UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

CASE NO:

JOHN GASTON, on behalf of

himself and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff

v.

INSIGHT SERVICE GROUP, INC.,

a Foreign Profit Corporation,

Defendant.

______________________________/

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, JOHN GASTON (“Plaintiff” or “GASTON”), on behalf of himself and all others 

similarly situated, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), files the following Complaint for Damages and 

Demand for Jury Trial against Defendant, INSIGHT SERVICE GROUP, INC. (“Defendant” or 

“ISG”), and alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Defendant unlawfully deprived Plaintiff of compensation during the course of his 

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

29 U.S.C. §§ 201-216, to recover all minimum wages owed to Plaintiff that Defendant 

refused to pay to Plaintiff and all other similarly situated individuals during the course of 

his employment.

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-61434-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 1 of 7
3. During all times material hereto, Defendant, ISG, was a Massachusetts corporation located

and transacting business within Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach County, Florida, 

within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court.

4. During all times material hereto, Plaintiff worked for Defendant, ISG, throughout the 

Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach County areas. 

5. Defendant, ISG, was Plaintiff’s employer, as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), during all 

times pertinent to the allegations herein.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. All acts and omissions giving rise to this dispute took place within the State of Florida, 

including Broward County, Florida, which falls within the jurisdiction of this Honorable 

Court.

7. Defendant, ISG, regularly transacts business throughout the state of Florida, including 

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

of Florida pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337.

8. Venue is also proper within the Southern District of Florida pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216

and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

9. Defendant, ISG is a national full-service insurance claim management company, which 

provides investigative services for fraud and medical insurance industries.

10. According to its website, ISG holds itself out to the community as follows:

ISG is a national market leader offering a unique combination of 

insurance claim management solutions. With over twenty-five years 

of experience, we have a comprehensive understanding of the 

industry and the opportunities and challenges facing our clients . . . 

ISG services over 52,000 insurance and claim colleagues across the 

industry . . . We maintain nearly 1,000 field investigators, a network 

Case 0:20-cv-61434-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 2 of 7
of over 15,000 medical providers, and successfully retrieve medical 

records from over 500,000 facilities nationally, per year. 

See https://isgvalue.com/our-company/. 

11. During all relevant time periods hereto, ISG employed hundreds (if not thousands) of field 

investigators like Plaintiff to perform surveillance and investigation services for ISG

throughout the Miami-Dade County, Broward County, and Palm Beach County areas.

12. ISG’s services extend throughout the entire State of Florida. 

FLSA COVERAGE

13. During all times material hereto, ISG was covered under the FLSA through enterprise 

coverage, as ISG was engaged in interstate commerce during all time periods in which 

Plaintiff, and all similarly situated individuals, were employed. More specifically, during 

all times material hereto, ISG employed at least two (2) or more employees who regularly 

handled goods and/or materials on a constant and/or continuous basis that traveled across 

state lines, including, but not limited to the following: cellular telephones, computer 

equipment, video cameras, recording equipment, notepads, automobiles, paper, office 

supplies, pens, chairs, printers, and other office materials. 

14. Upon information and belief, Defendant, ISG, grossed or did business in excess of 

$500,000 during the years of 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and is expected to gross in 

excess of $500,000 in 2020.

15. During all times material hereto, Plaintiff was a non-exempt hourly employee of 

Defendant, ISG, within the meaning of the FLSA.

PLAINTIFF’S WORK FOR DEFENDANT

16. Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Field Investigator from 2017 through July 1, 2020. 

Case 0:20-cv-61434-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 3 of 7
17. During all time periods pertinent to this Complaint, Defendant had and retained the power 

to hire, fire, discipline, and control company pay practices and policies as they relate to 

Plaintiff. 

18. During all time periods pertinent to this Complaint, Plaintiff performed non-exempt work 

for Defendant including, but not limited to the following: performing investigation tasks 

such as surveillance, report writing, social media and online research, report submission, 

file and video uploading and formatting, sending e-mails, attending phone conferences, 

making phone calls, attending meetings, reviewing reports and documents, facilitating 

communications with supervisors and other investigators, etc. 

19. During all times material hereto, Defendant paid Plaintiff on an hourly basis. 

20. During all time periods material hereto, Defendant implemented and followed a companywide policy that failed to pay Plaintiff for all hours of work performed during his

employment in one or more workweeks. 

21. Specifically, Plaintiff performed off-the-clock work for Defendant in one or more 

workweeks, due to Defendant’s company-wide policy that restricted Plaintiff’s input of 

hours spent performing work such as attending conference calls, meetings, conducting 

phone calls with supervisors and investigators, and uploading reports and videos after 

surveillance work was performed in the field.

22. Defendant knew or had reason to know that Plaintiff was not paid for all hours of work 

performed during his employment in one or more workweeks. 

23. In order to enforce his rights, Plaintiff was required to retain the undersigned counsel and 

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

Case 0:20-cv-61434-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 4 of 7
COUNT I – FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE VIOLATIONS – 29 U.S.C. § 206

24. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and re-avers Paragraphs 1 through 23 as though set forth fully 

herein.

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

§ 216(b).

26. For the past three (3) years, Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff at the applicable 

federal minimum wage rate of $7.25 for all hours of work he performed during one or more 

work weeks of his employment with ISG.

27. Defendant’s failure to pay Plaintiff his proper federal minimum wages for all hours of work 

performed during one or more workweeks of his employment with ISG violates the FLSA.

28. Defendant willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff his proper minimum wages 

as required by the FLSA, as Defendant knew or should have known of the minimum wage 

requirements of the FLSA and refused to comply with those requirements.

29. Moreover, Defendant knew, or should have known, that Plaintiff was performing 

uncompensated work for Defendant’s benefit. 

30. Defendant recklessly failed to investigate whether Defendant’s payroll practices were in 

accordance with the FLSA during the relevant time period.

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

to two (2) years.

32. Defendant’s willful or intentional violations of federal wage law entitle Plaintiff to an 

additional amount of liquidated (or double) damages.

33. 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.

Case 0:20-cv-61434-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 5 of 7
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JOHN GASTON, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court 

enter judgment in his favor and against Defendant, INSIGHT SERVICE GROUP, INC., and award 

Plaintiff: (a) unliquidated minimum wage damages to be paid by Defendant; (b) liquidated 

damages to be paid by Defendant; (c) reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to be paid by Defendant; 

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

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, JOHN GASTON, requests and demands a trial by jury on all appropriate claims.

Dated this 16th of July 2020.

Respectfully Submitted,

USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS – Eggnatz | Pascucci

JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 7450 Griffin Road

805 E. Broward Blvd. Suite 301 Suite 230

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Davie, Florida 33314

Ph: (954) 871-0050 Ph: (954) 889-3359

Counsel for Plaintiff, John Gaston Counsel for Plaintiff, John Gaston

By: /s/ Jordan Richards By: /s/ Joshua H. Eggnatz

JORDAN RICHARDS, ESQUIRE JOSHUA H. EGGNATZ, ESQUIRE

Florida Bar No. 108372 Florida Bar No. 0067926

MELISSA SCOTT, ESQUIRE MICHAEL J. PASCUCCI, ESQUIRE

Florida Bar No. 1010123 Florida Bar No. 83397

JAKE BLUMSTEIN, ESQUIRE jeggnatz@JusticeEarned.com

Florida Bar 1017746 MPascucci@JusticeEarned.com

Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com

Melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com

Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing document was filed via CM/ECF on July 16, 

2020.

By: /s/ Jordan Richards, Esq._____

JORDAN RICHARDS, ESQUIRE

Florida Bar No. 108372

Case 0:20-cv-61434-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 6 of 7
SERVICE LIST:

Case 0:20-cv-61434-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 7 of 7