UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR TH E

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIR E

Kulvinder Singh,

Plaintiff

V. ) Civil Action No. :

Del Vaudo's Restaurant & Lounge, Inc .

and James R. Naugler, Defendants

COMPLAIN T

NOW COMES the plaintiff, KULVINDER SINGH, by and through his attorneys,

Hamblett & Kerrigan, PA, and complains against the defendant as follows :

1 . PARTIES

1 . The plaintiff, Kulvinder Singh, is a New Hampshire resident with an

address of 163 Westwood Drive, Nashua, New Hampshire 03062 .

2 . The defendant, Del Vaudo's Restaurant & Lounge, Inc., is a

New Hampshire corporation with a principal place of business located at 112 West

Pearl Street, Nashua, New Hampshire 03060 .

3 . The defendant, James R. Naugler, is a New Hampshire resident with an

address of 50 Bear Path Lane, Hudson, New Hampshire 03051 .

Case 1:06-cv-00186-JM Document 1 Filed 05/17/06 Page 1 of 5
II. JURISDICTION AND VENU E

4 . This court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 29 U .S .C . § 216(b)

(Supp . 2005).

5 . This court may exercise personal jurisdiction over all parties as they are

residents of, or maintain their principle place of business in New Hampshire .

6 . Venue lies in the Federal Court for the District of New Hampshire

because all parties reside, or maintain their principal place of business in that judicial

district.

Ill . FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

7 . The plaintiff was hired by the defendant in February of 2005 .

8 . The plaintiff was employed as a restaurant chef .

9 . Pursuant to a written contract, the plaintiff was to work 60 hours a week,

and was paid an annual salary of $60,000 .

10. At the time the defendant was hired, the restaurant's president was

James Naugler.

11 . Mr. Naugler remains the president of the restaurant today .

12. At all times relevant to this action, Mr. Naugler owned a majority of the

restaurant's stock .

13. At all times relevant to this action, Mr . Naugler had the authority to hire

and fire restaurant employees, including the plaintiff .

14. At all times relevant to this action, Mr . Naugler had the authority to

supervise restaurant employees, including the plaintiff .

2

Case 1:06-cv-00186-JM Document 1 Filed 05/17/06 Page 2 of 5
15. At all times relevant to this action, Mr . Naugler was responsible for

setting employee salaries, including the plaintiff's salary .

16. At all times relevant to this action, Mr . Naugler was responsible for

issuing employee compensation , including the plaintiff 's compensation .

17. At the time he was hired , the restaurant had not opened for business . It

was to open latter that year, in May of 2005 .

18. The plaintiff did not have any managerial responsibilities while employed

at this restaurant.

19. The plaintiff did not have the authority to hire or fire any restaurant

employee .

20. The plaintiff did not have any supervisory authority over the waiters .

21 . The plaintiff was asked to use house recipes when he prepared some of

the food .

22. Much of the plaintiff's time was spent in basic food preparation, and

preparing simple, well known , menu items .

23. The plaintiff, during his employment, frequently worked over seventy two

(72) hours a week .

24. The plaintiff quit in December of 2005 .

25. During the time of operation and his employment , the restaurant was

earning approximately $60,000/month in gross sales .

26. The defendants have failed to compensate the plaintiff for any overtime .

3

Case 1:06-cv-00186-JM Document 1 Filed 05/17/06 Page 3 of 5
IV. CAUSES OF ACTION

A. VIOLATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS AC T

27. The plaintiff repeats and incorporates the allegations set forth in

paragraphs 1-26 .

28. The plaintiff is an employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act .

29. The defendant, restaurant, is an enterprise engaged in the production of

goods for commerce because its "gross annual volume of sales made or business

done is not less than $500,000 . "

30. Mr. Naugler is likewise an "employer" under the statute .

31 . The defendants were obligated to pay their employees time and a half

wages if the employee works beyond 40 hours a week .

32. The defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act because they

amongst other things, failed to compensate the plaintiff for overtime work performed

between February 28, 2005 and December of 2005 .

33. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to damages including, but not limited to

lost wages, interest, attorneys fees and costs, as allowed by 29 U .S .C .§ 216(b) .

V. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

34. The plaintiff requests a jury trial as allowed by law .

4

Case 1:06-cv-00186-JM Document 1 Filed 05/17/06 Page 4 of 5
Respectfully submitted,

KULVINDER SINGH

By His Attorneys ,

HAMBLETT & KERRIGAN, P .A .

DATED: MAY 17, 2006 By: Isl ANDREW J . PIELA

ANDREW J . PIELA, ESQUIRE

NH BAR NO. : 1051 8

J . DANIEL MARR, ESQUIRE

NH BAR NO. : 409 1

146 Main Street

Nashua , NH 03060

(603) 883-5501

5

Case 1:06-cv-00186-JM Document 1 Filed 05/17/06 Page 5 of 5