1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

---------------------------------------------------------------X

ELAINE L. CHAO, Secretary of Labor,

United States Department of Labor

Plaintiff, Case No. 07 CV 3332 (CLB)

v. 

Hurtig-Evans International, Inc., a 

Corporation; HEI, Inc., a Corporation 

dba Hurtig-Evans Home Care Services; ECF Case

Phillip K.C. Casimir, Individually and 

as an Officer of Hurtig-Evans International, 

Inc. and HEI, Inc.; Anisha Kiran Casimir, 

Individually and as an Officer of Hurtig-Evans

International, Inc. and HEI, Inc., 

 

 

Defendants.

---------------------------------------------------------------X

DEFENDANTS  ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS  FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendants ,Defendants , Defendants , HURTIG-EVDefendants , HURTIG-EVANS INDefendants , HURT

HOME CARE SERVICES, PHILLIP K.C. CASIMIR AND ANISHA KIRAN CASIMIR 

(hereinafter(hereinafter referred to as Defendant ), by and through their(hereinafter referred to as Defendant ), by 

toto the allegations containedto the allegations contained in Plaintiffs  First Amended Complaint dated Aprilto the a

1. DefendantDefendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 1" oDefendant denies the allegati

exceptexcept admits that Plaintiff purports to causeexcept admits that Plaintiff purports to cause this Court to hav

underunder the Fair Labor Standardsunder the Fair Labor Standards Act, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and fu

relief can be granted.

Case 7:07-cv-03332-CLB-MDF Document 8 Filed 07/17/2007 Page 1 of 4
2

2. Hurtig-Evans international Inc, Hurtig-Evans international Inc, no Hurtig-Evans international Inc, no longer 

Main Street, Suite 201, New Rochelle, New York 10801. 

3. DefDefendantDefendant denies allegations contained in paragraphs 5,6,7,8 of PlDefendant denies all

AS AND FOR A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

6. Plaintiffs Plaintiffs  Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or for

which the relief or recovery sought can be awarded.

AS A FOR A SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

7. AtAt all times relevant heretoAt all times relevant hereto, Defendant At all times relevant hereto

rightsrights which may be secured to Plaintiffs under federights which may be secured to Plaintiffs under fed

guidelines and, as such, the applicable statute of limitation under the FLSA is two years.

AS AND FOR A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

8. DefendantDefendant believes in goodDefendant believes in good faDefendant believes in good f

individualsindividuals were exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA and asindividuals were exempt 

liquidatedliquidated damages under the statute Long IslandLong Island Care at Home v Coke ________U.S.___

127 S. Ct. 2339 (June 2007) 

AS AND FOR A FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

9. Plaintiff s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff has failed to 

satisfy statutory or other prerequisites to suit by the applicable statues of limitation.

AS AND FOR A FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

10. TheThe Complaint is barred, inThe Complaint is barred, in whole or in part,The Complaint is barr

actedacted in conformityacted in conformity with and in reliance upon written administrative regulations,acted in co

Case 7:07-cv-03332-CLB-MDF Document 8 Filed 07/17/2007 Page 2 of 4
3

opinion letters with regard to some or all of the acts or omissions alleged in the Complaint.

AS AND FOR A SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

11. TheThe relief sought in the Complaint is barred,The relief sought in the Complaint is barred, in part

costs are not recoverable in actions pursued under 29 U.S.C. §216(b).

AS AND FOR A SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

12. TheThe relief sought in the Complaint is barred, in whole or The relief sought in the Comp

individualsindividuals enumerated in Exhibit Aindividuals enumerated in Exhibit A are estoppedindividuals enum

or any relief against Defendant.

AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

13. ToTo theTo the extent theTo the extent the individuals enumerated in Exhibit A are exempt from elig

overtime compensation, they are not entitled to overtime compensation under the FLSA.

AS AND FOR A NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

14. TheThe individual enumeratedThe individual enumerated in Exhibit A have been paidThe individ

 Plaintiff cannot state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that the Court:

a. dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff s Complaint;

b. deny each and every demand, claim and prayer for relief contained in

Plaintiff s Complaint;

c. award to Defendant reimbursement for its costs, including attorneys  fees; and,

d. grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Case 7:07-cv-03332-CLB-MDF Document 8 Filed 07/17/2007 Page 3 of 4
4

Dated: New Rochelle, New York

 July 10, 2007

Respectfully submitted,

ROBERT DAVID GOODSTEIN 

 By: 

 Robert David Goodstein, Esq

 Attorneys for Defendant

 56 Harrison Street, Suite 401

 New Rochelle, New York 1080l 

 (914) 632-8382

To: Harold Lemar, Esq

 Patricia M. Rodonhausen

 Regional Solicitor

 U.S. Department of Labor

 201 Varick Street, Room 983

 New York, New York 10014

Case 7:07-cv-03332-CLB-MDF Document 8 Filed 07/17/2007 Page 4 of 4