UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-cv-23351-KMM

KARINA TSEDIK,

Plaintiff,

vs.

1 YCM HOLDINGS, LLC, a Florida limited 

liability company; and YANIV ELIYAHU,

individually,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiff KARINA TSEDIK, through undersigned counsel and or her Amended 

Complaint, sues Defendants 1 YCM HOLDINGS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company

(“YCM”), and YANIV ELIYAHU, individually (“ELIYAHU”), and alleges as follows:

1. This is an action for unlawful failure to pay overtime compensation as required by 

the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §207(a) (“FLSA”), and its implementing 

regulations, and for violation of 26 U.S.C. §7434. 

2. This Court has jurisdiction over this case based on federal question jurisdiction, 

28 U.S.C. §1331, the provisions of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §216(b), and 26 U.S.C. §7434. 

3. Venue is proper in this Court as all actions complained of herein occurred in 

Miami Beach, Miami-Dade County, Florida, in the Southern District of Florida.

4. Plaintiff at all relevant times was, and still is, a resident of Miami-Dade County, 

Florida, and is sui juris. 

Case 1:20-cv-23351-KMM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2020 Page 1 of 6
2

5. Defendant YCM is, and at all relevant times was, a Florida for-profit corporation

doing business in Broward County, Florida. YCM is, and at all relevant times was, a company

providing yacht charters and luxury car rental and leasing services that, upon information and 

belief, used, purchased, and sold materials and goods in interstate commerce, and had annual 

gross revenues in excess of $500,000.00.

6. Defendant ELIYAHU is, and at all relevant times has been, a resident of Broward

County, Florida, and is sui juris. At all relevant times, ELIYAHU was and still is an owner and 

operator of YCM, was and still is an agent of YCM, and acted in the course and scope of his 

employment as owner and operator of YCM with regards to Plaintiff.

7. At all relevant times YCM was and still is an “employer” under the FLSA for 

purposes of enterprise coverage in that it was an enterprise that had two or more employees 

handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that have been moved in or 

produced for commerce by any person, and had gross annual revenues of not less than 

$500,000.00. In addition, ELIYAHU was at all relevant times, and still is, a statutory

“employer” under the FLSA in that he acted, directly or indirectly, on behalf of YCM in relation 

to Plaintiff, and regularly exercised authority to hire and fire employees of YCM, determined the 

work schedules of employees of YCM, set the rates of pay and compensation for employees of 

YCM, and controlled the finances and operations of YCM.

8. At all times during her employment with Defendants, from in or about June 11, 

2014 through on or about May 11, 2020, Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee who regularly 

worked over 40 hours in one or more work weeks.

9. At all relevant times Plaintiff was deliberately and intentionally misclassified by 

Defendants as an independent contractor when in fact she worked and performed services for 

Case 1:20-cv-23351-KMM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2020 Page 2 of 6
3

Defendants as an employee. Specifically, at all relevant times: (1) the services that Plaintiff 

performed for Defendants as their office manager were and are an integral part and primary 

function of Defendants’ businesses; (2) Defendants fully and solely controlled Plaintiff’s day-today work, including setting Plaintiff’s work schedules, directing Plaintiff’s work, and requiring 

Plaintiff to perform all work each week on Defendants’ premises; (3) Plaintiff was provided and 

required by Defendants to use equipment and tools that were owned by Defendants; (4) Plaintiff 

was required to work at Defendants’ premises for at least five days, and sometimes more, per 

week for full work days; (5) Plaintiff was not permitted to work, nor was given the time to work,

for any other persons or companies doing similar work; and (6) Plaintiff was not permitted to 

offer or provide her work to any competing persons or businesses during her employment with 

Defendants. Defendants were aware at all relevant times that Plaintiff was an employee of 

Defendants, yet intentionally misclassified her as an independent contractor to avoid paying 

federal FICA tax, Social Security, and Medicare withholdings on her behalf, and to avoid paying 

her overtime per the requirements of the FLSA. 

10. At all relevant times there was and is individual coverage of Plaintiff under the 

FLSA as she regularly and in the ordinary course and scope of her work for Defendants would 

use the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, such as the telephones, mail, internet, and 

email; would regularly by telephone, mail and email communicate with Defendants’ customers

and third party vendors located in states and countries outside the state of Florida; would 

regularly solicit and enter into contracts, car rentals and leases, and yacht charters with customers 

located in states and countries outside the state of Florida; would regularly purchase goods and 

supplies on behalf of Defendants from third parties located outside the state of Florida; and 

Case 1:20-cv-23351-KMM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2020 Page 3 of 6
4

would regularly handle goods, products, and materials that were manufactured and moved in 

interstate commerce.

11. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as their office manager to handle all of 

Defendant’s office matters, including payroll, communicating with and paying vendors and 

suppliers, communicating with customers, problem solving customer issues and complaints, 

responding to customer inquiries, handling bookkeeping and company paperwork matters, 

scheduling car rentals and leasing and yacht charters, and overseeing Defendant’s day-to-day 

operations. For the three-year period immediately preceding the filing of this Complaint,

Plaintiff was paid a regular hourly rate of $22.00, plus commissions on customers that she 

brought in. However, Plaintiff regularly worked more than forty (40) hours in one or more work 

weeks during the three-year period immediately preceding the filing of this Complaint, but was

not paid the requisite full time and one-half overtime compensation for each hour worked more 

than forty (40) hours, as required by the FLSA. Specifically, although Plaintiff was paid her 

regular hourly rate for each hour she worked, including each overtime hour, she was not paid the 

extra half time rate of $11.00 per hour for each overtime hour, as required by the FLSA. 

12. For the 32-month period preceding and through May 11, 2020, Plaintiff estimates 

that she worked a total of approximately 800 to 1,024 hours of overtime for which she is owed 

approximately $8,800.00 to $11,264.00 in overtime compensation based on a half-time rate of 

$11.00 per hour, and an approximately 640 to 800 hour of overtime for which she is owed 

approximately $21,120.00 to $26,400.00 based on a time and one-half rate of $33.00 per hour. 

13. While Plaintiff kept and maintained some records of her pay and time records, the 

complete records of the compensation actually paid to Plaintiff should be in the possession, 

custody, and control of Defendants. However, upon information and belief Defendants failed to 

Case 1:20-cv-23351-KMM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2020 Page 4 of 6
5

keep and maintain any of the required records of hours worked by and wages paid to its 

employees, including Plaintiff, per the record-keeping requirements of the FLSA. 

14. All conditions precedent to the filing of this action have been satisfied, waived, or 

otherwise excused.

15. Plaintiff has hired the undersigned law firm to represent her in this case and has 

agreed to pay the firm a reasonable fee for its services.

COUNT I – UNPAID OVERTIME VIOLATION OF FLSA

16. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 15 as if set forth fully herein.

17. Under the FLSA, Defendants were obligated to pay Plaintiff one and one-half 

times her hourly pay rate for all hours she worked more than forty (40) hours per work week. 

However, Plaintiff worked more than forty (40) hours in one or more work weeks and was not 

paid the extra half-time premium for her overtime work. 

18. Defendants have failed and refused to pay Plaintiff the required extra overtime 

pay for all hours Plaintiff worked more than forty (40) hours per work week, in violation of the 

FLSA overtime requirements under 29 U.S.C. §206(a).

19. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations of the FLSA, Plaintiff 

has suffered damages equal to one-half her regular hourly rate of pay of $22.00 for all overtime 

hours worked where she was paid straight time and one and one-half her regular hourly rate of 

pay of $22,.00 for all overtime hours she worked for which she received no compensation. 

Specifically, Plaintiff estimates that she worked a total of approximately 800 to 1,024 hours of 

overtime for which she is owed approximately $8,800.00 to $11,264.00 in overtime

compensation based on a half-time rate of $11.00 per hour, and an approximately 640 to 800 

Case 1:20-cv-23351-KMM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2020 Page 5 of 6
6

hour of overtime for which she is owed approximately $21,120.00 to $26,400.00 based on a time 

and one-half rate of $33.00 per hour.

20. Defendants engaged in their overtime pay violations under the FLSA, including 

their intentional misclassification of Plaintiff as an independent contractor when in fact she was 

an employee, willfully, intentionally, and in reckless disregard of the rights of Plaintiff under the 

law.

21. Plaintiff is entitled to recover her costs, expenses, and reasonable attorney’s fees 

under the FLSA. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, for 

all unpaid overtime as required under the FLSA, liquidated damages, interest, costs, expenses, 

attorney’s fees, and such further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury of all issues so triable.

DATED: August 12, 2020.

RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

4800 North Hiatus Road

Sunrise, FL 33351-7919

Telephone: (954) 362-3800

Facsimile: (954) 362-3779

Email: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com

By /s/ Roderick V. Hannah

Roderick V. Hannah

Fla. Bar No. 435384

Case 1:20-cv-23351-KMM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2020 Page 6 of 6