UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.

Brian Seever,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Kaseya US LLC

Defendant.

________________________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Brian Seever, by and through his undersigned attorney, files this Complaint 

against Defendant, Kaseya US LLC, stating as follows:

PARTIES, VENUE, AND JURISDICTION

1. This is an action to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as 

amended, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et. seq, (hereinafter “FLSA”).

2. The court has jurisdiction based on 29 U.S.C. §216(b).

3. Defendant, Kaseya US LLC, is a for profit corporation that manages technical support for 

companies through products and services. Defendant employs more than 2 employees. 

Defendant engaged in interstate commerce by accepting payment and doing business with 

interstate clients through interstate means and using materials that have been shipped in 

interstate commerce. Defendant has grossed more than $500,000 in revenue in each of the 

last 3 years. By satisfying these thresholds, Defendant is considered an enterprise for 

purposes of the FLSA.

4. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant. He was labeled a “Senior Account Manager” but 

Case 1:22-cv-23535-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2022 Page 1 of 5
this inflated title was given only to mask his true job as a sales associate. Plaintiff had no 

managerial duties. 

5. Plaintiff qualifies for individual coverage under the FLSA because he regularly received 

and made interstate phone calls and arranged interstate payments.

6. At all times material, Plaintiff was and is a resident of Miami-Dade County, FL. 

7. This Court has jurisdiction over Defendant because it engaged in substantial business 

activity within the District, Plaintiff was employed in the District, and all of the allegations 

in this Complaint occurred in the District.

8. Venue is proper due to the unlawful employment practices alleged occurring in MiamiDade County. 

COUNT I: OVERTIME WAGE AND HOUR VIOLATION

9. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-8 above. 

10. This action is brought by Plaintiff to recover from Defendant unpaid overtime 

compensation, as well as an additional amount as liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable 

attorney’s fees under the provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and specifically under the 

provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 207. 29 U.S.C. § 207 (a)(1) states, “No employer shall employ 

any of his employees . . . for a work week longer than 40 hours unless such employee 

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

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

11. Plaintiff worked for Defendant beginning in January 2022 and continued until his

termination in May 2022. Plaintiff estimates this to be a 16 week period. 

12. Plaintiff was originally told that he would be working 8:30a to 5p five days per week with 

a 30 minute lunch. However, this immediately became 8a to 6:30p five days per week with 

Case 1:22-cv-23535-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2022 Page 2 of 5
a 30 minute lunch. Plaintiff estimates that he regularly worked 50 hours per week.

13. Plaintiff was paid a yearly salary of $65,000 plus commissions on sales. This converts to 

a weekly salary of approximately $1,263.89 though he was paid bimonthly. 

14. Plaintiff only received commission during one pay period, April 16-30, 2022. This 

payment was for $978.30.

15. For most weeks, Plaintiff’s regular rate of pay was $1263.89 for 50 hours per week, or 

$25.28 per hour. However, due to the commissions received during the April 16-30, 2022 

pay period, his regular rate for this two week period is $1843.31 for 50 hours per week, or 

$36.87. His halftime overtime rates for these periods are $12.64 and $18.43 respectively.

16. For the fourteen weeks Plaintiff was not paid commission, he is owed for an extra 10 hours 

of overtime at a rate of $12.64 per hour, or $1,769.60. For the two weeks he was paid 

commission, Plaintiff is owed for an extra 10 hours of overtime at a rate of $18.43 per hour, 

or $368.60. Both totals do not include liquidated damages.

17. Defendant had no real time keeping system in place. Employees, including Plaintiff, were 

made to submit an 8 hour time card each day but this was merely window dressing to the 

company’s time keeping requirements. The charade is exposed by Plaintiff’s paystubs that 

all show an impossible 86.67 hours per pay period, a lack of time keeping system, and 

phone and email records which will show Plaintiff working long before and after hours.

18. Despite the title of Senior Account Manager, Plaintiff did not manage any other employees 

as is required for the FLSA executive overtime exemption. He also could not make 

decisions to bind the company in any way as is required for the FLSA administrative 

exemption. Therefore, no white collar FLSA exemption applies to Plaintiff.

19. The FLSA has two sales exemptions, one for inside sales and one for outside sales. The 

Case 1:22-cv-23535-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2022 Page 3 of 5
outside sales exemption is made for door to door sales employees and is not applicable to 

Plaintiff who spent his time at the office. To qualify for the inside sales exemption under 

29 U.S.C. 207i, the employee’s income must consist of more than 50% in sales 

commissions. Plaintiff never reached this threshold. Therefore no sales exemption applies 

to Plaintiff.

20. Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages accumulated from 3 (three) years prior to 

the filing of this Complaint. 

21. At all times material hereto, Defendant failed to comply with Title 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 

and 29 C.F.R. § 516.2 and § 516.4 et seq. in that Plaintiff performed services and worked 

in excess of the maximum hours provided by the Act but no provision was made by 

Defendant to properly pay at the rate of time and one half for all hours worked in excess 

of forty hours (40) per workweek as provided in the Act. 

22. Defendant knew of and/or showed reckless disregard for the provisions of the Act 

concerning the payment of overtime wages and remain owing Plaintiff these overtime 

wages and Plaintiff is entitled to recover liquidated damages. Defendant never posted any 

notice, as required by Federal Law, to inform employees of their federal rights to overtime 

payments. 

23. Defendant willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff overtime wages as required 

by the laws of the United States as set forth above and remain owing Plaintiff these 

overtime wages as set forth above.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, from this Complaint, Plaintiff demands that: 

A. Judgment is entered for Plaintiff against Defendant on the basis of Defendant’s willful 

Case 1:22-cv-23535-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2022 Page 4 of 5
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. and other Federal 

Regulations; 

B. Plaintiff is awarded actual damages in the amount shown to be due for unpaid overtime 

compensation; 

C. Plaintiff is awarded an equal amount in liquidated damages; 

D. Plaintiff is awarded reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit; and 

E. Other and further relief as is deemed equitable and just and/or available pursuant to 

Federal Law is awarded. 

Dated: October 30, 2022 

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s R. Edward Rosenberg 

 R. Edward Rosenberg, Esquire 

 Fla. Bar No.: 88231 

 Email: rer@sorondorosenberg.com 

 Sorondo Rosenberg Legal PA

1825 Ponce de Leon Blvd. #329 

Coral Gables, FL 33134 

T: 786.708.7550 

F: 786.204.0844 

 Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 1:22-cv-23535-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2022 Page 5 of 5