Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NUMBER: 

 

 

Martin Schaaf, on behalf himself

and others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

EIMS USA, Inc., a foreign corporation,

 Defendant.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

INTRODUCTION

1. This is a suit for damages for unpaid minimum 

wages under Chapter 8 of Title 29, the Fair Labor 

Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. § 201-219 ("Fair Labor 

Standards Act” or “FLSA")and Florida State law, §

448.08, Fla. Stat. (2018) for unpaid wages.

HISTORY

2. Defendant, EIMS USA, Inc. “DEFENDANT” a sales 

and marketing corporation hired Plaintiff, Martin 

Schaaf, “PLAINTIFF” and others similarly situated for 

non-exempt FLSA jobs. Once hired, DEFENDANT required 

training class attendance at DEFENDANT’S place of 

business in Miami FL. DEFENDANT’S policy was not to pay 

Case 1:20-cv-22959-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 1 of 8
Page 2 of 8

any employee for his or her training hours the agreed

upon wage or federal minimum wages for the hours 

attended unless fifty (50) or more hours were worked 

subsequent to the training classes. PLAINTIFF and others 

similarly situated did not work the required fifty (50) 

hours. December 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13, 2019, PLAINTIFF 

attended DEFENDANT’S required training classes. On 

December 13, 2019, in addition to attending the training 

class, PLAINTIFF performed five (5) hours of work for 

DEFENDANT. Total hours of training and work by 

PLAINTIFF equal approximately thirty-seven (37).

JURISDICTION

3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction 

because this is a civil action arising under the laws of 

the United States. See 28 U.S.C. 1331. Specifically, 

PLAINTIFF and others similarly situated seek to 

prosecute civil claims under the Fair Labor Standards 

Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201-219.

4. This Court has supplemental subject matter 

jurisdiction over PLAINTIFF’S state law claim under 28 

U.S.C. § 1367. The Court has original jurisdiction over 

PLAINTIFF’S FLSA claim. PLAINTIFF’S state law claim is

Case 1:20-cv-22959-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 2 of 8
Page 3 of 8

so related to PLAINTIFF’S federal law claim that they 

form part of the same case or controversy.

VENUE

5. DEFENDANT is a Delaware corporation authorized 

by the Florida Department of State Division of 

Corporations to transact business in Florida. DEFENDANT 

has a permanent place of business in Miami, Dade County, 

Florida.

6. PLAINTIFF is a resident of Broward County, 

Florida.

7. Venue is proper in the Southern District of 

Florida because the classes were located in Dade County 

Florida.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

8. At all times pertinent to this Complaint, 

other similarly situated former or current employees to 

the Plaintiff exist. These persons attended the 

training classes, did not subsequently work at least 

fifty (50) hours for DEFENDANT and were not paid at 

least Federal Minimum Wages.

9. PLAINTIFF brings this action in his individual 

capacity and as a 29 U.S.C. § 216 collective action. 

Case 1:20-cv-22959-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 3 of 8
Page 4 of 8

See attached Exhibit A, Consent to Bring At all times 29 

U.S.C. § 216 collective action.

10. DEFENDANT was an employer to PLAINTIFF and 

others similarly situated as that term is defined in 29 

U.S.C. § 203(d) since its agents had substantial control 

over the terms and conditions of the employment.

11. At all times pertinent to this Complaint 

DEFENDANT was an enterprise engaged in commerce or in 

the production of goods for commerce as defined in 29 

U.S.C. § 203(s)(1) because DEFENDANT had the following:

a. Two or more employees engaged in commerce 

or in the production of goods for commerce. For 

example, DEFENDANT communicated on daily basis among its 

other offices located outside Florida by mail, 

telephone, and internet; or

b. Two or more employees handling, selling, 

or otherwise working on goods or materials that had been 

moved in or produced for commerce by any person. For 

example, employees processing sales used electronics, 

paper supplies, computer products, and 

telecommunications products that originated outside of 

Florida; and 

Case 1:20-cv-22959-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 4 of 8
Page 5 of 8

c. Upon information and belief DEFENDANT is 

an enterprise whose annual gross volume of sales made or 

business done was not less than $500,000.00.

12. Plaintiff and others similarly situated

performed work for DEFENDANT where they were

individually engaged in commerce or in the production of 

goods for interstate commerce as defined in 29 U.S.C. § 

§ 203(r) and 203(s). PLAINTIFF and others similarly 

situated regularly communicated by telephone or internet 

with DEFENDANT’S offices outside the state Florida and 

potential customers outside Florida. 

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I. FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGES

13. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations in 

paragraphs 1-3, and 5-12 in this section for all 

purposes as if fully restated.

14. DEFENDANT violated the provisions of 29 U.S.C. 

§ 206 by employing PLAINTIFF and others similarly 

situated without compensation at a rate not less than 

federal minimum wage ($7.25).

15. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216, PLAINTIFF and 

others similarly situated are entitled to recover from 

DEFENDANT a reasonable attorney fee and costs.

Case 1:20-cv-22959-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 5 of 8
Page 6 of 8

16. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216, PLAINTIFF and 

others similarly situated are entitled to recover from 

DEFENDANT liquidated damages in an equal amount due for 

unpaid federal minimum wages. Alternatively, if 

liquidated damages are denied, prejudgment interest is 

claimed.

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF and others similarly situated 

demands judgment against DEFENDANT for the following:

a. Federal Minimum Wages.

b. Liquidated damages, alternatively

prejudgment interest should liquidated damages be 

denied.

c. Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

COUNT II.

STATE UNPAID WAGES

17. PLAINTIFF incorporates the allegations in 

paragraphs 1-7 and 10 in this Count for all purposes as 

if fully restated.

18. DEFENDANT violated its agreement with 

PLAINTIFF for the period from on or about December 9, 

10, 11, 12 & 13, 2019, by failing to pay PLAINTIFF his 

wages of $769.23.

Case 1:20-cv-22959-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 6 of 8
Page 7 of 8

19. Pursuant § 448.08, Fla. Stat. (2014), 

PLAINTIFF is entitled to recover from DEFENDANT a 

reasonable attorney fee and costs.

20. Prejudgment interest is claimed.

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF demands judgment against 

DEFENDANT for the following:

a. Unpaid wages.

b. Prejudgment interest.

c. Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

PLAINTIFF demands trial by jury on all issues as 

provided by Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure.

Dated: July 17, 2020.

Respectfully submitted by:

/s/ James E. Dusek

 James E. Dusek, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 0770833

Intracoastal Building

3000 NE 30th Place

Suite 408

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308

Mailing Address: 

Post Office Box 4337

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33338

(954) 565-2344 (Tel.)

 jim@duseklawfirm.com 

 Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 1:20-cv-22959-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 7 of 8
Page 8 of 8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 17, 2020, I 

electronically filed the foregoing document with the 

Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. 

By: /s/ James E. Dusek_________

 James E. Dusek, Esq.

Case 1:20-cv-22959-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 8 of 8