IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

STEPHANIE DE ANGELIS, : 

 Individually and on behalf of 

 all others similarly situated, : 

 3755 Dehner Drive 

 Columbus, Ohio 43227 : Case No. 2:17-cv-985 

 Plaintiff, : Judge 

v. : Magistrate Judge 

C G CONSULTING, LLC : 

(d/b/a SCORES COLUMBUS; and 

COLUMBUS GOLD ), Anthony Quaranta, : 

Individually, Nicholas Castaldo, Individually 

 : 

By Serving its Registered Agent 

Darrell E. Fawley Jr. : 

520 East Rich Street 

Columbus, Ohio 43215 : 

 

 Principal Place of Business : 

5411 Bethel Sawmill Center 

Columbus, Ohio 43235 : 

General Partner 

Anthony Quaranta 

450 Emery Lane : 

Elmhurst, IL 60126 

 : 

 

 AND : 

HOUSTON KP, LLC (d/b/a SCORES : 

HOUSTON), Anthony Quaranta, Individually 

 : 

By Serving its Registered Agent 

Albert T. Van Huff : 

1225 North Loop West, Suite 640 

Houston, TX 77008 : 

Principal Place of Business : 

Case: 2:17-cv-00985-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/09/17 Page: 1 of 24 PAGEID #: 1
2

6340 Westheimer Road 

Houston, TX 77057 : 

President : 

Anthony Quaranta 

210 Geneva : 

 Elmhurst, IL 60126 

 : 

 AND 

 : 

ZIGOT, LLC (d/b/a SCORES 

PRESENTS NORTHWEST INDIANA), : 

Anthony Quaranta, Individually 

 : 

 By Serving its Registered Agent 

 and President Anthony Quaranta : 

at its Principal Place of Business 

9148 Melton Road : 

Gary, IN 46403 

 : 

 AND 

 : 

POLEKATZ GENTLEMEN’S CLUB, LLC 

(d/b/a POLEKATZ GENTLEMEN’S CLUB), : 

Anthony Quaranta, Individually, Stephen 

Dabrowski, Individually : 

 

 By Serving its Registered Agent : 

 Polekatz Gentlemen’s Club, LLC 

 C/O Kerry M. Lavelle : 

 501 W. Colfax 

 Palatine, IL 60067 : 

Principal Place of Business : 

7337 W. 100th Place 

 Bridgeview, IL 60455 : 

 

AND : 

MARSHALL INTERNATIONAL, LLC : 

(d/b/a GOLD CLUB CHICAGO), Anthony 

Quaranta, Individually, Pera Odishoo, : 

Individually 

 : 

 By Serving its Registered Agent 

Case: 2:17-cv-00985-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/09/17 Page: 2 of 24 PAGEID #: 2
3

 General Member, Pera Odishoo : 

 3901 W. Lake Street, 2nd Floor 

 Stone Park, IL 60165 : 

 

 Defendants. : 

COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT FOR 

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND COMPENSATION 

UNDER 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et. seq.

AND 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

UNDER OHIO REVISED CODE CHAPTER 4111, et seq.

Now comes Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and brings this 

collective and class action against CG Consulting, LLC d/b/a Scores Columbus, Houston KP, 

LLC d/b/a Scores Houston, Zigot, LLC d/b/a Scores Northwest Indiana, Polekatz Gentlemen’s 

Club, LLC, d/b/a Polekatz Chicago, Marshall International, LLC d/b/a Gold Club Chicago, 

Anthony Quaranta, Individually, Nicholas Castaldo, Individually, Stephen Dabrowski, 

Individually, and Pera Odishoo, Individually (collectively “Defendants” or “the Clubs”), for 

monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief due to their willful failure to compensate employees 

with proper pay in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (”FLSA”), 29 

U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq., the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (“OMFWSA”), O.R.C. §§ 

4111.01, et seq., the Ohio Semi-Monthly Payment Act O.R.C. § 4113.15, and common law 

unjust enrichment by intentionally failing to pay full and accurate wages to employees for each 

hour worked in accordance with federal and Ohio law. In support of the claims stated above, 

Plaintiff alleges the following: 

Case: 2:17-cv-00985-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/09/17 Page: 3 of 24 PAGEID #: 3
4

INTRODUCTION 

1. This is an action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et 

seq., against Defendants to redress Defendants’ long standing abuse of the federal minimum 

wage and overtime standards. Plaintiff brings this action as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 

216 (b). The FLSA violations raised in this lawsuit are straightforward—Defendants do not pay 

their employees anything. 

2. This action is also brought under the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act 

(“OMFWSA”), O.R.C. §§ 4111.01, et seq., for Defendants’ failure to pay employees overtime at 

a wage rate of one and one-half times the employee’s wage rate for hours worked in excess of 

forty hours in one workweek, and O.R.C. § 4111.08 for Defendants’ failure to keep accurate 

records. 

3. Defendants are gentlemen’s clubs. Defendants employ Dancers to provide live 

adult entertainment for patrons. Defendants apply a common pay policy across all locations that 

fails to pay Dancers for any hours worked. Instead, Defendants illegally misclassify Dancers as 

non-employees in violation of the FLSA and Ohio wage and hour laws. 

4. Defendants make up a single business enterprise, performing related activities, 

with a common business purpose, and common ownership control. Defendants, as an enterprise, 

engage in interstate commerce and have gross receipts exceed $500,000 per year during the 

relevant statutory period. As an enterprise, Defendants apply the same illegal pay policy to 

Dancers at all locations. 

5. Defendants’ websites identify them as a single entity. Each club website lists and 

links the other four clubs under the heading “Our Clubs.” See Scores Houston at 

http://www.scoreshouston.com/; Scores Columbus at http://www.scorescolumbus.net/; Scores 

Case: 2:17-cv-00985-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/09/17 Page: 4 of 24 PAGEID #: 4
5

Presents NWI at http://www.scoresindiana.com/; Polekatz Chicago at 

http://www.polekatzchicago.net/; and Gold Club Chicago at http://www.polekatzchicago.net/. 

6. Upon information and belief, Defendants are ran and owned by a group of 

individuals from the Chicago, Illinois area. Anthony Quaranta is a key owning member (listed on 

registration papers) with a long history and significant experience in the adult entertainment 

industry. Based on that experience, Defendants use same pay policy at every club, which 

classifies Dancers as independent contractors and does not pay them. 

7. Defendants are integrated employers, with interrelated operations, common 

management and directors, centralized control of labor relations personnel, and common 

ownership. As integrated employers, Defendants employ Dancers and subject them to the same 

illegal policies. 

8. Defendants are joint employers, where the employees are all commonly 

controlled and shared by the same controlling owners. As joint employers, Defendants employ 

Dancers and subject them to the same illegal policies. 

9. Defendants, as an enterprise, integrated employer, and or joint employer operates 

gentlemen’s clubs in Ohio, Indiana, Texas, and Illinois. Defendants, as an enterprise, integrated 

employer, and or joint employer, employee Dancers at each of these locations. 

10. Plaintiff Stephanie De Angelis is a non-exempt former employee of Defendants 

and worked as a dancer. During her tenure as a dancer for Defendants, she did not receive the 

FLSA-mandated minimum wage for all hours worked nor did she receive time and one-half her 

regular rate of pay for hours worked over forty in a given workweek. 

11. In fact, Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff whatsoever for any hours she 

worked. Plaintiff was first required to pay to enter the club, and her only compensation came in 

Case: 2:17-cv-00985-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/09/17 Page: 5 of 24 PAGEID #: 5
6

the form of tips received from club patrons. Moreover, Plaintiff was required to divide those tips 

with Defendants and other employees who do not customarily receive tips. Consequently, 

Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and other similarly situated Dancers like her at federal 

mandated minimum wage rates, and failed to provide Plaintiff and others like her with 

commensurate overtime when they worked over forty hours in a given workweek. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

12. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s FLSA claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1337(a), and 29 U.S.C. §216(b). 

13. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s OMFWSA claims 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 for those claims authorized under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 

4111.01, et seq.

14. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and S.D. Ohio 

Civ. R. 82.1(b) because the acts giving rise to the claims of the Plaintiff occurred within this 

judicial district, and Defendants regularly conduct business in and have engaged and continue to 

engage in the wrongful conduct alleged herein, and thus, are subject to personal jurisdiction 

within this judicial district. 

15. Pursuant to Southern District of Ohio Local Rule 3.1(b) this case is related to 

Hogan v. Cleveland Ave. Restaurant, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-2883, currently before Judge 

Algenon Marbley. Plaintiff in this case is a putative member of the collective class in Hogan. De 

Angelis v. Nolan Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-926; De Angelis v. Icon Entertainment 

Group, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-927; and De Angelis v. National Entertainment Group, LLC, Case 

No. 2:17-cv-924 were also filed as related to Hogan. All cases arise from the same type event, 

call for a determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact, and would 

Case: 2:17-cv-00985-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/09/17 Page: 6 of 24 PAGEID #: 6
7

entail substantial duplication of effort and expense by the Court if heard by different judges. 

Plaintiff intends to file this related case along with multiple others. Each case is a wage and hour 

case for failure to pay wages according to federal and Ohio State law. Each case is brought 

against a gentlemen’s club defendant with a location in Columbus, Ohio by and on behalf of a 

putative class of Dancers. Each case includes gentlemen’s club defendants that maintained illegal 

policies that deprived Dancers of the wages they were entitled to under the law by classifying 

Dancers as independent contractors. Accordingly, each case is clearly related and it would be 

unnecessarily duplicative to have the cases handled by multiple Judges. 

PARTIES 

16. Plaintiff Stephanie De Angelis is a citizen of the State of Ohio who was employed 

by Defendants as a dancer in Columbus, Ohio during the statutory period covered by this 

Complaint. 

17. Defendant C G Consulting, LLC, d/b/a Scores Columbus, an unregistered trade 

name, is a for profit gentlemen’s club conducting business in the State of Ohio with a principle 

place of business located at 5411 Bethel Sawmill Center, Columbus, Ohio 43235. 

18. Defendant Houston KP, LLC, d/b/a Scores Houston is a for profit gentlemen’s 

club conducting business under the laws of the State of Texas with a principle place of business 

located at 6340 Westheimer Road, Houston, Texas 77057. 

19. Defendant Zigot, LLC, d/b/a Scores Northwest Indiana, an unregistered trade 

name, is a for profit gentlemen’s club conducting business in the State of Indiana with a principle 

place of business located at 9148 Melton Road, Gary, Indiana 46403. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00985-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/09/17 Page: 7 of 24 PAGEID #: 7
8

20. Defendant Marshall International, LLC, doing business as Gold Club Chicago is a 

for profit corporation registered to do business in Illinois. Defendant’s principal place of business 

is 3901 W. Lake Street, 2nd Floor, Stone Park, Illinois 60165. 

21. Defendant Polekatz Gentlemen’s Club, LLC, doing business as Polekatz Chicago 

is a for profit corporation registered to do business in Illinois. Defendant’s principal place of 

business is 7337 W. 100th Place, Bridgeview, Illinois 60455. 

22. Defendant Anthony Quaranta is an individual and owner of the clubs being sued 

in his individual capacity. On information and belief, Mr. Quaranta acted as an employer, under 

the FLSA and OMFWSA, of putative Plaintiff and Class Members. 

23. Defendants are a single enterprise integrated employer and/or joint employers 

jointly employing Dancers at Scores Columbus, Scores Houston, Scores Northwest Indiana, 

Gold Club Chicago, and Polekatz Chicago at all times within the statutory period. 

24. On information and belief, at all times relevant to this lawsuit, Defendants engage 

in interstate commerce and have gross operating revenues or business volume in excess of 

$500,000. 

25. The putative Collective Action Members are all current and former Dancers who 

worked for Defendants at any location at any time within the three years prior to the filing of this 

Complaint through the date of final disposition of this action who did not receive minimum 

wages or overtime premium pay for hours worked over forty in a given workweek from 

Defendants. 

26. The putative Ohio Class Action Members are all current and former Dancers who 

work or worked for Defendants in Ohio at any time within the six years prior to the date of filing 

of this Complaint through the date of the final disposition of this action. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00985-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/09/17 Page: 8 of 24 PAGEID #: 8
9

27. Plaintiff’s consent to participate in this lawsuit is attached as Exhibit A to this 

complaint. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

28. Defendants employed Plaintiff as a Dancer. 

29. Like most (if not all) gentlemen’s clubs throughout the country, Defendants 

wrongly classify all of their Dancer employees as independent contractors. 

30. Defendants employed Plaintiff from about April 2016 to February 2017. 

31. During all relevant times, Defendants were Plaintiff’s employer within the 

meaning of the FLSA, the OMFWSA, and the Ohio Semi-Monthly Payments Act. 

32. Defendants maintained substantial control over Plaintiff and Dancers. 

33. Plaintiff was compensated exclusively through “tips” from Defendants’ 

customers. 

34. Defendants produced a written schedule that scheduled Dancers on specific days 

throughout the workweek. Defendants maintained an expectation that Dancers had to work four 

days a week. 

35. Plaintiff and Dancers were expected to, and typically worked at least a full forty 

hour workweek, sometimes more. 

36. Plaintiff and Dancers were penalized for being late or missing work and were 

required to pay a fine. 

37. Defendants required Plaintiff and Dancers to sign in with a House Mom (or other 

employee if neither was available) before getting dressed for the night, and pay a dance fee each 

shift. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00985-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/09/17 Page: 9 of 24 PAGEID #: 9
10

38. Defendants maintained specific rules that all Dancers had to follow. These rules 

included a dress code and Dancer etiquette. 

39. Defendants set the price that Dancers could charge for drinks, table dances, 

private dances, and all other services. Dancers could not set their own prices for any services. 

40. Defendants had absolute control over admitting patrons and set the door price for 

admission. Dancers had no say in this matter. 

41. Defendants handled all advertising and promotional activity, and determined what 

services Dancers would offer. Dancers had no say in this matter. 

42. At the end of every night, Defendants took a cut from all tips made by Dancers 

for work performed for patrons. This included fees and money earned from dances and drinks. 

43. In addition to paying cash to Defendants at the end of the night, Dancers were 

required to tip out other employees, which could include bartenders, other server personnel, and 

bouncers. 

44. Defendants maintained some type of recording of the Dancers’ schedules, the 

services provided / sold by Dancers, and of the money earned by each Dancer. 

45. Defendants were responsible for providing the locker rooms, dance stages 

(including poles), DJ, and music used by dancers. 

46. Defendants did not require that Dancers have any special skills in order to obtain 

employment. 

47. Plaintiff and Dancers are integral to the financial success of Defendants’ 

businesses. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00985-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/09/17 Page: 10 of 24 PAGEID #: 10
11

48. The practices and policies set by Defendants resulted in Plaintiff being paid less 

than the required minimum wage, and overtime at a rate of time and one-half the regular rate of 

pay for all hours worked over forty in a given workweek. 

FLSA ALLEGATIONS 

49. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs by reference as if set forth fully in 

this section, unless inconsistent. 

50. The FLSA is to be construed expansively in favor of coverage, recognizing that 

broad coverage is essential to accomplish the goals of this remedial legislation, including the 

avoidance of unfair competition. 

51. To determine employment status and effectuate the FLSA’s broad remedial 

purpose, courts apply some form of the economic realities test to determine whether as a matter 

of economic reality, the individuals are dependent upon the business to which they render 

service. 

52. The FLSA applied to Plaintiff and the putative Collective Action Members at all 

times that they worked as Dancers at Defendants’ clubs. 

53. No exemptions to the application of the FLSA apply to Plaintiff or the putative 

Collective Action Members. For instance, neither Plaintiff nor any putative Collective Action 

Member has ever been a professional artist exempt from the provisions of the FLSA. The 

dancing required by Defendants does not require invention, imagination, or talent in a recognized 

field of artistic endeavor. Plaintiff and the putative Collective Action Members have never been 

compensated by Defendants on a set salary, wage, or fee basis. Rather, Plaintiff and the putative 

Collective Action Members’ sole source of income while working for Defendants was tips given 

to them by the club’s patrons (i.e., stage dancing or single dancing tips). 

Case: 2:17-cv-00985-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/09/17 Page: 11 of 24 PAGEID #: 11
12

54. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and the putative Collective Action Members were 

employees of Defendants pursuant to the FLSA. 

55. During the relevant time period, neither Plaintiff nor any putative Collective 

Action Member received money from Defendants in the form of wages, nor did they receive any 

other category of compensation (e.g., bonuses, shift differentials, per diem payments) from 

Defendants. 

56. The money that Plaintiff and the putative Collective Action Members would 

receive from customers at Defendants’ locations is a tip, not a service charge as those terms are 

defined in relevant FLSA regulations. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 531.52, 531.53, & 531.55. 

57. Those tips received by Plaintiff and the putative Collective Action Members does 

not become part of the Defendants’ gross receipts to be later distributed to the Dancers at a given 

location as wages. Instead, Dancers merely pay the club a portion of their tips. 

58. Plaintiff and the putative Collective Action Members are tipped employees under 

the FLSA, as they are engaged in an occupation in which they customarily and regularly receive 

more than $30 per month in tips. See 29 U.S.C. § 203(t). 

59. Defendants, however, are not entitled to take a tip credit for the amounts Plaintiff 

and the putative Collective Action Members received as tips. 29 U.S.C. § 203(m) requires an 

employer to inform its employee that it intends to rely on the tip credit to satisfy its minimum 

wage obligations. Here, Defendants affirmatively informed Plaintiff and the Collective Action 

Members that they would not be paid wages at all, much less paid a tip credit adjusted minimum 

wage. 

60. Defendants’ scheme to label Plaintiff and the putative Collective Action Members 

as independent contractors was designed to deny them their fundamental rights as employees to 

Case: 2:17-cv-00985-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/09/17 Page: 12 of 24 PAGEID #: 12
13

receive minimum wages, overtime; to demand and retain portions of tips given to putative 

Collective Action Members by Defendants’ customers; and to enhance Defendants’ profits. 

61. Defendants’ illegal scheme, labeling Plaintiff and the putative Collective Action 

Members as independent contractors rather than employees, was willful. 

62. Finally, federal law requires employers to make and keep accurate and detailed 

payroll data for non-exempt employees. 29 U.S.C. § 211(c); 29 C.F.R. § 516.2. Amongst other 

things, the regulations require employers to make and keep payroll records showing data such as 

the employee’s name, social security number, occupation, time of day and day of week which the 

workweek begins, regular hourly rate of pay for any week in which overtime pay is due, hours 

worked each workday and total hours worked each workweek, total daily or weekly straight time 

earnings, total premium pay for overtime hours, total wages paid each pay period and date of 

payment and pay period covered by the payment, and records of remedial payments. 29 C.F.R. § 

516.2(a) & (b). Employers are required to maintain the foregoing data for a minimum of three 

years. 29 C.F.R. § 516.5. Defendants have failed to accurately keep the aforementioned records. 

COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

63. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs by reference as if set forth fully in 

this section, unless inconsistent. 

64. Plaintiff brings this collective action on behalf of herself and all other similarly 

situated Dancers. 

65. Plaintiff has actual knowledge that putative Collective Action Members have been 

denied wages for all hours worked in each workweek. Plaintiff worked with other Dancers at 

Defendants’ location. As such, she has personal knowledge of the pay violations. Furthermore, 

Case: 2:17-cv-00985-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/09/17 Page: 13 of 24 PAGEID #: 13
14

other Dancer employees have shared with her that they experienced similar pay violations as 

those described in this Complaint 

66. Defendants misclassified Plaintiff and similarly-situated Collective Action 

Members as independent contractors to avoid the obligation to pay them pursuant to the FLSA. 

67. Plaintiff is not exempt from the overtime and minimum wage requirements under 

the FLSA. 

68. Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members were subject to the same uniform 

illegal pay practices and policies. Defendants maintained a single common and unified illegal 

pay policy that applied to all Dancers equally and failed to pay them the wages they were entitled 

to under the law. Defendants erroneously classified all Dancers as non-employee tenants or 

independent contractors. 

69. Defendants’ illegal pay practices and policies are identified above and generally 

include failing to pay minimum wage for each hour worked, subjecting workers to an illegal tip 

pool policy, and charging money to employees for performing their essential job functions. 

70. The putative Collective Action Members are similarly situated to Plaintiff in all 

relevant respects, having performed the same work duties as Plaintiff and being similarly situated 

with regard to Defendants’ policies and pay practices. 

71. The putative Collective Action Members regularly work or worked in excess of 

forty hours during a workweek. 

72. The specific job titles or precise job responsibilities of each putative Collective 

Action Member does not prevent collective treatment. 

73. The Collective Action Members are owed wages for the same reasons as Plaintiff. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00985-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/09/17 Page: 14 of 24 PAGEID #: 14
15

74. Application of Defendants’ illegal pay practices does/did not depend on the 

personal circumstances of Plaintiff or putative Collective Action Members. Rather, the same 

policy or practice, which resulted in the non-payment of minimum and overtime wages, applies 

to all putative Collective Action Members. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to represent the 

following class: 

All of Defendants’ current and former Dancers, who are or were 

employed with Defendants during the three years before this 

Complaint was filed up to the present. 

75. Defendants knowingly, willfully, and with reckless disregard for the rights of 

putative Collective Action Members carried out an illegal pattern or practice of failing to pay 

minimum wages and overtime compensation. 

76. Defendants did not act in good faith or reliance upon the following in formulating 

its pay practices: (a) case law, (b) the FLSA, (c) Department of Labor Wage & Hour Opinion 

Letters or (d) the Code of Federal Regulations. 

77. Defendants acted willfully in failing to pay Plaintiff and putative Collective 

Action Members in accordance with the law. 

OHIO LAW ALLEGATIONS 

78. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs by reference as if set forth fully in 

this section, unless inconsistent. 

79. The OMFWSA, O.R.C. §§ 4111.01, et seq., expressly incorporates the standards 

set forth under the FLSA. 

80. Ohio law requires employers to pay employees minimum and overtime wages at a 

rate of one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess 

of forty hours in one workweek. O.R.C. §§ 4111.01, et seq. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00985-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/09/17 Page: 15 of 24 PAGEID #: 15
16

81. Ohio law requires employers to maintain accurate pay records. O.R.C. § 4111.08. 

82. Ohio law requires employers to, on or before the first day of each month, pay all 

its employees the wages earned by them during the first half of the preceding month ending with 

the fifteenth day thereof, and shall, on or before the fifteenth day of each month, pay such 

employees the wages earned by them during the last half of the preceding calendar month. 

O.R.C. § 4113.15. 

83. Ohio common law prohibits the windfall of unjust enrichment. 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

84. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs by reference as if set forth fully in 

this section, unless inconsistent. 

85. Plaintiff brings her claims for relief under Ohio law on behalf of herself and a 

Class of persons under Rules 23(a), (b)(2), and (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

defined as follows:

All of Defendants’ current and former Dancers who are or were 

employed with Defendants that worked in Ohio during the three years 

before this Complaint was filed up to the present. 

86. Numerosity (FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a)(1)). The putative Ohio Class Action 

Members are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. The precise number of 

such persons is unknown, and the facts on which that number can be ascertained are presently 

within the sole control of Defendants. Upon information and belief, there are over forty putative 

Ohio Class Action Members.

87. Commonality (FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a)(2)). Common questions of law and fact 

exist as to putative Ohio Class Action Members, including, but not limited to, the following: 

Case: 2:17-cv-00985-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/09/17 Page: 16 of 24 PAGEID #: 16
17

a. Whether Defendants misclassified Dancers as non-employees, independent 

contractors, or tenants; 

b. Whether Defendants failed to pay Ohio Class Members wages including 

overtime pursuant to O.R.C. §§ 4111.01 et seq.; 

c. Whether Defendants failed to keep records pursuant to O.R.C. § 4111.08; 

d. Whether Defendants failed to timely pay Ohio Class Members in accordance 

with O.R.C. § 4113.15; 

e. Whether Defendants were unjustly enriched by work and services performed by 

Ohio Class Members; and 

f. The proper measure of damages sustained by the putative Ohio Class. 

88. Typicality (FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a)(3)). Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of 

the putative Ohio Class Action Members. Plaintiff, like other Class Action Members, was 

subjected to Defendants’ policy and practice of refusing to pay wages owed to its Dancers in 

accordance with Ohio law. 

89. Adequacy (FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a)(4)). Plaintiff will fairly and adequately 

represent and protect the interests of the putative Ohio Class.

90. Adequacy of counsel (FED. R. CIV. P. 23(g). Plaintiff has retained counsel 

competent and experienced in complex class actions, the FLSA, and state labor and employment 

litigation.

91. Class certification of the Ohio claims is appropriate pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 

23(b)(2) because Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the 

putative Ohio Class, making appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the 

Plaintiff and the putative Ohio Class Action Members as a whole. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00985-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/09/17 Page: 17 of 24 PAGEID #: 17
18

92. Predominance and Superiority (FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b)(3)). Class certification 

of the Ohio claims is also appropriate under FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b)(3) because questions of law 

and fact common to the putative Ohio Class Action Members predominate over any questions 

affecting only individual members of the putative Ohio Class Action, and because a class action 

is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation. 

Defendants’ common and uniform policies and practices unlawfully fail to compensate the 

members of the putative Ohio Class. The damages suffered by individual members of the 

putative Ohio Class are small compared to the expense and burden of individual prosecution of 

this litigation. In addition, class certification is superior because it will obviate the need for 

unduly duplicative litigation which might result in inconsistent judgments about Defendants’ 

practices. 

93. Notice (FED. R. CIV. P. 23(c)(2)(B)). Plaintiff intends to send opt-out notice to 

all members of the putative Ohio Class provided by Rule 23. 

94. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Ohio Class, and a class action is 

superior to other available methods of fair and efficient adjudication of the controversyparticularly in the context of wage and hour litigation where individual plaintiffs lack the 

financial resources to vigorously prosecute a lawsuit in federal court against corporate 

defendants. 

CAUSES OF ACTION 

First Claim: Fair Labor Standards Act: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages and 

Overtime (On Behalf of the Collective Action Members) 

95. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs by reference as if set forth fully in 

this section, unless inconsistent. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00985-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/09/17 Page: 18 of 24 PAGEID #: 18
19

96. The foregoing conduct, as alleged, violated the FLSA. 

97. Plaintiff and the putative Collective Action Members are nonexempt employees 

entitled to be paid overtime compensation for all overtime hours worked, as defined above. See 

29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(1). 

98. Defendants were, and are, required to pay its employees, Plaintiff and the putative 

Collective Action Members, at least the minimum wage for all hours worked under forty in a 

given workweek. 29 U.S.C. § 206. 

99. Defendants were, and are, required to pay its employees, Plaintiff and the putative 

Collective Action Members, overtime premiums in an amount of one and one-half times their 

regular rate of pay for all hours worked over forty hours in a given workweek. 29 U.S.C. § 207. 

100. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the putative Collective Action Members 

their federally mandated overtime wages for all hours worked over forty in a given workweek. 

101. Defendants also unlawfully retained certain tips. Those tips were the sole property 

of Plaintiff and the putative Collective Action Members, and were not made part of Defendants’ 

gross receipts. 29 C.F.R. §§ 531.52, 531.53, & 531.55. 

102. No tip credit applies to reduce or offset Defendants’ liability under the FLSA, 

because Defendants did not inform Plaintiff and the putative Collective Action Members that 

they would be applying a tip credit to satisfy a portion of the statutory minimum wage, nor did 

Plaintiff and the putative Collective Action Members retain all tips, except those included in a 

tipping pool among employees who customarily receive tips. 29 U.S.C. § 203(m). 

103. Accordingly, Plaintiff and the putative Collective Action Members are entitled to 

the full statutory minimum wages set forth in 29 U.S.C. § 206 & 207. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00985-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/09/17 Page: 19 of 24 PAGEID #: 19
20

104. Defendants’ conduct was willful and done to avoid paying minimum wages and 

overtime. 29 U.S.C. § 255(a). Therefore, Plaintiff and the putative Collective Action Members 

are entitled to a three year statute of limitations. 

105. Plaintiff and the putative Collective Action Members seek all damages to which 

they are entitled under the FLSA, including their back minimum wages, back overtime wages, 

liquidated damages, treble damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, post-judgment interest, and 

specifically plead recovery for the three year period preceding the filing of this lawsuit through 

its resolution. 

106. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the putative Collective Action Members the 

federally-mandated minimum wage for all hours worked under forty in a given workweek. 

Moreover, Defendants did not pay any overtime. Defendants did not pay Plaintiff or Collective 

Action Members at all. Accordingly, Defendants violated the FLSA minimum wage and 

overtime provisions. 

Second claim: Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Act Violations-Failure to Pay Overtime Wages 

O.R.C. § 4111.01, et seq. 

(On Behalf of the Ohio Class Action Members) 

107. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs by reference as if set forth fully in 

this section, unless inconsistent. 

108. Defendants failed to pay wages including overtime to Plaintiff and putative Ohio 

Class Action Members. 

109. Defendants’ failure to pay proper wages to Plaintiff and Ohio Class Action 

Members for each hour worked including but not limited to those hours worked in excess of 

forty hours per week was willful within the meaning of the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards 

Act and in reckless disregard of applicable law. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00985-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/09/17 Page: 20 of 24 PAGEID #: 20
21

110. Defendants failed to maintain adequate records for Ohio Class Action Members 

as required under the OFMWSA. 

111. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the putative Ohio Class Action Members, seeks 

restitution in the amount of the respective unpaid overtime wages earned and due at a rate of not 

less than one and one half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over forty in a given 

workweek. 

112. As a result of Defendants’ illegal actions, Plaintiff as well Ohio Class Action 

Members suffered lost wages and other losses such as incurring the costs of attorneys’ fees 

associated with this action. 

Third Claim: Ohio Semi-Monthly Payment Act O.R.C. § 4113.15 

(On Behalf of the Ohio Class Action Members) 

113. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs by reference as if set forth fully in 

this section, unless inconsistent. 

114. During all times material to this complaint, Defendants were an entity covered by 

the Ohio Semi-Monthly Payment Act, and Plaintiff and the Ohio Class Action Members are/were 

employed by Defendants within the meaning of the Ohio Semi-Monthly Payment Act. 

115. The Ohio Semi-Monthly Payment Act requires Defendants to pay Plaintiff and 

the Ohio Class Action Members all wages, including unpaid overtime, and the pay that was 

improperly deducted, on or before the first day of each month, earned by them during the first 

half of the preceding month ending with the fifteenth day thereof, and, on or before the fifteenth 

day of each month, for wages earned by them during the last half of the preceding calendar 

month. See O.R.C. § 4113.15(A). 

Case: 2:17-cv-00985-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/09/17 Page: 21 of 24 PAGEID #: 21
22

116. During all times relevant to this complaint, Plaintiff and the Ohio Class Action 

Members are/were not paid wages, described as overtime wages at one and one-half times their 

regular hourly rate and the pay improperly deducted, within thirty days of performing the work. 

See O.R.C. §4113.15(B). 

117. Defendants failed to timely pay Ohio Class Action Members according to O.R.C. 

§ 4113.15—indeed, Defendants did not pay Ohio Class Action Members at all. Plaintiff on 

behalf of herself and Ohio Class Action Members seeks wages owed and interest due pursuant to 

O.R.C. § 4113.15. 

Forth Claim: Unjust Enrichment 

(On Behalf Of the Class Action Members) 

118. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs by reference as if set forth fully in 

this section, unless inconsistent. 

119. Plaintiff and the Class Action Members performed work and services that 

conferred a benefit upon Defendants; and their work was integral to the financial success of 

Defendants’ business. 

120. Defendants had knowledge that Plaintiff and Class Action Members performed 

this work and of the benefit they incurred as a result. 

121. Defendants retained the benefit of the work and services of Plaintiff and Class 

Action Members. 

122. Under the circumstances, retention of this benefit by Defendants would be unjust 

without payment to Plaintiff and Class Action Members. 

123. Defendants were unjustly enriched and owe Plaintiff and Class Action Members 

for the retention of the benefit resulting from their work and services including money damages, 

Case: 2:17-cv-00985-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/09/17 Page: 22 of 24 PAGEID #: 22
23

which would include minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime for hours over forty in a 

workweek. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

Wherefore, Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals are entitled to and pray for the 

following relief: 

A. Designation of this action as a collective action on behalf of Collective Action 

Members, conditional certification, and prompt issuance of notice to all 

similarly-situated members of an opt-in class, apprising them of this action, 

permitting them to assert timely wage and hour claims in this action and 

appointment of Plaintiff and her counsel to represent the Collective Action 

Members; 

B. Certification of this action of a class action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.23(b)(2) 

and (3) on behalf of the Ohio Class Action Members and appointment of 

Plaintiff and her counsel to represent the Ohio Class Action Members; 

C. A declaratory judgment that the practices complained of herein are unlawful 

under the FLSA and OMFWSA; 

D. An award of damages including unpaid wages due under the FLSA, the 

OMFWSA and O.R.C. § 4113.15, and the Ohio Semi-Monthly Payment Act 

O.R.C. § 4113.15; 

E. Interest owed in accordance with the Ohio Semi-Monthly Payment Act 

O.R.C. § 4113.15; 

Case: 2:17-cv-00985-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/09/17 Page: 23 of 24 PAGEID #: 23
24

F. An award of liquidated and treble damages as a result of Defendants’ failure 

to pay minimum wages and overtime pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216 and O.R.C. 

§§ 4111.01, et seq.; 

G. An award of prejudgment and post judgment interest; 

H. An award of compensatory damages; 

I. An award of costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and expert fees; 

J. Such other legal and equitable relief as this Court deems appropriate. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Steven C. Babin, Jr. 

Steven C. Babin, Jr. (0093584) 

Lance Chapin (0069473) 

 Chapin Legal Group, LLC 

 580 South High Street, Suite 330 

 Columbus, Ohio 43215 

 Telephone: 614.221.9100 

 Facsimile: 614.221.9272 

 E-mail: sbabin@chapinlegal.com

 lchapin@chapinlegal.com

 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 Stephanie De Angelis, et al. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00985-ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/09/17 Page: 24 of 24 PAGEID #: 24