Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.

JOHN LEEKIN, on behalf of himself 

and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

PRESS & PROFIT, LLC, d/b/a VIENNA

COFFEE, PETER GUGITSCHER, individually,

and ANDREAS GUGITSCHER, individually,

Defendants. 

 /

COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, JOHN LEEKIN (“Leekin”), by and through the undersigned counsel, on behalf 

of himself and all others similarly situated, hereby sues Defendant, PRESS & PROFIT, LLC, d/b/a 

VIENNA COFFEE (“Vienna”), PETER GUGITSCHER, individually (“Peter”), and ANDREAS 

GUGITSCHER, individually (“Andreas”), and alleges:

1. Leekin brings this action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated current 

and former delivery drivers of Defendants to recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime 

compensation, liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, as well as for declaratory 

and injunctive relief, under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 

§ 201, et seq. (the “FLSA”), and specifically under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

2. This Court is vested with federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim arising 

under the FLSA, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

3. Venue lies within the Southern District of Florida, per 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), because 

all actions giving rise to this claim arose in this Judicial Circuit.

Case 9:22-cv-81902-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 1 of 8
Page 2 of 8

4. All statutory and administrative prerequisites have been met, waived, or abandoned 

prior to the filing of this action.

THE PARTIES

5. At all times material hereto, Press & Profit, LLC, was a privately held company in 

Boca Raton, Florida.

6. At all times material hereto, Vienna was duly authorized and licensed to do business 

in Palm Beach County, Florida, with its principal address at 1300 SW 10th Street, Suite 3, Delray 

Beach, Florida, 33444.

7. At all times material hereto, Vienna was an “employer” under the FLSA. 

Specifically, Vienna was Leekin’s employer as it relates to these claims.

8. At all times material hereto, Peter was a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida, 

and is Vienna’s Chief Executive Officer.

9. At all times material hereto, Peter was the CEO of Vienna and controlled Leekin’s 

duties, hours worked, and compensation, and managed the day-to-day operations of Vienna. 

Accordingly, Peter Gugitscher was and is an “employer” of the Plaintiff within the meaning of 29 

U.S.C. §203(d).

10. At all times material hereto, Andreas was a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida, 

and is Vienna’s Chief Operating Officer.

11. At all times material hereto, Andreas was the COO of Vienna and controlled 

Leekin’s duties, hours worked, and compensation, and managed the day-to-day operations of 

Vienna. Accordingly, Andreas Gugitscher was and is an “employer” of the Plaintiff within the 

meaning of 29 U.S.C. §203(d).

12.

Case 9:22-cv-81902-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 2 of 8
Page 3 of 8

COVERAGE

13. Vienna provides, and continues to provide, commercial coffee machines, flavored 

coffees, and other products to customers, offices, and restaurants throughout South Florida. 

Additionally, Vienna services the machines.

14. Vienna engaged in interstate commerce on a regular and recurring basis within the

meaning of the FLSA, including but not limited to purchase and receipt of shipments of coffee and 

coffee machines manufactured outside of the State of Florida.

15. Upon information and belief, Vienna had an annual gross sales made or business 

done of $500,000 or more.

16. Further, at all times material hereto, during their employment with Defendants, 

Leekin, and all others similarly situated to him, were individually engaged in interstate commerce. 

For example, Leekin directly participated in the actual movement of things in interstate commerce 

by delivering goods previously moved in interstate commerce that had not yet reached the ultimate 

consumer, such as coffee beans and coffee machines.

17. Upon information and belief, both Peter and Andreas Gugitscher acted directly and 

indirectly in the interest of the corporate Defendant, in relation to Leekin, and similarly situated 

service technicians/delivery drivers, regarding pay classification, pay methodology, pay rates, 

hours, and the terms and conditions of employment. They set policies and procedures for the 

corporate Defendant, such as work hours, delivery hours, delivery locations, and terms and 

conditions of its clients’ relationships with Vienna (e.g., machine repair requests and re-orders of 

coffee and coffee accoutrements).

Case 9:22-cv-81902-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 3 of 8
Page 4 of 8

STATEMENT OF THE ULTIMATE FACTS

18. Leekin began his employment with Vienna on or about October 3, 2021 and held 

the position of service technician until he was terminated. 

19. Leekin’s job duties included servicing commercial coffee machines, as well as 

delivering recurring orders of coffee and coffee accoutrements, such as milk, chocolate, cups, 

coffee stirrers, sugar, and more.

20. Leekin regularly worked six or seven days per week. He would often begin his 

shifts at approximately 8:00 a.m. and would work until he had no other outstanding assignments, 

sometimes as late as 9:00 p.m.

21. Leekin regularly worked overtime for Vienna, averaging around 40 hours per week 

of overtime alone, in addition to his first 40 regular hours. In some weeks, he worked more than 

50 hours per week of additional overtime. 

22. Vienna classified Leekin as an independent contractor.

23. Vienna required Leekin to execute an “Independent Contractor Agreement”, in 

order to disguise his true status as an employee. Vienna is in possession of the Agreement.

24. In his role as a technician, Leekin was an integral part of Vienna’s business 

operations; without technicians like Leekin, Vienna could not provide its services to its customers.

Vienna advertises both machine maintenance and coffee bean delivery as part of its services.

Indeed, the Defendants’ entire business model is economically dependent on the service 

technicians/coffee delivery drivers, and the service technicians/coffee delivery drivers likewise are 

economically dependent on the Defendants for their livelihood.

25. By classifying Leekin as an independent contractor, Vienna can avoid the 

additional expenses associated with W-2 employees, including but not limited to providing 

Case 9:22-cv-81902-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 4 of 8
Page 5 of 8

overtime to its technicians, workers’ compensation coverage in the event of on-the-job injuries, 

and unemployment coverage in the event of termination. 

26. Vienna controlled Leekin’s hours. Vienna regularly required Leekin to work longer 

hours than his set schedule, and regularly required Leekin to work hours at its direction and 

demand.

27. Vienna controlled Leekin’s work assignments. In particular, Vienna required 

Leekin to work at any site that was assigned to him, whether that was to deliver coffee or to service 

the machines in place.

28. Vienna did not permit Leekin to outsource or otherwise subcontract his assignments 

to anyone else of his choosing. He was required to perform them personally. If he was unavailable 

for any reason, upon information and belief, Vienna provided the assignment to one of its other 

willfully misclassified “independent contractors”.

29. Vienna set Leekin’s rate of pay. He was paid $15.00/hr. for all hours worked.

Leekin did not have the ability to negotiate a higher rate of pay. Further, even though he did not 

receive any raises, any changes in pay would be at the discretion of Vienna.

30. Even though Leekin worked overtime regularly, he did not receive any additional 

premium for his overtime work.

31. For calendar year 2021, Leekin received a Form 1099-NEC, rather than the Form 

W-2 he should have received. Leekin is also expected to receive a Form 1099-NEC for the work 

he did in calendar year 2022 for Vienna prior to his termination.

32. Vienna provided Leekin with all the tools he needed to complete his service 

assignments. If he purchased any tools himself, Vienna reimbursed him for his expenses. Upon 

Case 9:22-cv-81902-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 5 of 8
Page 6 of 8

information and belief, after Vienna terminated or otherwise separated service technicians, it kept 

all tools, even those initially purchased by the employee.

33. At all times material hereto, Vienna’s classification of Leekin (and all other service 

technicians) as “independent contractor,” as opposed to W-2 employee, was incorrect and Leekin 

was an employee for purposes of the FLSA.

34. On or about November 7, 2022, Vienna terminated Leekin.

COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS

35. The additional persons who may become plaintiffs in this action, and who Leekin

believes are entitled to notification of the pendency of this action, and of their right to opt-in to 

this action, are current and former service technicians/delivery drivers of Defendants, who are or 

were subject to the payroll practices and procedures described in the paragraphs above, all of whom 

are or were previously employed by Defendants.

36. During the three (3) years preceding the filing of this lawsuit, Defendants have (1) 

employed and continue to employ individuals similarly situated to Leekin (i.e. individuals 

performing the duties of both service technicians and coffee delivery drivers); (2) classified and 

continue to classify these individuals as independent contractors; and (3) suffered or permitted to 

be suffered, with knowledge, hours of service by these individuals, including in excess of forty 

(40) during one or more workweeks, for which Defendants failed to pay proper minimum wages 

and/or overtime premiums for those hours worked in excess of forty (40). Each improperly 

classified (and therefore improperly paid) service technician/delivery driver who performed and/or 

continues to perform services for Defendants, for any time period during the three (3) years 

preceding this lawsuit, is entitled to notification of the pendency of this action and of his/her right 

to consent to becoming a party to this action.

Case 9:22-cv-81902-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 6 of 8
Page 7 of 8

37. Defendants already have been sued once in the past three years based on these same 

payroll practices, which lawsuit was settled in or about March 2020. See Carillo v. Press & Profit, 

LLC, Case No. 9:20-cv-80106-JIC (S.D. Fla. 2020). However, Defendants continue to operate in 

the same fashion as described herein with regard employees like Leekin, such that their actions are 

willful.

COUNT I – VIOLATION OF THE FLSA

38. Paragraphs 1 through 36 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.

39. Plaintiff is entitled to be paid time and one-half for each hour worked in excess of

forty (40) per workweek and to have such overtime calculated in accordance with Federal 

Regulations. All similarly situated employees are similarly owed time and one-half, calculated 

properly, for those overtime hours they worked and for which they were not properly paid.

40. By reason of the willful acts of the Defendants, all Plaintiffs (Leekin and those 

similarly situated to him) have suffered damages plus incurred costs and reasonable attorneys’

fees.

41. As a result of the Defendants’ violation of the Act, all Plaintiffs (Leekin and those 

similarly situated to him) are entitled to liquidated damages in an amount equal to that which they 

are owed as unpaid overtime.

42. Leekin has retained the undersigned counsel and law firm to represent his interests 

in this cause. Leekin is entitled prevailing plaintiff attorney’s fees under the FLSA.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JOHN LEEKIN, and those similarly situated to him, who have 

or will opt-in to this action, demand judgment against Defendants for the overtime compensation 

payments due them for the hours worked by them for which they have not been properly 

Case 9:22-cv-81902-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 7 of 8
Page 8 of 8

compensated, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, and for all other 

relief the Court deems just and proper.

LEEKIN DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE

Dated: December 8, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

 Boca Raton, FL

Alex B.C. Ershock

DANIEL R. LEVINE, ESQ.

Florida Bar No. 0057861

E-Mail: DRL@PBL-Law.com

ALEX B.C. ERSHOCK, ESQ.

Florida Bar No. 100220

E-Mail: ABE@PBL-Law.com

PADULA BENNARDO LEVINE, LLP

3837 NW Boca Raton Blvd., Suite 200

Boca Raton, FL 33431

Telephone: (561) 544-8900

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 9:22-cv-81902-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 8 of 8