UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

CASE NO:

PATRICIA NOBLES,

Plaintiff,

v.

ELECTRIDUCT, INC., 

a Florida corporation,

JOSEPH PROTO, individually, 

Defendants.

/

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, PATRICIA NOBLES (“Plaintiff”) pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) files the 

following Complaint against Defendants, ELECTRIDUCT, INC., (“ELECTRIDUCT”), and 

JOSEPH PROTO, (“PROTO”), individually (collectively referred to as “Defendants”), and alleges

as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Defendants unlawfully deprived Plaintiff of overtime compensation during the course of 

her employment. This action arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) pursuant 

to 29 U.S.C. §§ 201–216, to recover all overtime wages that Defendants refused to pay 

Plaintiff during the past three (3) years.

PARTIES

2. During all times material hereto, Plaintiff was a resident of Broward County, Florida, over 

the age of 18 years, and otherwise sui juris. 

Case 0:20-cv-60899-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 1 of 8
2

3. During all times material hereto, Defendant, ELECTRIDUCT, was a Florida for profit 

corporation located and transacting business within Pompano Beach, Florida, within the 

jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. ELECTRIDUCT is headquartered and operates its 

principal location at 1650 NW 18th Street, Suite 801, Pompano Beach, Florida 33069. 

4. Defendant, ELECTRIDUCT, was Plaintiff’s employer, as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), 

during all times pertinent to the allegations herein. 

5. During all times material hereto, Defendant, PROTO, was a resident of the Southern 

District of Florida.

6. During all times material hereto, Defendant, PROTO was the president and owner of the 

corporate defendant within Pompano Beach, Florida. 

7. During all times material hereto, Defendant, PROTO, was over the age of 18 years, an 

officer and/or director of the corporate Defendant and was vested with the ultimate control 

and decision-making authority over the hiring, firing, day-to-day operations, and pay 

practices for Defendant, ELECTRIDUCT.

8. During all times material hereto, Defendant, PROTO, was Plaintiff’s employer, as defined 

by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d). 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. All acts and omissions giving rise to this dispute took place within Broward County, 

Florida, which falls within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court.

10. Defendant, ELECTRIDUCT, is headquartered and regularly transacts business in Broward 

County, Florida, and jurisdiction is therefore proper within the Southern District of Florida 

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337. 

Case 0:20-cv-60899-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 2 of 8
3

11. Venue is also proper within the Southern District of Florida pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) 

and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

12. Defendant, ELECTRIDUCT, is a wire management and cable protection E-tail company 

based in Pompano Beach, Florida. The company was first founded in 1955 in Casper, 

Wyoming and specialized in the manufacturing and distribution of rubber duct cable 

protectors. See https://www.electriduct.com/about-us.html (last visited May 4, 2020). 

13. ELECTRIDUCT has been operating in the state of Florida since 2006. 

FLSA COVERAGE

14. Defendant, ELECTRIDUCT, is covered under the FLSA through enterprise coverage, as 

ELECTRIDUCT was engaged in interstate commerce during Plaintiff’s employment 

period. More specifically, ELECTRIDUCT’s business and Plaintiff’s work for 

ELECTRIDUCT affected interstate commerce because the goods and materials Plaintiff 

and other employees used and/or handled on a constant and/or continuous basis moved 

through interstate commerce prior to or subsequent to Plaintiff’s use of the same. 

Accordingly, Defendant, ELECTRIDUCT, was engaged in interstate commerce pursuant 

to 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(B). 

15. During her employment with Defendants, Plaintiff and multiple other employees handled 

and worked with various good and/or materials that moved through interstate commerce, 

including, but not limited to: cell phones, clothing, computers, computer keyboards, glass, 

telephones, cables, cord covers, cable raceway, pens, pencils, paper, wire loom, power 

distribution, braided sleeving, rubber duct cord covers, drills, polyurethane cable 

protectors, flat power extension cords, drop-over cord protectors, desk organizers, fire 

Case 0:20-cv-60899-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 3 of 8
4

protection gear, grommets, server racks and network cabinets, tapes, glues, sealants, 

testers, air compressors, industrial floor mats, label printers, pressure washers, wheelchair 

lifts and carriers, curb ramps, networking equipment etc. 

16. Defendant, ELECTRIDUCT, regularly employed two (2) or more employees for the 

relevant time period, and these employees handled the same or similar goods or materials 

similar as Plaintiff, thus making Defendant, ELECTRIDUCT an enterprise covered by the 

FLSA. 

17. Defendant, ELECTRIDUCT, grossed or did business in excess of $500,000.00 during the 

years of 2017, 2018, 2019 and is expected to gross in excess of $500,000.00 in 2020.

18. During her employment, Plaintiff was regularly and recurrently involved in interstate 

commerce, or in work directly related to instrumentalities of interstate commerce and is 

therefore covered under the FLSA through individual coverage. More specifically, Plaintiff 

regularly and recurrently worked in the fulfillment and distribution of Defendants’ products 

that were handled and sold in interstate commerce on a daily basis. 

19. During all material times hereto, Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee of Defendants, 

ELECTRIDUCT and PROTO within the meaning of the FLSA. 

PLAINTIFF’S WORK FOR DEFENDANTS

20. Plaintiff began working for Defendants on or about December 10, 2016 as a labeler. 

21. In or around June 2017, Defendants promoted Plaintiff and gave her the job title of team 

lead.

22. Plaintiff was an hourly employee from December 10, 2016, until on or about January 17, 

2020. During this time period, Plaintiff’s regular hourly rate varied from around $13 per 

Case 0:20-cv-60899-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 4 of 8
5

hour to $20 per hour, depending on the non-discretionary bonuses Defendants paid 

Plaintiff. 

23. From January 18, 2020 through the present, Defendants have paid Plaintiff on a salary basis 

of $961.54 per week. However, Plaintiff’s primary job duties and responsibilities have not 

changed, and Plaintiff’s job title is still team lead. 

24. Plaintiff continued to perform non-exempt work for Defendants after Defendants made 

Plaintiff a salaried employee in January 2020. 

25. Even after Defendants switched Plaintiff to a salary basis position on January 18, 2020, 

Defendants frequently paid Plaintiff additional compensation based on the number of hours 

she worked in a workweek. 

26. During her employment period, Plaintiff worked approximately forty-five (45) to sixtyfive (65) hours per week. 

27. When Defendants hired Plaintiff, the Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiff a weekly bonus if 

she made mistakes on less than 1% of her deliveries. This bonus payment was nondiscretionary, and Plaintiff reasonably expected to receive a bonus when she met 

Defendants’ efficiency quotas. 

28. Defendants never paid Plaintiff time-and-one-half her regular hourly rate when Plaintiff 

worked in excess of forty (40) hours in a workweek. 

INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYER LIABILITY

29. During pertinent times to Plaintiff’s employment, Defendant, PROTO, oversaw the dayto-day operations of ELECTRIDUCT and instructed Plaintiff and other employees on their 

duties and responsibilities. Defendant, PROTO, also controlled and enforced the payroll 

practices and policies of the company.

Case 0:20-cv-60899-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 5 of 8
6

30. During all times material hereto, Defendants were expressly aware of the work performed 

by Plaintiff, but nevertheless required Plaintiff to continue working without receiving 

proper overtime compensation. 

31. Defendants refused to pay Plaintiff proper compensation for overtime work at the federally 

mandated rate of time-and-one-half for work exceeding forty (40) hours per week. 

32. As a result of Defendants’ intentional and willful failure to comply with the FLSA, Plaintiff

was required to retain the undersigned counsel and is therefore entitled to recover

reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the prosecution of these claims. 

COUNT I – FEDERAL OVERTIME WAGE VIOLATIONS – 29 U.S.C. § 207

(Against All Defendants)

33. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and re-avers Paragraphs 1 through 32 as though set forth fully 

herein.

34. Plaintiff alleges this action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. 

§ 216(b).

35. Defendants refused to compensate Plaintiff at the proper overtime rate of time-and-onehalf required by the FLSA for all hours worked in excess of forty (40). 

36. Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff’s overtime wages as required 

by the FLSA, as Defendants knew of the overtime requirements of the FLSA. 

37. Defendants recklessly failed to investigate whether Defendants’ payroll practices were in 

accordance with the FLSA during the relevant time period.

38. Accordingly, the statute of limitations in this action should be three (3) years as opposed 

to two (2) years. 

39. Defendants’ willful and/or intentional violations of federal wage law entitle Plaintiff to an 

additional amount of liquidated, or double, damages. 

Case 0:20-cv-60899-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 6 of 8
7

40. As a result of the violations alleged herein, Plaintiff was required to retain the undersigned 

counsel and is therefore entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, PATRICIA NOBLES, respectfully requests that this Honorable 

Court enter judgment in her favor and against Defendants, ELETRIDUCT, INC., and JOSEPH 

PROTO, and award Plaintiff: (a) unliquidated damages to be paid by the Defendants jointly and 

severally; (b) liquidated damages to be paid by the Defendants jointly and severally; (c) reasonable

attorney’s fees and costs to be paid by the Defendants jointly and severally; and any and all such 

further relief as may be deemed just and reasonable under the circumstances.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, PATRICIA NOBLES, requests and demands a trial by jury on all appropriate claims. 

Dated this 4th day of May 2020.

Respectfully Submitted,

USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERSJORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 

805 E. Broward Blvd. Suite 301

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

Ph: (954) 871-0050

Counsel for Plaintiff, Patricia Nobles

By: /s/ Jordan Richards

JORDAN RICHARDS, ESQUIRE

Florida Bar No. 108372

MELISSA SCOTT, ESQUIRE

Florida Bar No. 1010123

JAKE BLUMSTEIN, ESQUIRE

Florida Bar No. 1017746

Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com

Melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com

Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com

Case 0:20-cv-60899-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 7 of 8
8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing document was filed via CM/ECF on May 4, 

2020. 

By: /s/ Jordan Richards

JORDAN RICHARDS, ESQUIRE

Florida Bar No. 108372

SERVICE LIST:

Case 0:20-cv-60899-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 8 of 8