UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

FRITZ FLEURANT,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.:

 

SHAGALLA INC., 

Defendant.

____________________________________/

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, FRITZ FLEURANT, by and through undersigned counsel, brings this 

action against Defendant, SHAGALLA INC. (“Defendant”), and in support of his claims 

states as follows: 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is an action for damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 

29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., for failure to pay overtime wages under 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3). 

2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 29 

U.S.C. § 201 et seq.

3. Venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida, because all of the events 

giving rise to these claims occurred in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff is a resident of Miami Dade County, Florida.

5. Defendant operates a wholesale seafood company in North Miami, in

Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

Case 1:20-cv-22403-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2020 Page 1 of 5
2

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

6. Plaintiff has satisfied all conditions precedent, or they have been waived. 

7. Plaintiff has hired the undersigned attorneys and agreed to pay them a fee.

8. Plaintiff requests a jury trial for all issues so triable.

9. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was “engaged in the production of 

goods” for commerce within the meaning of Sections 6 and 7 of the FLSA, and as such 

was subject to the individual coverage of the FLSA.

10. At all times material hereto, Defendant was an “employer” within the 

meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).

11. Defendant continues to be an “employer” within the meaning of the FLSA.

12. At all times material hereto, Defendant was and continues to be an 

enterprise covered by the FLSA, as defined under 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(r) and 203(s).

13. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant was engaged in interstate 

commerce within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(s).

14. At all times relevant to this action, the annual gross sales volume of 

Defendant exceeded $500,000 per year.

FACTS

15. Plaintiff began working for Defendant as an alleged Supervisor, though he 

supervised no one, in August 2019, and he worked in this capacity until November 2019. 

16. At various times material hereto, Plaintiff worked hours in excess of forty 

(40) hours within a work week for Defendant, and he was entitled to be compensated for 

these overtime hours at a rate equal to one and one-half times his regular hourly rate.

Case 1:20-cv-22403-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2020 Page 2 of 5
3

17. Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff an overtime premium for all of the 

overtime hours that he worked, in violation of the FLSA.

18. Defendant misclassified PNC as an independent contractor in order to avoid 

paying Plaintiff the premium overtime rate.

19. Plaintiff‘s job duties included waiting on Defendant’s freight deliveries to 

arrive from out-of-state, receive the deliveries, and checking the cuts of the seafood.

20. Plaintiff also pulled orders, put away stock, and maintained the quality of 

the stored product. Plaintiff spent am majority of his time cleaning, removing waste, and 

putting away new product.

21. Plaintiff’s services rendered were an integral part of the Defendant's 

business.

22. Plaintiff utilized all of Defendant’s equipment, had no control over his 

hours, and spent his time working in Defendant’s facilities.

23. Plaintiff complained to Defendant that he should be receiving overtime 

premium pay and Defendant admitted such, but refused to pay Plaintiff the appropriate 

overtime rate for all of Plaintiff’s hours over forty for each workweek.

24. Defendant’s actions were willful, and showed reckless disregard for the 

provisions of the FLSA.

COUNT I – FLSA OVERTIME VIOLATION

25. Plaintiff realleges and readopts the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 24

of this Complaint, as though fully set forth herein.

Case 1:20-cv-22403-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2020 Page 3 of 5
4

26. During the statutory period, Plaintiff worked overtime hours while 

employed by Defendant, and he was not compensated for all of these hours in accordance 

with the FLSA.

27. The foregoing conduct, as alleged, constitutes a willful violation of the 

FLSA, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 255(a).

28. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has suffered damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands:

a) Judgment against Defendant for an amount equal to Plaintiff’s 

unpaid back wages at the applicable overtime rate;

b) Judgment against Defendant stating that Defendant’s violations of 

the FLSA were willful;

c) An equal amount to Plaintiff’s overtime damages as liquidated 

damages;

d) To the extent liquidated damages are not awarded, an award of 

prejudgment interest;

e) A declaratory judgment that Defendant’s practices as to Plaintiff 

were unlawful, and grant Plaintiff equitable relief;

f) All costs and attorney’s fees incurred in prosecuting these claims; 

and

g) For such further relief as this Court deems just and equitable.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiff demands trial by jury as to all issues so triable.

Case 1:20-cv-22403-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2020 Page 4 of 5
5

Dated this 11th day of June, 2020. 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Brandon J Hill

BRANDON J. HILL

Florida Bar Number: 0037061

AMANDA E. HEYSTEK

Florida Bar Number: 0285020

WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.

1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300

Tampa, Florida 33602

Main Number: 813-224-0431

Direct Dial: 813-337-7992

Facsimile: 813-229-8712

Email: bhill@wfclaw.com

Email: aheystek@wfclaw.com

Email: aketelsen@wfclaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 1:20-cv-22403-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2020 Page 5 of 5