UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO._________________

JAMES CURRY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

B & B (WPB) LLC d/b/a THE BEAUTY & 

THE BEEEEF – BURGER BAR, a Florida corporation, 

and MARK MEISELS, individually,

Defendants.

_______________________________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, JAMES CURRY, by and through undersigned counsel, sues the Defendants, B & B 

(WPB) LLC d/b/a THE BEAUTY & THE BEEEEF – BURGER BAR, (hereinafter, “Company”), 

and MARK MEISELS, individually, (hereinafter, collectively referred to as “Defendants”) and 

alleges as follows:

1. Plaintiff, a former employee of the Defendants, brings this action to recover 

compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended (the "FLSA"), 29 

U.S.C. § 201 et seq. 

2. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

3. The unlawful employment practices alleged herein occurred and/or were committed 

within this judicial district. 

4. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff is/was a resident of this judicial district, an 

employee of the Defendants, sui juris and otherwise within the jurisdiction of this Court.

Case 9:20-cv-80809-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/15/2020 Page 1 of 4
2

5. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Company, was the employer or former 

employer of the Plaintiff and is conducting business in this judicial district and is otherwise an 

‘employer’ under the FLSA.

6. That at all times material hereto, Defendant, MARK MEISELS, individually, acted 

directly in the interests of her employer, the Defendant, Company, in relation to the Plaintiff, and 

this individual Defendant exercised the requisite legal control and otherwise administered the illegal 

acts as described herein on behalf of the Defendant, Company, and is otherwise an ‘employer’ under 

the FLSA.

7. At all times material hereto, Defendants were and continue to be an ‘enterprise 

engaged in commerce’ within the meaning of the FLSA. 

8. That at all times material hereto, Plaintiff was ‘engaged in commerce’ within the 

meaning of the FLSA.

9. Defendants have been at all times material engaged in interstate commerce, and

Defendants’ annual gross revenues derived from this interstate commerce, upon information and 

belief, are in excess of $500,000.00 for the relevant time period.

10. The Plaintiff was employed as a line cook by the Defendants.

11. During his employment, the Defendants however had Plaintiff, a non-exempt 

employee under the FLSA, work in excess of forty (40) hours per work week, but willfully refused 

to properly compensate Plaintiff for such work in violation of the FLSA.

12. Specifically, Plaintiff was working as many as 55 hours per week, yet was being paid 

on a salary basis as opposed to hourly. 

13. Thus, Plaintiff was being denied overtime premiums for all hours above 40, as 

opposed to the salary structure Defendants paid him on. 

Case 9:20-cv-80809-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/15/2020 Page 2 of 4
3

14. Moreover, if Plaintiff missed work, those salary hours would have to be made up,

such as one instance where he missed three days of work for his girlfriend’s medical condition. 

15. All records concerning the number of hours actually worked by Plaintiff are 

presumably in the exclusive possession and sole custody and control of the Defendants, and 

therefore, Plaintiff is unable to state at this time the exact amount due. 

16. Plaintiff, however, will exert diligent efforts to obtain such information by 

appropriate discovery proceedings, to be taken promptly in this case, and if required, an amendment 

to this Complaint will be submitted to set forth an amount due by the Plaintiff.

COUNT I

FLSA - COMPANY

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 16

above.

 17. Plaintiff is entitled to time and one half for each hour worked in excess of forty (40) 

hours per work week pursuant to the FLSA.

18. By reason of the intentional, willful and unlawful acts of the Defendant, Company in 

violation of the FLSA, Plaintiff has suffered damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant, Company for all 

damages and relief under the FLSA, including liquidated damages (and/or pre-judgment interest), 

attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses, in addition to all other relief this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT II

FLSA–MARK MEISELS

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 16 of 

this Complaint.

Case 9:20-cv-80809-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/15/2020 Page 3 of 4
4

 19. Plaintiff is entitled to time and one half for each hour worked in excess of forty (40) 

hours per work week pursuant to the FLSA.

20. By reason of the intentional, willful and unlawful acts of the Defendant, MARK

MEISELS in violation of the FLSA, Plaintiff has suffered damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant, MARK MEISELS for 

all damages and relief under the FLSA, including liquidated damages (and/or pre-judgment interest),

attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses, in addition to all other relief this Court deems just and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all counts. 

Dated: May 15, 2020. Respectfully submitted,

Law Offices of Levy & Levy, P.A.

1000 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, Suite 588

Sunrise, Florida 33323

Telephone: (954) 763-5722

Facsimile: (954) 763-5723

Counsel for Plaintiff

/s/ Chad Levy

CHAD E. LEVY, ESQ.

chad@levylevylaw.com

Secondary: assistant@levylevylaw.com

F.B.N.: 0851701

DAVID M. COZAD, ESQ.

david@levylevylaw.com

F.B.N.: 333920

Case 9:20-cv-80809-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/15/2020 Page 4 of 4