UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

CASE NO:

JARYN MISSICK, on behalf of himself

and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

UNITED HARDWARE SUPPLY INC.,

a Florida corporation,

Defendant.

/

COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, JARYN MISSICK (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of himself and all others similarly 

situated pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), files this Collective Action Complaint for Damages and 

Demand for Jury Trial against Defendant, UNITED HARDWARE SUPPLY INC. (“Defendant”),

for its failure to pay federal overtime wages to Plaintiff, and alleges the following:

INTRODUCTION

1. Defendant misclassified Plaintiff and all other similarly situated individuals as 

independent contractors to avoid federal overtime wage obligations under the Fair Labor Standards 

Act (“FLSA”). As a result of this intentional and willful misclassification, Defendants deprived 

Plaintiff and dozens of other employees of federal overtime wages during the course of the 

previous three (3) years. This action arises under the FLSA, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 201–216, to 

recover all federal overtime wages that Defendant refused to pay Plaintiff and all other similarly 

situated employees. 

Case 0:22-cv-61702-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022 Page 1 of 7
2

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. 

3. During all times material hereto, Defendant was a Florida profit corporation located

and transacting business within Broward County, Florida, with a principal place of business 

located at 3101 North 29th Avenue, Hollywood, Florida 33020, within the jurisdiction of this 

Honorable Court.

4. Plaintiff worked at Defendant’s principal location in Hollywood, Florida.

5. During all times material hereto, Defendant was vested with control and decisionmaking authority over the scheduling, hiring, firing, day-to-day operations, and pay practices that 

pertained to Plaintiff. 

6. Defendants exercised significant control over the nature and degree of the work 

performed by Plaintiff, and the economic realities of the relationship between Plaintiff and 

Defendant was consistent with that of employer-employee. 

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

times pertinent to the allegations herein. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. All acts and/or omissions giving rise to this dispute took place within Broward 

County, Florida, which falls within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court.

9. Defendant regularly transacts business in Broward County, Florida, and jurisdiction 

is therefore proper within the Southern District of Florida pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337. 

Case 0:22-cv-61702-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022 Page 2 of 7
3

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

§ 216(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 

PLAINTIFF’S WORK FOR DEFENDANT

11. Defendant sources and delivers locksmith wholesale products, such as car keys, 

fobs, key cutting machines and parts, key programmers, commercial and residential door 

hardware, and a range of other locksmith equipment and tools. https://www.uhshardware.com/pages/about-us (last visited August 10, 2022). 

12. Defendant maintains a Purchasing Department in which it employs Buyers, Senior 

Buyers, Purchaser Specialists, and Sales Representatives – all of whom share substantially similar 

duties and responsibilities related to customer service.

13. Defendant hired Plaintiff as a Buyer in its Purchasing Department on or about 

February 28, 2022. 

14. Defendant assigns its Buyers various tasks including data entry, communicating 

with vendors, placing stock orders, assisting customers to complete online and telephonic orders, 

and other administrative tasks. 

15. Defendant compensates its Buyers an hourly wage that is contingent upon the 

number of hours they work.

16. From February 28, 2022, to the end of May 2022, Defendant compensated Plaintiff 

at an hourly rate of $20.00.

17. In May of 2022, Defendant gave Plaintiff a raise to an hourly rate of $22.00. 

18. In one or more workweeks of his employment, Plaintiff worked in excess of forty 

(40) hours per week. 

19. Plaintiff’s schedule was Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 

Case 0:22-cv-61702-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022 Page 3 of 7
4

20. Plaintiff also had to occasionally work on the weekends. 

21. However, Defendant refused to pay Plaintiff federal overtime wages during one or 

more workweeks when he worked more than forty (40) hours. 

22. During the relevant time period, Defendant failed to comply with the recordkeeping requirements under FLSA. 

23. Plaintiff’s last day working for Defendant was on or about July 13, 2022. 

FLSA COVERAGE

24. Defendant is covered under the FLSA through enterprise coverage, as Defendant

was engaged in interstate commerce during all pertinent times in which Plaintiff was employed. 

More specifically, Defendant engaged in interstate commerce by virtue of the fact that its business 

activities involved those to which the FLSA applies. Defendant’s business and Plaintiff’s work for 

it affected interstate commerce because the goods and materials that Plaintiff used on a constant 

and/or continuous basis moved through interstate commerce prior to or subsequent to Plaintiff’s 

use of the same. 

25. During his employment with Defendant, Plaintiff and various other similarly 

situated employees handled and worked with goods and/or materials that moved through interstate 

commerce, including, but not limited to the following: cell phones, telephones, extension cords, 

pencils, pens, paper, tape, keyboards, computers, cables, stamps, markers, staplers, staples, 

invoices, head sets, extension cords, masks, boxes, envelopes, hand sanitizer, rebuild kids, cylinder 

heads, injectors, bearings, gaskets, crankshafts, diesel engines, screw drivers, hammers, nails, 

screws, washers, wd40, etc. 

Case 0:22-cv-61702-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022 Page 4 of 7
5

26. Defendant also regularly employed two (2) or more employees for the relevant 

time period, who handled the same or similar goods and materials handled by Plaintiff, thus 

making Defendant’s business an enterprise covered by the FLSA. 

27. Defendant had gross annual revenues in excess of $500,000.00 in the years 2019, 

2020 and 2021 and is expected to gross in excess of $500,000.00 in the year 2022.

28. During his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff was regularly and recurrently 

engaged in an instrumentality of interstate commerce and subject to individual coverage, as that 

term is defined by the FLSA. More specifically, Plaintiff used the interstate telephone system to 

regularly and recurrently speak with Defendant’s customers who resided outside of the state of 

Florida over the phone. Plaintiff also regularly and recurrently sent and received correspondences 

to and from Defendant’s customers and potential customers outside of Florida during his

employment period. 

29. During his employment with Defendant, Plaintiff (i) performed non-exempt work; 

(ii) did not have supervisory authority over any individuals; (iii) did not make any decisions of 

importance on behalf of Defendant, and (iv) was not required to possess any advanced training, 

skill, or prolonged education in order to perform any of his primary duties and responsibilities. 

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

Defendant, within the meaning of the FLSA. 

COUNT I – FEDERAL OVERTIME WAGE VIOLATIONS – 29 U.S.C. § 207

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and All Others Similarly Situated)

31. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and re-avers Paragraphs 1 through 30 as though set forth 

fully herein.

32. Plaintiff alleges this Action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 

U.S.C. § 216(b).

Case 0:22-cv-61702-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022 Page 5 of 7
6

33. Defendant refused to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees one-and-a-half 

times their regular hourly rate for hours worked over forty (40) in one or more weeks of their 

employment. 

34. Plaintiff seeks certification under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) of the following similarly 

situated Collective:

Any and all individuals who worked in Defendant’s Purchasing 

Department who were classified as independent contractors and 

worked more than 40 hours in a workweek but were not paid 

overtime wages at any time during the previous three (3) years. 

35. Plaintiff claims the applicable federal overtime wage rate for all hours over forty 

(40) that he worked during her employment. 

36. Defendant willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated 

individuals federal overtime wages as required by the FLSA, as Defendant knew or should have 

known of the FLSA’s overtime wage requirements. 

37. Defendant’s willful and/or intentional violations of federal wage law entitle 

Plaintiff to an additional amount of liquidated, or double, damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JARYN MISSICK, respectfully requests that this Honorable 

Court enter judgment in his favor and against Defendant, UNITED HARDWARE SUPPLY INC.,

and award Plaintiff: (a) unliquidated damages; (b) liquidated damages; (c) reasonable attorney’s 

fees and costs; and any and all such further relief as may be deemed just and reasonable under the 

circumstances.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, JARYN MISSICK, demands a trial by jury on all appropriate claims. 

Dated: September 9, 2022

Case 0:22-cv-61702-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022 Page 6 of 7
7

Respectfully Submitted,

USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERSJORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 

1800 SE 10th Ave, Suite 205

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316

Ph: (954) 871-0050

Counsel for Plaintiff

By: /s/ Jordan Richards

JORDAN RICHARDS, ESQUIRE

Florida Bar No. 108372

JAKE BLUMSTEIN, ESQUIRE

Florida Bar No. 1017746

Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com

Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com

catherine@usaemploymentlawyers.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing document was filed via CM/ECF on September 

9, 2022. 

By: /s/ Jordan Richards

JORDAN RICHARDS, ESQUIRE

Florida Bar No. 108372

SERVICE LIST:

Case 0:22-cv-61702-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022 Page 7 of 7