UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

RUEBEN MATHIS, on behalf of himself and all 

others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

 -againstAIRCRAFT SERVICE INTERNATIONAL, 

INC., 

 

Defendant. 

Case No. 

COLLECTIVE ACTION 

COMPLAINT 

COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff Rueben Mathis (“Mathis”) (“Plaintiff”), along with other similarly situated 

employees who may join this action, by his attorneys, Shavitz Law Group, P.A. and Valli Kane & 

Vagnini LLP, upon personal knowledge as to himself and upon information and belief as to other 

matters, alleges as follows: 

INTRODUCTION 

1. Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor 

Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq. (“FLSA”), on behalf of himself and 

all other persons similarly situated against Defendant Aircraft Service International, Inc., (“ASI”) 

for violations of the FLSA. 

2. As more fully described below, during the relevant time periods, Defendant 

willfully violated the FLSA by failing to properly pay intrastate Florida drivers (“Florida 

Drivers”), including Plaintiff, for all of their overtime hours worked. 

Case 9:22-cv-81089-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2022 Page 1 of 9
- 2 - 

THE PARTIES 

Plaintiff 

 Rueben Mathis 

3. Mathis is a resident of Boca Raton, Florida. 

4. Mathis worked for Defendant as a Florida Driver from approximately June 2021, 

to in or around May 2022 in Palm Beach County, Florida. 

5. At all times relevant, Mathis was an “employee” within the meaning of Section 3(e) 

of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(e). 

6. Mathis’s written consent to join this action is attached as Exhibit A. 

Defendant 

7. According to its LinkedIn page, Defendant “is a global provider of ground, fuel and 

airport facility services to airlines, airports, oil companies and industry partners around the world 

and are one of the market leaders for into-plane fuelling [sic] and fuel farm management services.” 

(last visited July 18, 2022). 

8. Aircraft Service International, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal 

place of business in Grapevine, Texas. 

9. Defendant employ Plaintiff and the proposed FLSA Collective (defined below) in 

each of its locations in the State of Florida. 

10. At all times relevant, Defendant was and still is an “employer” within the meaning 

of Section 3(d) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d). 

11. At all times relevant, Defendant has been an enterprise within the meaning of 

Section 3(r) of the FLSA. 29 U.S.C. § 203(r). 

Case 9:22-cv-81089-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2022 Page 2 of 9
- 3 - 

12. Defendant has had and has a gross volume of sales made or business done of not 

less than $500,000.00. 

13. At all times relevant, Plaintiff and the proposed FLSA Collective were engaged in 

commerce or in the production of goods for commerce as required by 29 U.S.C. §§ 206–207. 

14. Defendant has issued paychecks to Plaintiff and the proposed FLSA Collective 

during their employment. 

15. Defendant has directed the work of Plaintiff and the proposed FLSA Collective and 

benefited from work performed that they suffered or permitted from them. 

16. Throughout the relevant period, Defendant employed Plaintiff and the proposed 

FLSA Collective within the meaning of the FLSA. Defendant has substantial control over Plaintiff 

and the proposed FLSA Collective’s working conditions and the unlawful policies and practices 

alleged herein. 

17. Defendant directly or indirectly acted in the interest of an employer towards 

Plaintiff and the proposed FLSA Collective at all material times, including without limitation 

directly or indirectly controlling their terms of employment.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

18. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 

and 1367, and 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et. seq. 

19. This Court is empowered to issue a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 2201 and 2202.

Case 9:22-cv-81089-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2022 Page 3 of 9
- 4 - 

20. Venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims 

occurred in this District. 

21. Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff worked for Defendant at 

its location in West Palm Beach, Florida, which is within the jurisdiction and venue of this Court.

PROPOSED FLSA COLLECTIVE

22. The proposed FLSA Collective is defined as follows:

All intrastate drivers and employees in similar positions who are or were 

employed by Aircraft Service International, Inc. anywhere in the State of 

Florida at any time three years prior to the filing of this Complaint through 

the present and beyond. 

COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

23. Plaintiff and the proposed FLSA Collective delivered fuel from Defendant’s fuel 

facilities within the State of Florida to airports throughout and within the State of Florida. 

24. Plaintiff and the proposed FLSA Collective did not drive interstate; that is, they did 

not drive in any state other than Florida or cross state lines to perform their duties. 

25. While driving within the State of Florida, Plaintiff and the proposed FLSA 

Collective were subject to the rules and regulations created and implemented by the Florida 

Department of Transportation (“FDOT”). 

26. These FDOT rules and regulations included limits on the number of hours Plaintiff 

and the proposed FLSA Collective could work. For instance, FDOT requires that after 12 

consecutive hours of work, drivers are required to take a ten hour break. 

27. In addition, because Plaintiff and the proposed FLSA Collective were driving 

hazardous material (i.e., aircraft fuel), FDOT required them to maintain a log book. 

Case 9:22-cv-81089-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2022 Page 4 of 9
- 5 - 

28. As Plaintiff’s employer, Defendant was subject to and required to follow these, as 

well as all other applicable, FDOT rules and regulations. 

29. Upon information and belief, during the relevant three-year statutory period, 

Defendant classified Plaintiff and the proposed FLSA Collective as non-exempt overtime eligible. 

30. Defendant required Plaintiff and the proposed FLSA Collective to routinely work 

overtime hours (hours over 40 in a workweek), but did not pay them properly for all overtime 

hours worked. 

31. On days when Plaintiff and the proposed FLSA Collective worked more hours than 

allowed by the FDOT rules and regulations (i.e., more than 12 hours after a ten hour break), 

Defendant’s implemented a policy and practice of deducting a full hour of pay from their 

paychecks, in order to give the appearance of compliance with FDOT rules and regulations. Thus, 

for example, when Plaintiff or a member of the FLSA Collective worked 12.5 hours in a single 

day, they were only paid for 11.5 hours. 

32. This resulted in Plaintiff and the proposed FLSA Collective regularly being 

“shorted” overtime hours they worked, resulting in unpaid overtime – all to give the impression 

that Defendant was in compliance with FDOT rules and regulations. 

33. Defendant is aware or should have been aware that Plaintiff and the proposed FLSA 

Collective worked overtime hours for which they were not properly paid. Upon information and 

belief, a comparison of the log books Plaintiff and the proposed FLSA Collective are required to 

keep (showing their actual hours worked) and their pay stubs (showing the hours for which they 

were paid) demonstrates that Defendant failed to properly pay Plaintiff and the proposed FLSA 

Collective for all overtime hours worked. 

Case 9:22-cv-81089-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2022 Page 5 of 9
- 6 - 

34. While Defendant may have paid Plaintiff and the proposed FLSA Collective for 

some overtime hours worked, Defendant failed to pay them properly for all of their overtime hours 

worked. 

35. Defendant’s FLSA violations are continuous and ongoing.

FLSA COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

36. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding allegations.

37. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), on behalf of 

himself and the proposed FLSA Collective.

38. Defendant has intentionally, willfully, and repeatedly engaged in a pattern, practice, 

and/or policy of violating the FLSA with respect to Plaintiff and the proposed FLSA Collective. 

39. Defendant is aware or should have been aware that federal law required them to 

pay Plaintiff and the proposed FLSA Collective overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 

per workweek. 

40. Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective all were subject to the same employment policies, 

procedures, and practices of Defendant’s failure to pay overtime compensation for overtime hours 

worked. 

41. Defendant failed to make an adequate inquiry into whether Plaintiff and the FLSA 

Collective were being paid for all hours worked. 

42. Upon information and belief, Defendant did not conduct any audit, analysis, or 

study to ensure that it compensated Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective for all of their hours worked. 

43. Defendant’s unlawful conduct has been widespread, repeated, and consistent. 

Case 9:22-cv-81089-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2022 Page 6 of 9
- 7 - 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 

FLSA– Unpaid Overtime Wages 

(Brought on Behalf of Plaintiff and the Proposed FLSA Collective) 

44. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding allegations. 

45. Defendant has engaged in a widespread pattern and practice of violating the FLSA, 

as described in this Collective Action Complaint. 

46. Plaintiff has consented in writing to be parties to this action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 

§ 216(b). As this case proceeds, it is likely that other individuals will file consent forms and join 

as “opt-in” plaintiffs. 

47. The overtime wage provisions set forth in §§ 201 et seq. of the FLSA apply to 

Defendant. 

48. At all times relevant, Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective were employees within the 

meaning of 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(e) and 207(a). 

49. Defendant has failed to pay Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective all of the overtime 

wages to which they were entitled under the FLSA. 

50. Defendant’s violations of the FLSA, as described in this Collective Action 

Complaint, have been willful and intentional. 

51. Defendant has failed to make a good faith effort to comply with the FLSA with 

respect to its compensation of Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective. 

52. Because Defendant’s violations of the FLSA have been willful, a three-year statute 

of limitations applies, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 255. 

Case 9:22-cv-81089-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2022 Page 7 of 9
- 8 - 

53. As a result of Defendant’s willful violations of the FLSA, Plaintiff and the proposed 

FLSA Collective have suffered damages by being denied overtime wages in accordance with 29 

U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq. 

54. As a result of the unlawful acts of Defendant, Plaintiff and the proposed FLSA 

Collective have been deprived of overtime compensation and other wages in amounts to be 

determined at trial, and are entitled to recovery of such amounts, liquidated damages, prejudgment 

interest, attorneys’ fees, costs and other compensation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). 

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY 

 Plaintiff and the proposed FLSA Collective demand a trial by jury. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and the proposed FLSA Collective seek the following relief: 

A. That, at the earliest possible time, Plaintiff be allowed to give notice of this collective 

action, or that the Court issue such notice, to all members of the proposed FLSA Collective. Such notice 

should inform them that this civil action has been filed, the nature of the action, and of their right to join 

this lawsuit, among other things; 

B. Unpaid overtime pay and an additional and equal amount as liquidated damages 

pursuant to the FLSA and the supporting United States Department of Labor regulations; 

C. Pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest as provided by law; 

D. Appropriate equitable and injunctive relief to remedy violations, including but not 

necessarily limited to an order enjoining Defendant from continuing its unlawful practices; 

E. Attorneys’ fees and costs of the action; 

Case 9:22-cv-81089-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2022 Page 8 of 9
- 9 - 

F. An appropriate service award for Plaintiff’s efforts and service to the proposed 

FLSA Collective; and 

G. Such other injunctive and equitable relief as this Court shall deem just and proper. 

Dated: July 25, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 

 Boca Raton, Florida 

 

 

Gregg I. Shavitz 

Alan Quiles 

SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 

981 Yamato Road, Suite 285 

Boca Raton, FL 33431 

Telephone: (561) 447-8888 

Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 

gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com 

aquiles@shavitzlaw.com 

Sara Wyn Kane* 

 Alexander M. White* 

 VALLI KANE & VAGNINI, LLP 

 600 Old Country Road, Suite 519 

 Garden City, New York 11530 

 Telephone: (516) 203-7180 

 Facsimile: (516) 706-0248 

skane@vkvlawyers.com 

awhite@vkvlawyers.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed 

FLSA Collective 

*To be admitted pro hac vice

Case 9:22-cv-81089-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2022 Page 9 of 9