IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION 

Civil Action No. 

JOHN MONACO, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

YASCAR ENTERPRISE, INC. d/b/a TIN CUP 

SPORTS CAFÉ, and ADAM YASSKY, 

individually, 

Defendants. 

_________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT FOR UNPAID OVERTIME DAMAGES 

AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

1. This action is brought by John Monaco (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) for purposes of 

obtaining relief under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 201 

et. seq. (hereinafter “FLSA”), against Defendants, Yascar Enterprise, Inc. d/b/a Tin Cup Sports 

Cafe and Adam Yassky, individually (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”), for 

unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, and/or any such other relief the 

Court may deem appropriate. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

2. District Court jurisdiction exists pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 216(b), 217, and 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367. 

3. This court is the proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) because the 

Defendant resides in this jurisdiction and the acts and events giving rise to the causes of action 

alleged herein all took place within this Court’s jurisdictional boundaries. 

Case 0:22-cv-61988-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2022 Page 1 of 5
Page 2 of 5

4. Further, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) allows for venue in any court of competent jurisdiction 

over FLSA violations. 

5. Defendant is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. 

PARTIES 

6. Plaintiff is an individual residing in Broward County, and at all times material, was 

an employee of Defendants. 

7. Defendant, Yascar Enterprise, Inc. d/b/a Tin Cup Sports Café (hereinafter referred 

to as “Tin Cup”), is a Florida Profit Corporation with a principal place of business in Cooper City, 

Broward County, Florida. 

8. At all times material hereto, Tin Cup employed Plaintiff as a chef. 

9. Defendant, Adam Yassky (hereinafter referred to as “Yassky”), is sui juris and, 

upon information and belief, a resident of Broward County, Florida. 

10. At all times material hereto, Yassky was a corporate officer and/or owner and/or 

manager of Tin Cup. 

11. At all times material hereto, Yassky was Plaintiff’s employer as defined by 29 

U.S.C. 203(d) because he ran the day-to-day operations of Tin Cup, was responsible for paying 

Plaintiff’s wages, and controlled Plaintiff’s work and schedule. 

12. At all times material hereto, Defendants, Tin Cup and Yassky, were Plaintiff’s 

employers within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §203(d) and is not exempt under the FLSA. 

13. Defendants’ business activities involve those to which the Fair Labor Standards Act 

applies. Both the Defendants’ business and the Plaintiff’s work for the Defendants affected 

interstate commerce for the relevant time period. Plaintiff’s work for the Defendants affected 

interstate commerce for the relevant time period because the materials and goods that Plaintiff 

Case 0:22-cv-61988-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2022 Page 2 of 5
Page 3 of 5

used on a constant and/or continual basis and/or that were supplied to him by the Defendants to 

use on the job moved through interstate commerce prior to and/or subsequent to Plaintiff’s use of 

the same. The Plaintiff’s work for the Defendants was actually in and/or so closely related to the 

movement of commerce while he worked for the Defendants that the Fair Labor Standards Act 

applies to Plaintiff’s work for the Defendants. 

14. Additionally, Defendants regularly employed two or more employees for the 

relevant time period who handled goods or materials that travelled through interstate commerce, 

or used instrumentalities of interstate commerce, thus making Defendants’ business an enterprise 

covered under the Fair Labor Standards Act. 

15. Upon information and belief, the Defendants’ had gross sales or business done in 

excess of $500,000 annually for the years 2021 and 2022. 

MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS 

16. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a chef from on or about October 17, 2021 

through on or about September 17, 2022. 

17. Defendants initially paid Plaintiff an hourly rate of $11.00 per hour between 

October and December 11, 2021. 

18. On or about December 12, 2021, Defendants raised Plaintiff’s hourly rate to 

$12.00 per hour, and Plaintiff continued to earn $12 per hour for the remainder of his employment 

with Defendants. 

19. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1) states, "Except as otherwise provided in this section, no 

employer shall employ any of his employees who in any workweek is engaged in commerce or in 

the production of goods for commerce, or is employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in 

the production of goods for commerce, for a workweek longer than forty hours unless such 

Case 0:22-cv-61988-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2022 Page 3 of 5
Page 4 of 5

employee receives compensation for his employment in excess of the hours above specified at a 

rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed.” 

20. Throughout his employment, on a regular basis, Plaintiff worked more than forty 

(40) hours per week and was not paid overtime premium wages, as required under the FLSA. 

21. More specifically, between October 2021 and September 2022, Plaintiff worked 

more than forty (40) hours in a single week at least seventeen (17) times, without being paid his 

overtime premium wages. 

22. There were no FLSA exemptions applicable to Plaintiff. 

23. In committing the wrongful acts in violation of the FLSA, Defendants acted 

willfully, in that it knowingly, deliberately, and intentionally failed to pay overtime premium 

wages to Plaintiff. 

24. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ failure to pay overtime premium 

wages, Plaintiff was damaged in an amount to be proven at trial. 

25. Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff’s overtime wages as 

required by the Fair Labor Standards Act as Defendants knew of the overtime requirements of the 

Fair Labor Standards Act and recklessly failed to investigate whether Defendants’ payroll practices 

were in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants remain owing Plaintiff these 

wages since the commencement of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants for the time period 

specified above. 

26. Plaintiff is also entitled to an award of liquidated damages under the FLSA in an 

amount equal to his unpaid wages. 

27. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned to represent him in this action and has agreed 

to pay a reasonable fee for those services. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of his reasonable 

Case 0:22-cv-61988-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2022 Page 4 of 5
Page 5 of 5

attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands that he be paid overtime compensation as required by 

the FLSA for every hour of overtime worked in any work week for which he was not compensated, 

damages, liquidated damages, penalties, attorneys’ fees and costs as provided by law, and grant 

any further relief the Court deems just and proper. 

JURY DEMAND 

Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial on all causes of action and claims with respect to 

which there is a right to a jury trial. 

 Dated: October 25, 2022. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Brenton Legal P.A. 

Counsel for Plaintiff 

1070 E. Indiantown Rd., Suite 400 

Jupiter, FL 33477 

Phone: 954-639-4644 

By: /s/ Travis Beal 

Travis Beal 

Florida Bar No.: 104890 

tjb@brentonlegal.com 

Christopher A Fennell 

Florida Bar No. 113546 

caf@brentonlegal.com 

Ryan Brenton 

Florida Bar No.: 107675 

rcb@brentonlegal.com 

Case 0:22-cv-61988-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2022 Page 5 of 5