UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

ROSALIS GREEN, on behalf

of herself and on behalf 

of all others 

similarly situated, 

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 

 

LESSEN, INC., 

Defendant. 

____________________________/ 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

(JURY TRIAL DEMANDED)

Named Plaintiff, Rosalis Green (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated (collectively “Plaintiffs”), files this Class Action Complaint against Defendant,

Lessen, Inc. (“Defendant”) for violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification 

Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2101 et seq. (the “WARN Act”). In further support thereof, the Named Plaintiff 

alleges as follows: 

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is a class action for the recovery by the Named Plaintiff, on her own behalf 

and on behalf of approximately 300 other similarly situated former employees, seeking to recover 

damages in the amount of 60 days’ compensation and benefits for each of them by reason of the 

Defendant’s violation of their rights under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification 

Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2101 et seq. (the “WARN Act”). 

2. The Named Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members (“Plaintiffs”) were employees 

of Defendant who were terminated without cause on their part on or about October 25, 2022, as 

Case 1:22-cv-23605-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/03/2022 Page 1 of 11
2 

part of or as the reasonably expected consequence of a mass layoff or plant closing, which was 

effectuated by Defendant on or about that date. 

3. Defendant failed to provide Plaintiffs with the sixty (60) days advance written 

notice that is required by the WARN Act. In fact, Defendant provide Plaintiffs with zero days 

advance notice. 

4. Defendant’s mass layoffs deprived Plaintiffs “...and their families [of] some 

transition time to adjust to the prospective loss of employment, to seek and obtain alternative jobs 

and, if necessary, to enter skill training or retraining that will allow these workers to successfully 

compete in the job market.” 20 C.F.R. § 639.1(a). 

5. Plaintiffs are entitled under the WARN Act to recover from the Defendant their 

wages and benefits for 60 days. 

6. Defendant will likely claim exemption from this requirement under the 

“unforeseeable business circumstance” exception of the WARN Act, and possibly cite to inflation, 

or financial issues. 

7. Under that exception, “[a]n employer may order a plant closing or mass layoff 

before the conclusion of the 60-day period if the closing or mass layoff is caused by business 

circumstances that were not reasonably foreseeable as of the time that notice would have been 

required.” 29 U.S.C. § 2102(b)(2)(A). 

8. However, Defendant was still mandated by the WARN Act to give Plaintiffs “as 

much notice as is practicable.” Defendant failed to do so here, instead giving Plaintiffs zero days 

advance notice. 

9. Not only that, the same day Plaintiffs were subjected to a mass layoff Defendant’s 

CEO sent out a mass email in the evening stating, in part, that “I remain bullish on Lessen’s future. 

Case 1:22-cv-23605-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/03/2022 Page 2 of 11
3 

Although we fell short of our revenue expectations for 2022, we have nearly tripled our revenue 

year over year, and we expect demand to increase when the real-estate market stabilizes. We have 

a strong financial position that will allow us to continue investing where we deem appropriate and 

to fund our growth.” 

10. Assuming Defendant’s CEO above statement is true, Defendant’s failure to provide 

employees with the legally required advance written mandated by the WARN Act is a particularly 

egregious violation because, apparently, Defendant currently is in a “strong financial position” due 

to the revenue it claims to have “tripled” year after year. Such financial circumstances do not 

excuse a company from ignoring the WARN Act’s notice requirements. 

JURISDICTION

11. This Court has jurisdiction over this proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 

29 U.S.C. § 2104(a)(5). 

12. The violation of the WARN Act alleged herein occurred in this District. 

13. Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 2104(a)(5). 

THE PARTIES

14. Defendant is an Arizona-based corporation authorized to conduct business in the 

State of Florida. 

15. According to its website, Defendant “....is building a world-class technology 

platform that is fundamentally changing how real estate services are initialized, managed, and 

delivered at scale. Lessen is backed by some of the top VC firms in the world.” 

16. Plaintiffs worked remotely for Defendant. 

17. Named Plaintiff Rosalis Green reported to Defendant’s Miami, Florida, facility. 

18. Prior to her termination, the Named Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant. 

Case 1:22-cv-23605-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/03/2022 Page 3 of 11
4 

19. On October 25, 2022, the Named Plaintiff was terminated from her employment, 

without cause on her part, by the Defendant. 

20. On October 25, 2022, and thereafter, the Named Plaintiff and approximately 300 

other employees of the Defendant were terminated without cause on their part as part of or as the 

reasonably expected consequence of the terminations that occurred on or about October 25, 2022. 

21. The Named Plaintiff brings this action on her own behalf and, pursuant to rules 

23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of herself and the Putative Class 

Members. 

THE MASS LAYOFF / PLANT CLOSURE

22. On October 25, 2022, the Named Plaintiff—who worked for remotely for

Defendant but reported to its Miami, Florida facility—and the Putative Class Members learned for 

the first time that Defendant was terminating them effective immediately. 

23. According to a written statement from Defendant’s CEO emailed to those 

employees not made part of the mass layoff: 

Lessen kicked of 2022 with an aggressive growth plan based upon our prior year’s 

success and the acquisition projections from our largest clients. Since then, macroeconomic factors such as rising inflation and record-high interest rates have 

dramatically affected the real-estate market and reduced our client’s acquisition 

activity. This has directly impacted demand for our services and as a result, our Q4 

revenue projections are falling short of what we forecasted. 

Many companies across all types of businesses are being impacted by these market 

changes and adjusting their business plans. We have been instructed to reduce our 

cash burn and to achieve profitability much sooner than we had originally planned 

and this requires us to adjust our expenses downward immediately. It is with a 

heavy heart that I inform you of Lessen’s difficult decision to right size the 

organization appropriately. After evaluating every option, we are reducing part of 

our workforce. People and departments affected were based on factors including 

profitability, productivity, and job function in relation to our forecasted business 

plan. 

Case 1:22-cv-23605-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/03/2022 Page 4 of 11
5

Impacted team members were notified this morning. Lessen is providing financial 

support and continuation of healthcare to those individuals. The employees 

affected are both colleagues and friends – and we are incredibly grateful for their 

contributions to Lessen.

I remain bullish on Lessen’s future. Although we fell short of our revenue 

expectations for 2022, we have nearly tripled our revenue year over year, and we 

expect demand to increase when the real-estate market stabilizes. We have a strong 

financial position that will allow us to continue investing where we deem 

appropriate and to fund our growth.

Near term, our focus is on what we do well. We will continue to innovate in our 

industry and are committed to delivering quality service, fast and efficiently. We 

have invested in sales and marketing to acquire new clients and we are expanding 

into the multifamily and consumer sectors to diversify our sources of revenue.

Lessen is laying a foundation to capitalize on the extraordinary opportunities ahead 

of us, and together, we will continue building this great company. We will host a 

Lessen town hall in November to go over our forward-looking plan and answer 

questions. My door is always open. Please reach out to me or to any member of 

the executive team with your comments or questions.

24. None of this excuses Defendant from failing to comply with the WARN Act’s 60-

day notice requirement as to the Named Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members. 

25. In fact, the only written notice received by the Plaintiffs from Defendant came in 

the form of a severance package (Plaintiff was offered only 2 weeks’ pay) which failed to comply 

with the WARN Act’s notice requirements. 

26. At a minimum, WARN Act notices must contain: (i) the name and address of the 

employment site where the plant closing or mass layoff will occur, and the name and telephone 

number of a company official to contact for further information; (ii) a statement as to whether the 

planned action is expected to be permanent or temporary and, if the entire plant is to be closed, a 

statement to that effect; (iii) the expected date of the first separation and the anticipated schedule 

Case 1:22-cv-23605-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/03/2022 Page 5 of 11
6 

for making separations; and (iv) the job titles of positions to be affected and the names of the 

workers currently holding affected jobs. 

27. The severance package written notice the Plaintiffs received from Defendant as to 

their termination contained none of the above. Thus, to date Plaintiffs have never received a 

compliant WARN Act notice. 

THE CLAIM FOR RELIEF

28. At all relevant times, the Defendant employed 100 or more employees, exclusive 

of part-time employees, i.e., those employees who had worked fewer than 6 of the 12 months prior 

to the date notice was required to be given or who had worked fewer than an average of 20 hours 

per week during the 90 day period prior to the date notice was required to be given (the “Part-Time 

Employees”), or employed 100 or more employees who in the aggregate worked at least 4,000 

hours per week exclusive of hours of overtime within the United States. 

29. The terminations on or about October 25, 2022, of the employment of persons who 

worked at the Facility for Defendant resulted in the loss of employment for approximately 300 

employees excluding Part-Time Employees.

30. The terminations on or about October 25, 2022, of the employment of persons who 

worked at the Facility or as the reasonably foreseeable consequence of those terminations resulted 

in the loss of employment for at least 33% of the Facility’s employees excluding Part-Time 

Employees. 

31. The Named Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members were discharged without 

cause on their part on or about October 25, 2022, or thereafter as the reasonably expected 

consequence of the terminations that occurred on or about October 25, 2022. 

Case 1:22-cv-23605-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/03/2022 Page 6 of 11
7 

32. The Named Plaintiff and each of the other Putative Class Members experienced an 

employment loss as part of or as the reasonably expected consequence of the mass layoff and/or 

plant closing that occurred on or about October 25, 2022. 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

33. The Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members constitute a Class within the meaning 

of Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

34. Specifically, the Named Plaintiff seeks to certify the following class: 

Nationwide WARN Act Class Action:

All former employees of Defendant throughout the United States not given a 

minimum of 60 days’ written notice of termination, and whose employment 

was terminated on or about October 25, 2022, as a result of a “mass layoff” or 

“plant closing” as defined by the Workers Adjustment and Retraining 

Notification Act of 1988. 

35. Each of the Putative Class Members is similarly situated to the Plaintiff with respect 

to his or her rights under the WARN Act. 

36. Common questions of law and fact are applicable to all members of the Class. 

37. The common questions of law and fact arise from and concern the following facts, 

among others: that all Putative Class Members enjoyed the protection of the WARN Act; that all 

Putative Class Members were employees of the Defendant who worked at the Facility; that the 

Defendant terminated the employment of all the members of the Class without cause on their part; 

that the Defendant terminated the employment of Putative Class Members without giving them at 

least 60 days’ prior written notice as required by the WARN Act; that the Defendant failed to pay 

the Putative Class Members wages and to provide other employee benefits for a 60-day period 

following their respective terminations; and on information and belief, the issues raised by an 

affirmative defenses that may be asserted by the Defendant. 

Case 1:22-cv-23605-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/03/2022 Page 7 of 11
8

38. The Named Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the 

Class in that for each of the several acts of Defendant described above, the Plaintiff and the other 

Putative Class Members is an injured party with respect to his/her rights under the WARN Act.

39. The Named Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect and represent the interests 

of the Class.

40. The Named Plaintiff has the time and resources to prosecute this action.

41. The Named Plaintiff has retained the undersigned counsel who have had extensive 

experience litigating WARN Act claims, employee rights’ claims, and other claims in Federal 

court.

42. The Class is so numerous as to render joinder of all members impracticable in that 

there are approximately 300 members of the Class.

43. The questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class predominate 

over any questions affecting only individual members.

44. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of the controversy.

45. No Putative Class Member has an interest in individually controlling the 

prosecution of a separate action under the WARN Act.

46. No litigation concerning the WARN Act rights of any Class member has been 

commenced.

47. Concentrating all the potential litigation concerning the WARN Act rights of the 

Putative Class Members in this Court will avoid a multiplicity of suits, will conserve judicial 

resources and the resources of the parties, and is the most efficient means of resolving the WARN 

Act rights of all the Putative Class Members.

Case 1:22-cv-23605-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/03/2022 Page 8 of 11
9

48. On information and belief, the names of all the Putative Class Members are 

contained in Defendant’s books and records.

49. On information and belief, a recent residence address of each of the Putative Class 

Members is contained in Defendant’s books and records.

50. On information and belief, the rate of pay and the benefits that were being paid or 

provided by Defendant to each Class member at the time of his or her termination are contained in 

Defendant’s books and records.

51. As a result of Defendant’s violation of the WARN Act, each Putative Class 

Members is entitled to recover an amount equal to the sum of: (a) his/her respective wages, salaries, 

commissions, bonuses and accrued pay for vacation and personal days for the work days in the 60 

calendar days prior to their respective terminations and fringe benefits for 60 calendar days prior 

to their respective terminations; and (b) his/her medical expenses incurred during the 60-day period 

following their respective terminations that would have been covered and paid under the 

Defendant’s health insurance plan had that plan provided coverage for such period.

52. Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and the other Putative Class Members for the 

Defendant’s violation of the WARN Act in an amount equal to the sum of or any part of the sum 

of (a) their respective wages, salary, commissions, bonuses and accrued pay for vacation and 

personal days for the work days in the 60 calendar days prior to their respective terminations and 

fringe benefits for 60 calendar days prior to their respective terminations; and (b) their medical 

expenses incurred during the 60 calendar days from and after the date of his/her termination that 

would have been covered under the Defendant’s benefit plans had those plans remained in effect.

53. The Named Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial of all issues that may be so tried.

WHEREFORE, the Named Plaintiff demands judgment as follows:

Case 1:22-cv-23605-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/03/2022 Page 9 of 11
10 

A. In favor of the Named Plaintiff and each Putative Class Members against the 

Defendant equal to the sum of: (a) wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued pay for vacation 

and personal days, for 60 days; (b) pension, 401(k) contributions, health and medical insurance 

and other fringe benefits for 60 days; and (c) medical expenses incurred during the 60 day period 

following their respective terminations that would have been covered and paid under the 

Defendant’s health insurance plans had coverage under that plan continued for such period, all 

determined in accordance with the WARN Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2104 (a)(1)(A). 

B. Appointment of the Named Plaintiff as Class Representative;

C. Appointment of the undersigned as Class Counsel; 

D. In favor of the Named Plaintiff for the reasonable attorneys’ fees and the costs and 

disbursements of prosecuting this action, as authorized by the WARN Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2104 (a)(6).

E. Interest allowed by law; 

F. Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Dated this 3rd day of November, 2022. 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Miguel Bouzas 

MIGUEL BOUZAS, ESQUIRE

Florida Bar No.: 48943 

Mbouzas@fgbolaw.com 

16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100 

Lutz, Florida 33558 

Telephone (727) 254-5200 

Facsimile (727) 483-7942 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

and 

/s/Brandon J. Hill 

BRANDON J. HILL

Florida Bar Number: 0037061 

LUIS A. CABASSA 

Case 1:22-cv-23605-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/03/2022 Page 10 of 11
11

Florida Bar Number: 0053643

AMANDA E. HEYSTEK

Florida Bar Number: 0285020

WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.

1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300

Tampa, FL 33602

Main No.: 813-224-0431

Direct No.: 813-379-2565

Facsimile: 813-229-8712

Email: bhill @wfclaw.com

Email: lcabassa@wfclaw.com

Email: aheystek@wfclaw.com

Email: gnichols@wfclaw.com

Attorneys for Named Plaintiff 

Case 1:22-cv-23605-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/03/2022 Page 11 of 11