EXHIBIT A

Case 0:20-cv-61690-AHS Document 29-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2021 Page 1 of 7
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

FT. LAUDERDALE DIVISION 

CASE NO. 20-cv-61690-SINGHAL 

DEBRON WALLEN, 

SANJAY SHAKES, Individually and 

On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

SVENSK MANAGEMENT, INC. & 

RICHARD FERNBACH, 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________/ 

DECLARATION OF RICHARD FERNBACH 

I, Richard Fernbach, hereby declare as follows: 

1. I am an adult over eighteen (18) years of age and reside in the State of Florida. 

I have personal knowledge of and am competent to testify regarding the matters set forth in 

this Declaration. I give this Declaration voluntarily and of my own free will. Before signing 

this Declaration, I reviewed it completely for accuracy, and made any changes that were 

necessary to make it accurate. I understand that this Declaration may be used for any purpose 

permitted by law. 

2. I am the owner of Svensk Management, Inc. (“Svensk”), which does business 

as Advanced Pools. I have been the owner of this company since 1986. 

3. Svensk is a pool maintenance company that provides services to residential and 

commercial customers in Miami-Dade, Broward County, and Palm Beach County Florida. 

The Company currently has 15 employees, 12 of which are Pool Service Technicians. 

Case 0:20-cv-61690-AHS Document 29-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2021 Page 2 of 7
2 

4. Svensk operates an office space in Lauderdale Lakes, Florida where it, among 

other things, stores pool equipment and supplies, and maintains space to park company 

vehicles. 

5. As the Owner, I am responsible for, in addition to other tasks, payroll and 

setting the routes and schedules of Svensk’s pool service technicians. 

6. Svensk’s practice is to pay its employees all compensation to which they are 

entitled, in accordance with applicable state and federal laws. 

7. Plaintiff Sanjay Shakes (“Plaintiff Shakes”) was employed by Svensk as a Pool 

Service Technician from March 19, 2018 until November 31, 2019, when he voluntarily 

resigned from his employment. 

8. Plaintiff Shakes was paid a guaranteed minimum amount of $600 for the first 

three weeks of his employment, and $700 for all remaining weeks of his employment. 

9. In addition to performing work on his daily route, Plaintiff Shakes often 

worked at the office, helping to fix chemical feeders. This additional work took place on the 

weekend, and he was paid at an overtime rate for such work. 

10. Plaintiff Debron Wallen (“Plaintiff Wallen”) was employed by Svensk as a 

Pool Service Technician from September 20, 2018 until November 15, 2019, when he 

voluntarily resigned from his employment. 

11. Plaintiff Wallen was paid a guaranteed minimum amount of $550 for the first 

three weeks of his employment, $650 for the next three weeks of his employment, and $700 

for all remaining weeks of his employment. 

12. In addition to performing work on his daily route, Plaintiff Wallen often 

worked at the office, performing oil change on company vehicles. This additional work took 

Case 0:20-cv-61690-AHS Document 29-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2021 Page 3 of 7
3 

place on the weekend, and he was paid at an overtime rate for such work. 

13. Opt-In Plaintiff Millet Charles (“Opt-In Plaintiff Charles”) was employed by 

Svensk as a Pool Service Technician from September 16, 2019 until January 25, 2020 when 

he failed to show to work. 

14. Opt-In Plaintiff Charles was paid a guaranteed amount of $650 per week for 

his entire employment. 

15. Opt-In Plaintiff Orlando Foster (“Opt-In Plaintiff Foster”) was employed 

periodically by Svensk as a Pool Service Technician from July 3, 2019 until April 21, 2020 

when he stopped showing up to work. 

16. Opt-In Plaintiff Foster was paid $800 for the first week of his employment, 

$550 for his second week of employment, $650 per week for the remaining term of his 

employment, with the exception of the last eight weeks of his employment where he was paid 

$700 per week and $420 (pro-rated) for his last paycheck. 

17. The guaranteed minimum amount was intended to compensate them for the 

hours that they worked Monday through Friday, and they were paid additional compensation 

at an overtime rate if they worked on the weekend. 

18. Plaintiff Shakes, Plaintiff Wallen, Opt-in Plaintiff Charles, Opt-in Plaintiff 

Foster, and other Pool Service Technicians, were given a route each week that identified the 

pools they were assigned to service. The number of pools in a route varied from person to 

person. 

19. I created the routes for the Pool Service Technicians, and I know how long it 

should generally take to service the pools in each route. As a result, it was part of my intent 

Case 0:20-cv-61690-AHS Document 29-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2021 Page 4 of 7
4 

to distribute the routes in a manner that would not require anyone to work more than eight 

hours in a day. 

20. The amount of time worked each day varied depending on the nature of the 

work required at the pools on a route, which also varied from pool to pool. The Company 

services residential and commercial pools, and the nature of the work at a residential pool is 

different than the nature of the work at a commercial pool. For example, residential pools 

take less time to service than commercial pools due to their smaller size. Further, commercial 

pools, in comparison to typical residential pools, have chemical feeders which require 

different service and maintenance. Additionally, pool service technicians are responsible for 

monitoring and reporting the compliance of safety codes specific to commercial pools. 

21. Some days might result in a full eight-hour work day, but many days only 

resulted half as much time, or even just a couple hours of work. Even though this meant that 

less than 40 hours was worked by Friday of each week, the Company still payed no less than 

the guaranteed minimum amount. 

22. With respect to weekends, the Company was only open until 3 pm on Saturdays 

and it was not open on Sundays. Thus, if work was performed at the office on Saturday, it was 

supposed to be completed by 3 pm. The Company does not clean pools on Sunday, so there 

was no need or reason to perform work that day. 

23. Plaintiff Shakes, Plaintiff Wallen, and Opt-In Plaintiff Foster, were paid at oneand-one half their regular rate of pay when they worked more than 40 hours in a workweek, 

which only occurred if they performed work on the weekend. Opt-In Plaintiff Charles did not 

perform any work on weekends. 

Case 0:20-cv-61690-AHS Document 29-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2021 Page 5 of 7
5 

24. Plaintiff Shakes was paid for a total of 468 overtime hours for a total amount 

of $12,280.00 in overtime compensation, Plaintiff Wallen was paid for a total of 229 overtime 

hours for a total amount of $6,006.25 in overtime compensation, and Opt-In Plaintiff Foster 

was paid for a total of 20 overtime hours for the total amount of $375.00 in overtime 

compensation. 

25. I am aware that Plaintiff Shakes, Plaintiff Wallen, Opt-in Plaintiff Charles, and 

Opt-in Plaintiff Foster each claim that they worked far in excess of 40 hours during each week 

of their employment. I have no knowledge of any such work, other than the overtime work 

on weekends for which they were paid. If any of them was working more than eight hours 

per day on their routes, then they were doing something entirely different than what was 

intended for their job duties and responsibilities. In order to assess the truthfulness of their 

assertions in this regard would require an analysis of precisely what each of them was actually 

doing out on their routes, particularly since they were out in the field each day, without any 

onsite supervision or monitoring. 

26. At the time of hire, Plaintiff Shakes, Plaintiff Wallen, Opt-In Plaintiff Charles 

and Opt-In Plaintiff Foster were all notified of this payment method and at no time did any of 

these employees tell me they believed they were working any hours without proper and 

compete compensation (for regular hours or for overtime hours), nor did any of them 

otherwise complain regarding the Company’s payment policies and practices. To the 

contrary, I am confident that the guaranteed minimum amount of pay worked out in their 

favor, since they got paid that amount in numerous workweeks when they performed far less 

than 40 hours of work by the time Friday was over. 

27. My Company has only been involved in an FLSA lawsuit on two prior 

Case 0:20-cv-61690-AHS Document 29-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2021 Page 6 of 7
occasions, both of which were filed in 2008 and neither of which was similar to this case 

m any manner. 

28. In December 2008, former Renovations Supervisor Joseph Engelhardt 

filed an action for unpaid overtime under the FLSA. Mr. Engelhardt's position was 

classified by the Company as exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA. In 

the lawsuit, Mr. Engelhadt argued that he was improperly classified as an exempt 

employee, and therefore he claimed that he should have been paid overtime 

compensation. The entire case focused on that exemption dispute. Although we denied 

the allegations, the case was ultimately resolved via settlement. 

29. In August 2008, former pool service technician Jeremy Wise filed an 

action for unpaid overtime under the FLSA. Mr. Wise was an hourly employee, and he 

claimed that the Company owed him unpaid overtime. However, Mr. Wise was only 

employed with my Company for four months, and within a few weeks of when I learned 

about the lawsuit, his counsel offered to resolve the case and we reached a quick 

settlement for a small amount. At the time, I do not recall that I even knew much of 

anything about why he claimed to be owed unpaid overtime. Even though I did not 

believe that I owed him any unpaid compensation, it made sense to resolve it, given the 

amount. Mr. Wise received payment of $2,000. 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I VERIFY UNDER PENAL TY OF PERJURY 

UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA THAT THE 

FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRE~ 

DA TE~, 2021 ~~ ""'"'~'---:;;. ,l.,.;--.-a=""'-.,.~ ....._:::i~ 

Richard Fernbach 

6 

Case 0:20-cv-61690-AHS Document 29-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2021 Page 7 of 7