IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

ARAFAT AHMED,

Plaintiff,

vs.

NITIKA ENTERPRISE, INC, 

SREEJA ENTERPRISE, INC,

JESS PETROLEUM, INC., and

NURUDDIN SHEIKH, an individual,

jointly and severally,

Defendants.

 /

COMPLAINT & DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COMES NOW Plaintiff, ARAFAT AHMED, pursuant to §§ 206 and 207 of the Fair Labor 

Standards Act and Florida Statutes Chapter 448 (Florida Minimum Wage Act) through 

undersigned counsel and sues Defendants, NITIKA ENTERPRISE, INC, SREEJA ENTERPRISE, 

INC, JESS PETROLEUM, INC., and NURUDDIN SHEIKH, in his individual capacity, for 

declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and damages. Plaintiff is also suing Defendants for violations 

of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Florida Statutes, Sec. 501.211 

(“FDUTPA”). Finally, Plaintiff is suing Defendants for filing fraudulent information returns in 

violation of 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7434. In support hereof, Plaintiff states:

NATURE OF ACTION

1. Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants for unpaid minimum wages and 

overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. §201, et seq. (“FLSA”)

and the Florida Minimum Wage Act. In addition, Plaintiff is suing Defendants for failing to pay 

him any wages and thus not withholding employment taxes, and contribution payments required 

Case 9:22-cv-81910-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 1 of 12
- 2 -

for Florida’s unemployment compensation fund in violation of FDUTPA. Finally, Plaintiff is 

suing Defendants for filing fraudulent tax returns with the intent to avoid paying Federal payroll 

taxes and state unemployment taxes in violation of 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7434.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has jurisdiction over the claims herein pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), 

which allows for an action to be brought in any Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction by 

any one or more employees for and in behalf of himself or themselves and other employees 

similarly situated.

3. Venue is proper in this Court because the parties reside within the Southern District 

of Florida and the events that comprise the litigation occurred with the Southern District. 

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff is an individual residing in Broward County, Florida and was engaged in 

commerce as defined by the FLSA while employed by Defendants. 

5. NITIKA ENTERPRISE, INC (hereinafter, “NITIKA”) is in the business of owning 

and operating a retail food store named 7 Days Food Mart (hereinafter “Food Mart”). NURUDDIN 

SHEIKH (hereinafter “SHIEKH”), is the owner and operator of Food Mart in that he operated and 

continues to operate Food Mart on a day to day basis, managed and continues to manage its 

employees, hired and continues to hire employees, fired and continues to fire employees, set the 

pay and continues to set the pay, and otherwise controlled the terms and conditions of Ahmed’s

employment, and continues to control the terms and conditions of the employment of other 

employees similarly situated. Thus, SHIEKH is Plaintiff’s employer as defined by the FLSA.

6. Food Mart is the trade name of NITIKA, a Florida profit corporation located and 

doing business in Palm Beach County, is an enterprise engaged in an industry affecting commerce, 

Case 9:22-cv-81910-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 2 of 12
- 3 -

and is an employer as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d) and (s)(1), which has employees subject to 

the provisions of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206 and 207. 

7. At all times material hereto, Food Mart is an “enterprise engaged in commerce” 

within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1) with annual gross sales in excess of $500,000 within 

the meaning of the FLSA, and is thus subject to the requirements of the FLSA.

8. SHIEKH is an individual residing in Palm Beach County, Florida and is an officer

and/or owner of Food Mart whom during all times relevant to this Complaint was acting directly 

or indirectly in the interest of Food Mart in relation to Plaintiff’s employment and was substantially 

in control of the terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s work. Specifically, he hired the Plaintiff, set 

the Plaintiff’s pay (or lack thereof), determined the Plaintiff’s work hours and job duties, and 

ultimately implemented the scheme to fraudulently induce Plaintiff to work without wages. 

Therefore, SHIEKH is considered Plaintiff’s statutory employer under the FLSA along with Food 

Mart. 

9. SREEJA ENTERPRISE, INC (hereinafter, “SREEJA”) is in the business of owning 

and operating a retail food store named Kwik Stop. SHEIKH is the owner and operator of Kwik 

Stop in that he operated and continues to operate Kwik Stop on a day to day basis, managed and 

continues to manage its employees, hired and continues to hire employees, fired and continues to 

fire employees, set the pay and continues to set the pay, and otherwise controlled the terms and 

conditions of Ahmed’s employment, and continues to control the terms and conditions of the 

employment of other employees similarly situated. Thus, SHIEKH is Plaintiff’s employer as 

defined by the FLSA.

10. Kwik Stop is the trade name of SREEJA, a Florida profit corporation located and 

doing business in Palm Beach County, is an enterprise engaged in an industry affecting commerce, 

Case 9:22-cv-81910-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 3 of 12
- 4 -

and is an employer as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d) and (s)(1), which has employees subject to 

the provisions of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206 and 207. 

11. At all times material hereto, Kwik Stop is an “enterprise engaged in commerce” 

within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1) with annual gross sales in excess of $500,000 within 

the meaning of the FLSA, and is thus subject to the requirements of the FLSA.

12. SHIEKH is an individual residing in Palm Beach County, Florida and is an officer

and/or owner of Kwik Stop whom during all times relevant to this Complaint was acting directly 

or indirectly in the interest of Kwik Stop in relation to Plaintiff’s employment and was substantially 

in control of the terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s work. Specifically, he hired the Plaintiff, set 

the Plaintiff’s pay (or lack thereof), determined the Plaintiff’s work hours and job duties, and 

ultimately implemented the scheme to fraudulently induce Plaintiff to work without wages. 

Therefore, SHIEKH is considered Plaintiff’s statutory employer under the FLSA along with Kwik 

Stop. 

13. JESS PETROLEUM, INC. (hereinafter, “JESS”) is in the business of owning and 

operating a retail food/fuel store named Marathon. SHEIKH is the owner and operator of 

Marathon in that he operated and continues to operate Marathon on a day to day basis, managed 

and continues to manage its employees, hired and continues to hire employees, fired and continues 

to fire employees, set the pay and continues to set the pay, and otherwise controlled the terms and 

conditions of Ahmed’s employment, and continues to control the terms and conditions of the 

employment of other employees similarly situated. Thus, SHIEKH is Plaintiff’s employer as 

defined by the FLSA.

14. Marathon is the trade name of JESS, a Florida profit corporation located and doing 

business in Broward County, is an enterprise engaged in an industry affecting commerce, and is 

Case 9:22-cv-81910-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 4 of 12
- 5 -

an employer as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d) and (s)(1), which has employees subject to the 

provisions of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206 and 207. 

15. At all times material hereto, Marathon is an “enterprise engaged in commerce” 

within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1) with annual gross sales in excess of $500,000 within 

the meaning of the FLSA, and is thus subject to the requirements of the FLSA.

16. SHIEKH is an individual residing in Palm Beach County, Florida and is an officer

and/or owner of Marathon whom during all times relevant to this Complaint was acting directly or 

indirectly in the interest of Marathon in relation to Plaintiff’s employment and was substantially 

in control of the terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s work. Specifically, he hired the Plaintiff, set 

the Plaintiff’s pay (or lack thereof), determined the Plaintiff’s work hours and job duties, and 

ultimately implemented the scheme to fraudulently induce Plaintiff to work without wages. 

Therefore, SHIEKH is considered Plaintiff’s statutory employer under the FLSA along with 

Marathon. 

17. Plaintiff, at all times material, worked for Defendants as a retail clerk for all of the 

aforementioned retail stores during the following approximate times: Food Mart from December 

2020 to September 2021, Kwik Stop from September 2021 to February 2022, and Marathon from 

February 2022 to July 2022. Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction over this case.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

18. Defendants hired Plaintiff on or about December 2020, where he worked until 

sometime in June 2022. 

19. Plaintiff was a retail store clerk.

20. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff any wages.

21. Plaintiff did not supervise employees.

Case 9:22-cv-81910-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 5 of 12
- 6 -

22. Plaintiff did not set employee schedules.

23. Plaintiff did not have the authority to hire or fire employees.

24. Plaintiff did not have the authority to set rates of pay.

25. Plaintiff did not implement company policies or procedures.

26. Plaintiff did not have the authority to discipline employees.

27. Plaintiff did not need advanced education or training to perform his job functions.

28. Plaintiff did not exercise independent judgment.

29. Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week; to wit, Plaintiff 

worked approximately 10-12 hours per day or more, seven days per week. Defendants set 

Plaintiff’s schedule and were fully aware of the number of hours that he was working each week.

30. However, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff a minimum wage or overtime.

31. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff performed the essential functions of his job in 

a professional and competent manner.

32. While employed by Defendants, Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee as that term 

is defined by the FLSA.

33. Despite Plaintiff’s non-exempt status, and despite the fact that Plaintiff worked 

approximately 75 hours per week, Plaintiff was not paid any compensation. 

34. Defendants did not keep accurate time records of the hours that Plaintiff worked.

35. Since Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff any wages whatsoever, Defendants did 

not deduct payroll taxes in violation of Federal tax laws.

36. Plaintiff has retained the law firm of Robert S. Norell, P.A. to represent him in this 

matter and has agreed to pay said firm a reasonable attorney’s fee for its services.

Case 9:22-cv-81910-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 6 of 12
- 7 -

COUNT I

VIOLATION OF THE MINIMUM WAGE PROVISIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR 

STANDARDS ACT AND THE FLORIDA MINIMUM WAGE ACT AS TO ALL 

DEFENDANTS

37. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations contained in 

Paragraphs 1-36, supra. 

38. Defendants repeatedly and willfully violated the FLSA and the FMWA by failing 

to pay any wages to the Plaintiff. 

39. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts, Plaintiff suffered and 

continues to suffer damages. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against all Defendants for the following:

a. Declaratory judgment under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 57 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201;

b. Injunctive relief;

c. Unpaid minimum wages found to be due and owing;

d. An additional equal amount as liquidated damages;

e. Pre- and Post-Judgment Interest;

f. Attorney’s fees and costs; and

g. Such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

COUNT II

VIOLATION OF THE OVERTIME PROVISIONS

OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS

40. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations contained in 

Paragraphs 1-36, supra. 

41. Defendants repeatedly and willfully violated the FLSA by failing to compensate 

Plaintiff at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he was employed 

for workweeks longer than forty (40) hours. 

Case 9:22-cv-81910-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 7 of 12
- 8 -

42. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts, Plaintiff suffered and 

continues to suffer damages. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against all Defendants for the following:

a. Declaratory judgment under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 57 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201;

b. Injunctive relief;

c. Unpaid overtime wages found to be due and owing;

d. An additional equal amount as liquidated damages;

e. Pre- and Post-Judgment Interest;

f. Attorney’s fees and costs; and

g. Such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

COUNT III

VIOLATION OF FDUTPA AS TO FOOD MART

43. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations contained in 

Paragraphs 1-36, supra. 

44. The actions of Defendant Food Mart are unfair and deceptive trade practices 

prohibited by Florida Statutes.

45. Defendant paid no wages to Plaintiff and therefore failed to withhold employment 

taxes. 

46. This fraudulent and unlawful scheme of luring Plaintiff to work for free in exchange 

for help obtaining his citizenship serves to enhance Defendant’s gross revenues by avoiding the 

payment of wages, Federal payroll and unemployment tax obligations while prejudicing lawabiding competing businesses.

Case 9:22-cv-81910-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 8 of 12
- 9 -

47. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’ acts, Plaintiff suffered and continues 

to suffer damages. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Food Mart for the 

following:

a. Declaratory judgment under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 57;

b. Injunctive relief;

c. Actual damages per Florida Statutes, Sec. 501.211(2);

d. Pre- and Post-Judgment Interest;

e. Attorney’s fees and costs under Florida Statutes, Sec. 501.211(2); and

f. Such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

COUNT IV

VIOLATION OF FDUTPA AS TO KWIK STOP

48. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations contained in 

Paragraphs 1-36, supra. 

49. The actions of Defendant Kwik Stop are unfair and deceptive trade practices 

prohibited by Florida Statutes.

50. Defendant paid no wages to Plaintiff and therefore failed to withhold employment 

taxes. 

51. This fraudulent and unlawful scheme of luring Plaintiff to work for free in exchange 

for help obtaining his citizenship serves to enhance Defendant’s gross revenues by avoiding the 

payment of wages, Federal payroll and unemployment tax obligations while prejudicing lawabiding competing businesses.

52. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s acts, Plaintiff suffered and 

continues to suffer damages. 

Case 9:22-cv-81910-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 9 of 12
- 10 -

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Kwik Stop for the 

following:

a. Declaratory judgment under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 57;

b. Injunctive relief;

c. Actual damages per Florida Statutes, Sec. 501.211(2);

d. Pre- and Post-Judgment Interest;

e. Attorney’s fees and costs under Florida Statutes, Sec. 501.211(2); and

f. Such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

COUNT V

VIOLATION OF FDUTPA AS TO MARATHON

53. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations contained in 

Paragraphs 1-36 supra. 

54. The actions of Defendant Marathon are unfair and deceptive trade practices 

prohibited by Florida Statutes.

55. Defendant paid no wages to Plaintiff and therefore failed to withhold employment 

taxes. 

56. This fraudulent and unlawful scheme of luring Plaintiff to work for free in exchange 

for help obtaining his citizenship serves to enhance Defendant’s gross revenues by avoiding the 

payment of wages, Federal payroll and unemployment tax obligations while prejudicing lawabiding competing businesses.

57. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s acts, Plaintiff suffered and 

continues to suffer damages. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Marathon for the 

following:

Case 9:22-cv-81910-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 10 of 12
- 11 -

a. Declaratory judgment under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 57;

b. Injunctive relief;

c. Actual damages per Florida Statutes, Sec. 501.211(2);

d. Pre- and Post-Judgment Interest;

e. Attorney’s fees and costs under Florida Statutes, Sec. 501.211(2); and

f. Such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

COUNT VI

VIOLATION OF 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7434 AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS

58. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations contained in 

Paragraphs 1-36, supra. 

59. Food Mart, Kwik Stop and Marathon, through SHEIKH, violated 26 U.S.C. Sec. 

7434 by willfully causing fraudulent information returns to be prepared by their payroll service.

60. Food Mart, Kwik Stop and Marathon through SHEIKH, failed to include all of its 

employees when filing its 941 reports with the Internal Revenue Service, including the Plaintiff,

so that it would pay less employment taxes.

61. Plaintiff is entitled to damages resulting in harm to him for Defendants’ violation 

of this statute.

62. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts, Plaintiff suffered and 

continues to suffer damages. 

63. Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7434(d), a copy of this Complaint will be served on the 

Internal Revenue Service, 7850 S.W. 6th Ct., Plantation, FL 33324.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for the following:

a. Declaratory judgment under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 57;

b. Injunctive relief;

Case 9:22-cv-81910-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 11 of 12
- 12 -

c. Actual damages or a minimum $5,000 penalty (whichever is greater) pursuant to 26 

U.S.C. Sec. 7434(b) for each fraudulent information filed;

d. Pre- and Post-Judgment Interest;

e. Attorney’s fees and costs;

f. Such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

The Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial on and for all issues so triable.

Dated: December 12, 2022

Plantation, Florida

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Robert S. Norell

Robert S. Norell, Esq. (Fla. Bar No. 996777)

E-Mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com

ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.

300 NW 70th Avenue

Suite 305

Plantation, FL 33317

Telephone: (954) 617-6017

Facsimile: (954) 617-6018

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 9:22-cv-81910-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2022 Page 12 of 12