UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

BRYCE COOPER, on behalf of himself 

and all others similarly situated,

 Plaintiff,

v.

BOOKIT OPERATING LLC d/b/a

bookit.com, a Florida 

Limited Liability Company,

 Defendant.

____________________________________/

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, BRYCE COOPER, on his own behalf and on behalf of those 

similarly situated (collectively “Plaintiffs”), by and through his undersigned counsel, 

hereby files this Complaint against Defendant, BOOKIT OPERATING LLC d/b/a 

bookit.com, a Florida limited liability company (“BOOKIT” or “Defendant”) and 

alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action brought pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and 

Retraining Notification Act of 1988, 29 U.S.C. § 2101, et. seq. (“WARN Act”).

Case 5:20-cv-00304-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 1 of 9
2

2. Defendant is liable under the WARN Act for its failure to provide the 

Plaintiff and all others similarly situated at least sixty (60) days advance notice of 

their termination, as required by the WARN Act.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This Court has jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1331.

4. Venue is proper in this Court because all facts and events material to 

all claims set forth herein occurred in Bay County, Florida.

PARTIES

5. At all times material to this action, BOOKIT was a Florida limited 

liability company conducting business in Bay County, Florida. 

6. Plaintiffs worked for BOOKIT in Bay County, Florida.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

7. Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant. 

8. During the weeks of March 17, 2020, Defendant, without warning, and 

despite having knowledge of its intention to conduct mass layoffs, engaged in a mass 

layoff without properly notifying Plaintiffs.

9. No prior written notice was provided to the Plaintiffs, as required by 

the WARN Act.

Case 5:20-cv-00304-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 2 of 9
3

10. Plaintiffs have retained the services of the undersigned attorneys and 

are obligated to pay the undersigned a reasonable fee for their services.

11. Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all claims alleged herein.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

12. Plaintiffs sue under Rule 23(a) and (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure for violations of the WARN Act, on behalf of themselves, and a class of 

employees who were laid off by BOOKIT as part of a reasonably foreseeable result 

of shutdowns or mass layoffs (“Class”) during the week of March 17, 2020.

13. The persons in the Class (“Class Members”) are so numerous that 

joinder of all members is impracticable as there are, upon information and belief,

approximately one hundred (100) or more potential Class Members.

14. There are questions of law and fact common to the Class Members, 

namely:

(a) Whether the Class Members were employees of Defendant; 

(b)Whether Defendant ordered the termination of employment of each 

of the Class Members without giving them sixty (60) days advance 

written notice, as required by the WARN Act; and 

(c) Whether the Defendant was subject to any of the defenses provided 

for in the WARN Act.

Case 5:20-cv-00304-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 3 of 9
4

15. The claims of the representative Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the 

Class, as he/they were laid off as part of the shutdown or mass layoff, and did not 

receive the requisite notice.

16. The representative Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the 

interests of the Class.

17. The named Plaintiff retained counsel competent and experienced in 

complex class action employment litigation.

18. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and 

efficient adjudication of this controversy—particularly in the context of WARN Act 

and wage litigation – where the individual Plaintiff and Class Members may lack the 

financial resources to vigorously prosecute a lawsuit in federal court against a 

corporate defendant, and separate actions would create a risk of inconsistent or 

varying adjudications with respect to individual Class Members, and the 

adjudications with respect to individual Class Members would be dispositive of the 

interests of other members.

19. Defendant has acted on grounds that apply generally to the Class.

20. There are questions of law and fact common to the Class Members that 

predominate over any questions solely affecting individual members of the Class. 

Case 5:20-cv-00304-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 4 of 9
5

WARN ACT ALLEGATIONS

21. Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were laid off as part of 

plant shutdowns or mass layoffs of a single site of employment as defined by the 

WARN Act, for which they were entitled to receive sixty (60) days advance written 

notice under the WARN Act.

22. At all relevant times, Defendant employed three hundred (300) or more 

employees, exclusive of part-time employees, or employed 100 or more employees 

who in the aggregate worked at least 4,000 hours per week, exclusive of hours of 

overtime, within the United States as defined by the WARN Act.

23. At all relevant times, Defendant was an “employer” as that term is 

defined by the WARN Act. 

24. During the week of March 17, 2020, Defendant ordered “shutdowns” 

or “mass layoffs” as those terms are defined by the WARN Act. 

25. Defendant’s actions resulted in an “employment loss” as that term is 

defined by the WARN Act for at least 33% of its workforce, and at least 50 of its 

employees, excluding (a) employees who worked less than six of the twelve months 

prior to the date WARN notice was required to be given and (b) employees who 

worked an average of less than 20 hours per week during the 90-day period prior to 

the date WARN notice was required to be given.

Case 5:20-cv-00304-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 5 of 9
6

26. Defendant’s termination of the Class Members’ employment 

constituted plant shutdowns or mass layoffs at a single site of employment as defined 

by the WARN Act. 

27. The Plaintiff and each of the Class Members who were employed by 

Defendant and then terminated by Defendant as a result of Defendant’s executing 

plant shutdowns or mass layoffs were “affected employees” as defined by the 

WARN Act.

28. The Plaintiff and each of the Class Members are “aggrieved 

employees” of Defendant as that term is defined by the WARN Act.

29. Pursuant to the WARN Act, Defendant was required to provide at least 

sixty (60) days prior written notice of the layoff, or notice as soon as practicable, to 

the affected employees, or their representative(s), explaining why the sixty (60) days 

prior notice was not given. 

30. Defendant failed to give at least sixty (60) days prior notice of the layoff 

in violation of the WARN Act.

31. Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and each of the Class Members 

their respective wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay and 

accrued vacation for sixty (60) working days following their respective layoffs, and 

failed to make the pension and 401(k) contributions, provide other employee benefits 

Case 5:20-cv-00304-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 6 of 9
7

under ERISA, and pay their medical expenses for sixty (60) calendar days from and 

after the dates of their respective terminations.

32. As a result of Defendant’s failure to pay the wages, benefits and other 

monies as asserted, the Plaintiff and Class Members were damaged in an amount 

equal to the sum of the members’ unpaid wages, accrued holiday pay, accrued 

vacation pay, accrued sick leave pay and benefits which would have been paid for a 

period of sixty (60) calendar days after the date of the their terminations.

33. All administrative notice requirements and prerequisites have been 

satisfied.

COUNT I

VIOLATIONS OF THE WARN ACT AGAINST DEFENDANT

34. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 33, above, as if fully stated herein.

35. Defendant’s failure to provide Plaintiffs advanced written notice of 

their layoffs constitutes a violation of the WARN Act.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court award the following relief:

(a) An amount equal to the sum of: unpaid wages, salary, commissions, 

bonuses, accrued holiday pay, accrued vacation pay pension and 401(k) 

contributions and other ERISA benefits, for sixty (60) working days following the 

member employees’ termination, that would have been covered and paid under the 

Case 5:20-cv-00304-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 7 of 9
8

then-applicable employee benefit plans had that coverage continued for that period, 

all determined in accordance with the WARN Act, 29 U.S.C§2104(a)(1)(A); 

(b) Certification that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (a) and (b) and the 

WARN Act, Plaintiffs and the Other Similarly Situated Former Employees 

constitute a single Class; 

(c) Designation of Plaintiff, BRYCE COOPER, as the Class 

Representative;

(d) Appointment of the undersigned attorneys as Class Counsel;

(e) Interest as allowed by law on the amounts owed under the preceding 

paragraphs;

(f) The reasonable attorneys’ fees and the costs and disbursements the 

Plaintiffs incur in prosecuting this action, as authorized by the WARN Act; and

(g) Such other and any other additional relief as the Court deems just and 

proper.

Case 5:20-cv-00304-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 8 of 9
9

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs further demand a jury trial on all issues so triable as of right.

Dated this 12th day of November, 2020.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Noah E. Storch____

Noah E. Storch, Esq.

 Florida Bar No. 0085476

RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.

10368 W. SR 84, Suite 103 

Davie, Florida 33324

Telephone: (866) 344-9243

Facsimile: (954) 337-2771

E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com

Trial Counsel for Plaintiffs

 

Case 5:20-cv-00304-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 9 of 9