Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TEXARKANA DIVISION 

ASHONTA CHARLES, ALI CLAYTON, 

LUIS ESPINEIRA, RODNEY GEORGE, 

ROBERT GREENE, CRAIG HARRIS, 

SAMANTHA MISSAGHY, TYLER 

MORELAND, ANGELA REDIC, 

SLOANE SOMMERS, and MICHAEL 

TOOMLEY, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

DANNY CROCKER, BCSFM, LLC, and 

BCS MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, 

Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-cv-00144 

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: 

Plaintiffs ASHONTA CHARLES, ALI CLAYTON, LUIS ESPINEIRA, RODNEY 

GEORGE, ROBERT GREENE, CRAIG HARRIS, SAMANTHA MISSAGHY, TYLER 

MORELAND, ANGELA REDIC, SLOANE SOMMERS, and MICHAEL TOOMLEY 

(“Plaintiffs”) bring this action to recover unpaid wages against DANNY CROCKER, BCSFM, 

LLC, and BCS MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) and would 

respectfully show as follows: 

I. INTRODUCTION 

1. Plaintiffs are former employees of a group of entities founded, owned, and managed 

by Defendant DANNY CROCKER, including but not necessarily limited to Defendants BCSFM, 

LLC and/or BCS MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC (collectively “BCS”). Plaintiffs contend that 

Case 5:23-cv-00144-RWS Document 1 Filed 12/06/23 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1
Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint Page 2 of 8

due primarily to Mr. Crocker’s mismanagement and/or misappropriation of BCS funds, 

Defendants ceased paying legally- and contractually-owed wages and benefits to Plaintiffs in 

September 2022. Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring these claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act 

of 1938 (“FLSA”), as amended, and Texas state common law to recover unpaid wages and 

benefits. 

II. PARTIES 

2. Plaintiff ASHONTA CHARLES is an individual residing in Ramsey County, 

Minnesota. 

3. Plaintiff ALI CLAYTON is an individual residing in Dallas County, Texas. 

4. Plaintiff LUIS ESPINEIRA is an individual residing in Suffolk County, New York. 

5. Plaintiff RODNEY GEORGE is an individual residing in Cass Couty, Texas. 

6. Plaintiff ROBERT GREENE is an individual residing in Collin County, Texas. 

7. Plaintiff CRAIG HARRIS, is an individual residing in Collin County, Texas. 

8. Plaintiff SAMANTHA MISSAGHY is an individual residing in Dallas County, 

Texas. 

9. Plaintiff TYLER MORELAND is an individual residing in Bowie County, Texas. 

10. Plaintiff ANGELA REDIC is an individual residing in Dallas County, Texas. 

11. Plaintiff SLOANE SOMMERS is an individual residing in Maricopa County, 

Arizona. 

12. Plaintiff MICHAEL TOOMLEY is an individual residing in Allegheny County, 

Texas. 

13. Defendant DANNY CROCKER is an individual residing in this judicial district 

whose last known address is 1082 County Road 3884, Queen City, Texas 75572. 

Case 5:23-cv-00144-RWS Document 1 Filed 12/06/23 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 2
Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint Page 3 of 8

14. Defendant BCSFM, LLC is a domestic limited liability company whose principal 

place of business is located at 2900 St. Michael Drive, Ste. 500 Texarkana, Texas 75503. It may 

be served with process via its registered agent, Danny Crocker, at that address. 

15. Defendant BCS MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC is a domestic limited liability 

company whose principal place of business is located at 2900 St. Michael Drive, Ste. 500 

Texarkana, Texas 75503. It may be served with process via its registered agent, Danny Crocker, 

at that address. 

III. JURISDICTION & VENUE 

16. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the federal statutory claims 

described herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and 29 U.S.C. §§ 206, 207. This Court has 

supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because those 

claims are so related to the claims over which this court has original jurisdiction that they form 

part of the same case or controversy. 

17. This Court has personal jurisdiction over all Defendants, each of whom reside and 

do significant business in the State of Texas. 

18. This Court is a proper venue pursuant to U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial 

part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this judicial district. 

IV. FACTS 

19. Mr. Crocker is the founder, sole owner, and sole managing member of BCS. 

20. The various entities under Mr. Crocker’s ownership and control, including BCS, 

share a significant degree of overlap with respect to their management, ownership, and 

administration. 

21. Plaintiffs are former employees of BCS and/or Mr. Crocker. 

Case 5:23-cv-00144-RWS Document 1 Filed 12/06/23 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 3
Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint Page 4 of 8

22. Each Plaintiff entered into an agreement with BCS and/or Mr. Crocker to perform 

work for BCS in exchange for wages and employment benefits. 

23. These employment benefits included contributions to employer-sponsored 401(k) 

and medical plans. 

24. Each Plaintiff fully performed in accordance with their respective employment 

agreements. 

25. In mid-2022, Plaintiffs began receiving calls from the vendors of BCS demanding 

payment for submitted invoices. 

26. According to the vendors, some of these purportedly unpaid invoices were over a 

year old. 

27. When Plaintiffs attempted to discuss these unpaid invoices with Mr. Crocker, he 

insisted that he and/or BCS would be taking out commercial loans to pay the invoices and “get 

caught up”. 

28. Mr. Crocker also insisted that BCS would remain financially viable based on “a big 

account starting up with [BCS],” and that BCS was moving in “a positive direction”. 

29. Soon thereafter, Mr. Crocker stopped coming into work at BCS and declined to 

respond to any emails or phone calls from Plaintiffs. 

30. In October 2022, Plaintiffs were informed by BCS’s Acting Director of Finance 

that BCS could no longer meet its payroll obligations because Mr. Crocker had withdrawn all 

money from BCS’s bank accounts. 

31. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have not received any compensation for their work 

performed after approximately September 10, 2022. 

32. Both Plaintiffs and BCS were consistently engaged in commerce during that time. 

Case 5:23-cv-00144-RWS Document 1 Filed 12/06/23 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 4
Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint Page 5 of 8

33. Plaintiffs further discovered that BCS had not made the above-referenced 401(k) 

contributions for several months. 

34. As of the filing of this Original Complaint, Plaintiffs have received no notice from 

BCS or Mr. Crocker that they have been terminated, nor that BCS has ceased doing business, nor 

that BCS is insolvent. 

V. CAUSE OF ACTION ONE – FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGE IN 

VIOLATION OF THE FLSA

35. Plaintiffs incorporate all prior and subsequent paragraphs into this subsection as if 

set forth verbatim herein. 

36. Section 6 of the FLSA requires an employer to “pay to each of his employees who 

in any workweek is engaged in commerce...or is employed in an enterprise engaged in 

commerce...wages at...$7.25 an hour[.]” 29 U.S.C. § 206(a). 

37. Plaintiffs and BCS were engaged in commerce at all relevant times herein. 

38. BCS failed to pay Plaintiffs any wage for any hours worked after approximately 

September 10, 2022, even though Plaintiffs performed significant work on behalf of BCS and/or 

Mr. Crocker after this date. 

39. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ violations of the FLSA’s minimum 

wage protections, Plaintiffs incurred the damages set forth below. 

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION TWO – FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES IN 

VIOLATION OF THE FLSA

40. Plaintiffs incorporate all prior and subsequent paragraphs into this subsection as if 

set forth verbatim herein. 

41. Section 7 of the FLSA forbids an employer from “employing any of his employees 

who in any workweek is engaged in commerce...or is employed in an enterprise engaged in 

Case 5:23-cv-00144-RWS Document 1 Filed 12/06/23 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 5
Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint Page 6 of 8

commerce...for a workweek longer than forty hours unless such employee receives 

compensation...in excess of [forty hours] at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular 

rate at which he is employed.” 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). 

42. Plaintiffs and BCS were engaged in commerce at all relevant times herein. 

43. Although Plaintiffs worked more than 40 hours for BCS and/or Mr. Crocker in the 

workweeks following the week beginning on or around September 10, 2022, BCS paid no wages 

to any employees during this time. 

44. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ violations of the FLSA’s overtime 

protections, Plaintiffs incurred the damages set forth below. 

VII. CAUSE OF ACTION THREE – BREACH OF CONTRACT IN VIOLATION OF 

TEXAS COMMON LAW

45. Plaintiffs incorporate all prior and subsequent paragraphs into this subsection as if 

set forth verbatim herein. 

46. BCS and Plaintiffs entered into valid and enforceable employment contracts 

whereby, in exchange for wages and benefits, Plaintiffs would perform work for BCS and/or Mr. 

Crocker. 

47. Plaintiffs fully performed their obligations under such employment contracts. 

48. Defendants breached the contract by refusing to pay Plaintiffs the agreed-upon 

wages and benefits as of September 2022. 

49. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ breaches of contract, Plaintiffs 

incurred the damages set forth below. 

VIII. DAMAGES

50. Plaintiffs incorporate all prior and subsequent paragraphs into this subsection as if 

set forth verbatim herein. 

Case 5:23-cv-00144-RWS Document 1 Filed 12/06/23 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 6
Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint Page 7 of 8

51. Because of Defendants’ above-described unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs have 

incurred, and seek recovery of, economic and noneconomic damages, including but not 

necessarily limited to: (a) unpaid base wages; (b) unpaid overtime wages; (c) unpaid employment 

benefits; (d) loss of earning capacity; (e) damage to reputation; (f) mental anguish; (g) emotional 

distress; (h) incidental damages; and (i) consequential damages. 

52. Defendants’ refusal to abide by the FLSA required Plaintiffs to retain undersigned 

counsel to prosecute their claims before this Court. Accordingly, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), 

Plaintiffs also seeks attorney’s fees and costs incurred in pursuing their FLSA claims. 

IX. JURY DEMAND

53. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury. 

X. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully requests that Defendants 

be cited to appear and that, upon jury trial, that judgment be entered in their favor against 

Defendants awarding Plaintiff the following relief: 

(a) economic and noneconomic damages as set forth above; 

(b) liquidated damages pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) as set forth above; 

(c) attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), as set forth above; and 

(d) any and all other remedies to which Plaintiff is entitled, whether at law or in equity. 

DATED: NOVEMBER 22, 2023 

 

Case 5:23-cv-00144-RWS Document 1 Filed 12/06/23 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 7
Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint Page 8 of 8

Respectfully submitted, 

KAPLAN LAW FIRM, PLLC 

2901 Bee Cave Rd., Suite G 

Austin, TX 78746 

Phone: (512) 553-9390 

Fax: (512) 692-2788 

/s/ Trenton Lacy 

Austin Kaplan 

Texas Bar No. 24072176 

akaplan@kaplanlawatx.com 

Trenton Lacy 

Texas Bar No. 24106176 

tlacy@kaplanlawatx.com 

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS 

Case 5:23-cv-00144-RWS Document 1 Filed 12/06/23 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 8