UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 

KARINA TSEDIK,

Plaintiff,

vs.

1 YCM HOLDINGS, LLC, a Florida limited 

liability company; and YANIV ELIYAHU,

individually,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiff KARINA TSEDIK, through undersigned counsel, 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. In addition, this is an action for common law 

fraud and violation of the Florida Civil Theft statute, §772.11, Fla. Stat.

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. In 

addition, this Court has supplementary jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s common law tort claim 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367. 

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.

Case 1:20-cv-23351-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2020 Page 1 of 10
2

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

Florida, and is sui juris. 

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.

Case 1:20-cv-23351-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2020 Page 2 of 10
3

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 

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 

Case 1:20-cv-23351-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2020 Page 3 of 10
4

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

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, 

Case 1:20-cv-23351-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2020 Page 4 of 10
5

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

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 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2020 Page 5 of 10
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.

COUNT II – VIOLATION OF FLA. STAT. § 772.11 (CIVIL THEFT) AGAINST ELIYAHU

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

23. Florida Statutes §772.11 provides a civil remedy to any person who is the victim 

of the crime of theft committed by another person, as set forth in Florida Statutes §812.014.

24. In or about late July or early August 2017, while Ms. Tsedik was employed by 

Defendants, ELIYAHU, as Plaintiff’s immediate supervisor and boss, made false representations 

to Plaintiff to pay him, through another company he owned, Boo Bah Enterprise, LLC (“Boo 

Bah”), via checks and wire transfers, a total of $42,599.43, to purchase certain residential real 

estate located in the state of Michigan. ELIYAHU convinced Plaintiff to part with her money

by falsely representing to her that she would be partners and co-owners with ELIYAHU in the 

property purchases with the intention that the properties would be flipped to realize large 

financial gains, and that ELIYAHU would then share equally with Plaintiff in those gains. After 

Case 1:20-cv-23351-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2020 Page 6 of 10
7

taking Plaintiff’s money, however, ELIYAHU used it to purchase properties in his own or his

company’s name, without any intention of having Plaintiff be a partner with him in the 

investments and without any intention of repaying Plaintiff any of her monies or paying her any 

financial gains realized from the sales of the properties. Plaintiff repeatedly asked ELIYAHU 

for information about the investments; however, he refused to give it to her and further refused to 

give her any accounting of how the funds were used. When Plaintiff requested that ELIYAHU 

return the funds to her, he refused to do so, feigning ignorance of any partnership between him

and her or any obligation by him to account to her for the use of the funds.

25. On or about March 24, 2020, ELIYAHU again made false representations to 

Plaintiff of entering into an investment partnership with him to cause her to pay him, again

through payments to Boo Bah, a total of $10,000.00 of her personal funds. ELIYAHU 

specifically represented to Plaintiff that he would be investing her and his own money, in equal 

amounts, in the stock market through a Raymond James brokerage account, and that he would 

share in the investment proceeds equally with her when the stock market had rebounded from its 

novel coronavirus lows. ELIYAHU then took Plaintiff’s money and invested it in a Raymond 

James account, but only in his own name and not in her name. Although ELIYAHU initially 

gave Plaintiff online access to the view the account, purportedly to enable her to track the 

investment results, ELIYAHU suddenly, and without explanation, cut off Plaintiff’s access to the 

account with the online investment information, with the intention of keeping all the money in 

the account, including the funds Plaintiff had given him, for himself. When Plaintiff then made 

inquiry of ELIYAHU about the account and requested continuing access to it, ELIYAHU 

claimed to have no knowledge about any joint investment or any investment partnership with 

Plaintiff, and blocked her to online access the account information. As with the real estate

Case 1:20-cv-23351-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2020 Page 7 of 10
8

investments discussed in paragraph 24 above, when Plaintiff asked ELIYAHU for a return of her 

money that she had paid him, he refused to do so.

26. ELIYAHU thus obtained the property of Plaintiff – specifically Plaintiff’s 

personal monies and funds – through false and deceitful representations and with the intent to 

permanently appropriate and deprive Plaintiff of the monies and funds for his own personal use

or to the use of other persons or entities not entitled to the use of the property.

27. As a direct and proximate cause of ELIYAHU’s theft of Plaintiff’s monies and 

funds, Plaintiff has suffered damages in the amount of $52,599.43 the funds she paid ELIYAHU, 

plus interest thereon from the dates the funds were obtained by ELIYAHU. 

28. As a condition precedent to filing this claim against Defendants, Plaintiff, through 

her undersigned counsel, sent to Defendants then counsel, the pre-suit notice required 

by§772.11(1), Fla. Stat., a copy of which is attached as Exhibit “A”.

29. Per §772.11(1), Fla. Stat., Plaintiff is entitled to recover from ELIYAHU treble 

the amount of her actual damages sustained, plus costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands entry of judgment against Defendant ELIYAHU for 

threefold Plaintiff’s actual damages ($157,798.29), plus interest, costs, reasonable attorney’s 

fees, and such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

COUNT III – FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION AGAISNT ELIYAHU

30. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 15 and 24 through 26 as if set forth fully 

herein.

31. ELIYAHU made the false representations to Plaintiff knowing that they were not 

true; i.e., knowing that he never had any intention of entering into any partnership or proceeds 

splitting with Plaintiff of any real estate and stock investments that were made with the use of 

Case 1:20-cv-23351-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2020 Page 8 of 10
9

Plaintiff’s funds. ELIYAHU made the false statements of fact to Plaintiff with the intention of 

permanently depriving her of the use of and proceeds derived from the funds and using the funds 

for his personal purposes and gain. 

32. The false representations that ELIYAHU made to Plaintiff were false statements

of material fact that induced Plaintiff to give ELIYAHU the funds. Had Plaintiff known that 

ELIYAHU never intended to use the funds for Plaintiff’s benefit or to pay her any proceeds from 

the investments he made with the funds, she would not have given ELIYAHU the funds. 

33. Plaintiff thus reasonably relied on ELIYAHU’s false statements of fact in paying 

the monies and funds to ELIYAHU.

34. As a direct and proximate cause of ELIYAHU’s false and fraudulent

misrepresentations to Plaintiff, Plaintiff has suffered damages in the loss of her funds in the total 

amount of $$52,599.43, plus interest thereon from the dates that the funds were paid to

ELIYAHU by Plaintiff.

35. ELIYAHU engaged in his fraudulent conduct as described hereinabove willfully, 

intentionally, maliciously and in reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights under the law.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands entry of judgment against Defendant ELIYAHU for 

her compensatory damages, plus interest, costs, and such further relief as the Court deems just 

and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

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

Case 1:20-cv-23351-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2020 Page 9 of 10
10

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 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2020 Page 10 of 10