hereto, RAMHARRACK owned and operated RAMS AUTO.
35. At all times material hereto, RAMHARRACK was acting directly or indirectly in the interest of RAMS AUTO in relation to PLAINTIFFS’ employment and was substantially in control of the terms and conditions of PLAINTIFFS’ work.
36. At all times material hereto, RAMHARRACK is considered a statutory employer under 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).
37. PLAINTIFFS do not possess the complete records relating to their respective work hours and compensation; DEFENDANTS are in possession of such records.
38. All conditions precedent to the institution and maintenance of this cause of action have been met or waived.
39. PLAINTIFFS have retained the law firm of Allen & Trent, P.A. to represent them in this matter, and PLAINTIFFS have agreed to pay, respectively, said firm a reasonable attorney’s fee for its services.

COUNT I
PLAINTIFF ANTHONY SCARSELLA
VIOLATION OF THE OVERTIME PROVISIONS OF
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT UNDER FEDERAL LAW

40. SCARSELLA re-alleges and incorporates herein the allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 4 through 8, and 21 through 39, above.
41. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1), DEFENDANTS RAMHARRACK, RAMS AUTO, and RAMS HAULING were required to pay SCARSELLA overtime compensation at one and one-half times his regular rate of compensation for any hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week.
42. SCARSELLA periodically worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week.
43. DEFENDANTS failed to pay SCARSELLA overtime compensation at one and one-half times SCARSELLA’S regular rate of compensation for hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(2).
44. DEFENDANTS’ actions were willful and not in good faith.
45. DEFENDANTS are liable to SCARSELLA for actual damages, liquidated damages, and equitable relief, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
46. DEFENDANTS are liable for SCARSELLA’S attorney fees and costs incurred, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
WHEREFORE, SCARSELLA demands judgment against RAMS HAULING, RAMS AUTO, and RAMHARRACK, individually, as owner of RAMS HAULING and RAMS AUTO for the following:
a. Unpaid overtime found to be due and owing;
b. An additional amount equal to the unpaid overtime wages found to be due and owing as liquidated damages;
c. Prejudgment interest;
d. Award of reasonable attorney’s fee and costs; and
e. Such other relief as this Court deems just and equitable.

COUNT II
PLAINTIFF ANTHONY SCARSELLA
UNPAID WAGES UNDER FLORIDA STATUTES, SECTION 448.08

47. SCARSELLA re-alleges and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 3 through 5, 7 through 8, 21, 27 through 29, and 31 through 39, above.
48. This is an action brought pursuant to and arising under Chapter 448, Florida Statutes.
49. RAMHARRACK, individually, as owner of RAMS HAULING and RAMS AUTO, and RAMS HAULING and RAMS AUTO have willfully failed to pay SCARSELLA wages due him with regard to his previous employment. This constitutes unpaid wages, recoverable under Chapter 448, Florida Statutes.
50. Pursuant to Section 448.08, Florida Statutes, SCARSELLA is entitled to recover costs of this action and a reasonable attorney’s fee.
WHEREFORE, SCARSELLA demands judgment against RAMHARRACK, individually, RAMS AUTO, and RAMS HAULING for the following:
a. Unpaid wages found to be due and owing;
b. Prejudgment interest;
c. Award of reasonable attorney’s fee and costs; and
d. Such other relief as this Court deems just and equitable.

COUNT III
PLAINTIFF DENNIS SIMPSON
VIOLATION OF THE OVERTIME PROVISIONS OF
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT UNDER FEDERAL LAW

51. SIMPSON re-alleges and incorporates herein the allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 9 through 12, and 21 through 39, above.
52. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1), DEFENDANTS RAMHARRACK, RAMS AUTO, and RAMS HAULING were required to pay SIMPSON overtime compensation at one and one-half times his regular rate of compensation for any hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week.
53. SIMPSON periodically worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week.
54. DEFENDANTS failed to pay SIMPSON overtime compensation at one and one-half times SIMPSON’S regular rate of compensation for hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(2).
55. DEFENDANTS’ actions were willful and not in good faith.
56. DEFENDANTS are liable to SIMPSON for actual damages, liquidated damages, and equitable relief, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
57. DEFENDANTS are liable for SIMPSON’S attorney fees and costs incurred, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
WHEREFORE, SIMPSON demands judgment against DEFENDANTS RAMS HAULING, RAMS AUTO, and RAMHARRACK, individually, as owner of RAMS HAULING and RAMS AUTO for the following:
a. Unpaid overtime found to be due and owing;
b. An additional amount equal to the unpaid overtime wages found to be due and owing as liquidated damages;
c. Prejudgment interest;
d. Award of reasonable attorney’s fee and costs; and
e. Such other relief as this Court deems just and equitable.

COUNT IV
PLAINTIFF DENNIS SIMPSON
UNPAID WAGES UNDER FLORIDA STATUTES, SECTION 448.08

58. SIMPSON re-alleges and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 3 through 4, 9, 11 through 12, 21, 27 through 29, and 31 through 39, above.
59. This is an action brought pursuant to and arising under Chapter 448, Florida Statutes.
60. RAMHARRACK, individually, as owner of RAMS HAULING and RAMS AUTO and RAMS HAULING and RAMS AUTO have willfully failed to pay SIMPSON wages due him with regard to his previous employment. This constitutes unpaid wages, recoverable under Chapter 448, Florida Statutes.
61. Pursuant to Section 448.08, Florida Statutes, SIMPSON is entitled to recover costs of this action and a reasonable attorney’s fee.
WHEREFORE, SIMPSON demands judgment against RAMHARRACK, individually, RAMS AUTO, and RAMS HAULING for the following:
a. Unpaid wages found to be due and owing;
b. Prejudgment interest;
c. Award of reasonable attorney’s fee and costs; and
d. Such other relief as this Court deems just and equitable.

COUNT V
PLAINTIFF JASON MANTOVANI
VIOLATION OF THE OVERTIME PROVISIONS OF
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT UNDER FEDERAL LAW

62. MANTOVANI re-alleges and incorporates herein the allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 13 through 16, and 21 through 39, above.
63. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1), DEFENDANTS RAMS HAULING, RAMS AUTO, and RAMHARRACK were required to pay MANTOVANI overtime compensation at one and one-half times his regular rate of compensation for any hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week.
64. MANTOVANI periodically worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week.
65. DEFENDANTS failed to pay MANTOVANI overtime compensation at one and one-half times MANTOVANI’S regular rate of compensation for hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(2).
66. DEFENDANTS’ actions were willful and not in good faith.
67. DEFENDANTS are liable to MANTOVANI for actual damages, liquidated damages, and equitable relief, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
68. DEFENDANTS are liable for MANTOVANI’S attorney fees and costs incurred, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
WHEREFORE, MANTOVANI demands judgment against DEFENDANTS RAMS HAULING, RAMS AUTO, and RAMHARRACK, individually, as owner of RAMS HAULING and RAMS AUTO for the following:
a. Unpaid overtime found to be due and owing;
b. An additional amount equal to the unpaid overtime wages found to be due and owing as liquidated damages;
c. Prejudgment interest;
d. Award of reasonable attorney’s fee and costs; and
e. Such other relief as this Court deems just and equitable.

COUNT VI
PLAINTIFF JASON MANTOVANI
UNPAID WAGES UNDER FLORIDA STATUTES, SECTION 448.08

69. MANTOVANI re-alleges and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 3, 13, 15 through 16, 21, 27 through 29, and 31 through 39, above.
70. This is an action brought pursuant to and arising under Chapter 448, Florida Statutes.
71. RAMHARRACK, individually, as owner of RAMS HAULING and RAMS AUTO and RAMS HAULING and RAMS AUTO have willfully failed to pay MANTOVANI wages due him with regard to his previous employment. This constitutes unpaid wages, recoverable under Chapter 448, Florida Statutes.
72. Pursuant to Section 448.08, Florida Statutes, MANTOVANI is entitled to recover costs of this action and a reasonable attorney’s fee.
WHEREFORE, MANTOVANI demands judgment against RAMHARRACK, individually, RAMS AUTO, and RAMS HAULING for the following:
a. Unpaid wages found to be due and owing;
b. Prejudgment interest;
c. Award of reasonable attorney’s fee and costs; and
d. Such other relief as this Court deems just and equitable.

COUNT VII
PLAINTIFF EDWIN ROSADO
VIOLATION OF THE OVERTIME PROVISIONS OF
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT UNDER FEDERAL LAW

73. ROSADO re-alleges and incorporates herein the allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 4, and 17 through 39, above.
74. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1), DEFENDANTS RAMS HAULING, RAMS AUTO, and RAMHARRACK were required to pay ROSADO overtime compensation at one and one-half times his regular rate of compensation for any hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week.
75. ROSADO periodically worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week.
76. DEFENDANTS failed to pay ROSADO overtime compensation at one and one-half times ROSADO’S regular rate of compensation for hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(2).
77. DEFENDANTS’ actions were willful and not in good faith.
78. DEFENDANTS are liable to ROSADO for actual damages, liquidated damages, and equitable relief, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
79. DEFENDANTS are liable for ROSADO’S attorney fees and costs incurred, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
WHEREFORE, ROSADO demands judgment against DEFENDANTS RAMS HAULING, RAMS AUTO, and RAMHARRACK, individually as owner of RAMS HAULING and RAMS AUTO for the following:
a. Unpaid overtime found to be due and owing;
b. An additional amount equal to the unpaid overtime wages found to be due and owing as liquidated damages;
c. Prejudgment interest;
d. Award of reasonable attorney’s fee and costs; and
e. Such other relief as this Court deems just and equitable.

COUNT VIII
PLAINTIFF EDWIN ROSADO
UNPAID WAGES UNDER FLORIDA STATUTES, SECTION 448.08

80. ROSADO re-alleges and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 3, 17, 19 through 21, 27 through 29, and 31 through 39, above.
81. This is an action brought pursuant to and arising under Chapter 448, Florida Statutes.
82. RAMHARRACK, individually, as owner of RAMS HAULING and RAMS AUTO and RAMS HAULING and RAMS AUTO have willfully failed to pay ROSADO wages due him with regard to his previous employment. This constitutes unpaid wages, recoverable under Chapter 448, Florida Statutes.
83. Pursuant to Section 448.08, Florida Statutes, ROSADO is entitled to recover costs of this action and a reasonable attorney’s fee.
WHEREFORE, ROSADO demands judgment against RAMHARRACK, individually, RAMS AUTO, and RAMS HAULING for the following:
a. Unpaid wages found to be due and owing;
b. Prejudgment interest;
c. Award of reasonable attorney’s fee and costs; and
d. Such other relief as this Court deems just and equitable.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
PLAINTIFFS demand a trial by jury.

Dated: November 24, 2004 Respectfully submitted,

__________________________
Wayne L. Allen, Esquire
Florida Bar No. 110025
Adrienne E. Trent, Esquire
Florida Bar No. 0060119
Daniel A. Perez, Esquire
Florida Bar No. 426903
ALLEN & TRENT, P.A.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
700 N. Wickham Road, Suite 107
Melbourne, Florida 32935
Phone: (321) 254-7550
Fax: (321) 242-1681

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the original of the foregoing was filed today November 24, 2004, with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system which I understand will send a notice of electronic filing to the following:

Sherri E. Miller, FBN 0711179
The Robbins Law Firm, P.A.
2100 Martin Luther King, Jr. St. North
St. Petersburg, FL 33704
Phone: (727) 822-8696
Counsel for Defendants

ALLEN & TRENT, P.A.

________________________
Wayne L. Allen, Esquire
Florida Bar No. 110025
Adrienne E. Trent, Esquire
Florida Bar No. 0060119
Daniel A. Perez, Esquire
Florida Bar No. 426903
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
700 N. Wickham Road, Suite 107
Melbourne, Florida 32935
Phone: (321) 254-7550
Fax: (321) 242-1681

Attorney: Maurice Arcadier
Status: Closed
Date Filed: 09/17/2004

Our Melbourne office is centrally located in Brevard County, enabling our lawyers to serve clients throughout “the Space Coast”, including Cocoa Beach, Palm Bay and Vero Beach.