Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/27680300/Blot-v-WIS-International-and-Washington-Inventory
Timestamp: 2017-07-27 18:59:48
Document Index: 595488944

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 207', '§ 1331', '§ 1367', '§ 89', '§ 448', '§ 448']

Blot v. WIS International and Washington Inventory | Fair Labor Standards Act | Overtime
Blot v. WIS International and Washington InventoryUploaded by Matthew Seth SarelsonRelated InterestsFair Labor Standards ActOvertimeEmploymentPoliticsGovernmentRating and Stats0.0 (0)Document ActionsDownloadShare or Embed DocumentEmbedView MoreCopyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentCase 0:10-cv-60289-XXXX Document 1Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2010 Page 1 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No.: _______________________ STECY BLOT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WIS HOLDINGS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation & WASHINGTON INVENTORY SERVICE, INC. a California corporation & JOHN DOES 1-10 Defendants. _______________________________________/ COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Stecy Blot, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, sues Defendants, WIS Holdings Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Washington Inventory Service, Inc., a California corporation, and John Does 1-10 (collectively “WIS” unless otherwise noted) for violating the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 207 (“FLSA”), for violating the Florida Minimum Wage Act (“FMWA”), for unjust enrichment and for unpaid wages. Parties, Jurisdiction, Venue, Facts, Etc. 1. Plaintiff, Stecy Blot, was, at all material times, an employee of WIS and a non-
exempt employee within the meaning of the FLSA and the FMWA. His title was “Inventory Associate.” 2. Defendant, WIS Holdings Corporation, is a Delaware corporation with its WIS Holdings Corporation operates nationally,
principal place of business in California. including in Florida. 3.
Defendant, Washington Inventory Service, Inc., is a California corporation with
its principal place of business in California. Washington Inventory Service operates nationally, including in Florida.
-1SARELSON LAW FIRM, P.A., 1401 Brickell Avenue, Suite 510, Miami, Florida 33131, 305-379-0305, 800-421-9954(fax) www.FloridaEmploymentLawyerBlog.com www.Sarelson.com
Case 0:10-cv-60289-XXXX Document 1
Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2010 Page 2 of 5
Defendants, John Does 1-10, are all yet unidentified employers (both individual
defendants and corporate defendants) within the meaning of the FLSA and the FMWA. The exact legal relationship between the named Defendants is currently unknown, but upon information and belief, they are sufficiently related that they qualify as “joint employers” within the meaning of the FLSA. 5. WIS is an out-sourced inventory control and management company. Retail
outlets hire WIS to conduct inventory. 6. Jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction), 28
U.S.C. § 1367 (supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims). 7. Venue is proper because all of the facts and allegations that form the basis of this
Complaint occurred within Broward County, Florida. 28 U.S.C. § 89. 8. 9. Plaintiff has retained counsel and is obligated to pay a fee for services rendered. Plaintiff was employed by WIS for approximately 3 weeks between December
2009 and January 2010. 10. 11. Plaintiff was employed as an Inventory Associate. Plaintiff was required to report to work at or before 7pm at WIS’s office in Fort
Lauderdale, Florida. Plaintiff was “clocked in” to work as of 7pm, regardless of the actual time he arrived at work. Normally Plaintiff would arrive prior to 7pm, but was working “off the clock” during the time between his arrival at work and 7pm. 12. After attending a daily meeting at approximately 7pm, Plaintiff, along with 10 to
15 other WIS employees, would be transported by WIS to one of WIS’s clients’ sites. Plaintiff specifically remembers being assigned to at least the Express retail store and Party City. 13. 14. Plaintiff would “check in and out” at WIS’ clients’ offices, not at WIS. WIS does not keep accurate records of when its employees arrive at work and
when they leave work. Accordingly, WIS is violating the FLSA’s recordkeeping requirements. 15. Plaintiff worked for WIS for approximately a single pay period. Plaintiff was
treated as an employee and completed the usual IRS paperwork for new employees. 16. Plaintiff was “paid” with a VISA gift card. See Exhibit A (redacted VISA gift
card). Plaintiff received no actual compensation – no payroll or other negotiable instrument. Plaintiff has no idea how much “compensation” is on or is supposed to be on the VISA gift card.
-2SARELSON LAW FIRM, P.A., 1401 Brickell Avenue, Suite 510, Miami, Florida 33131, 305-379-0305, 800-421-9954(fax) www.FloridaEmploymentLawyerBlog.com www.Sarelson.com
Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2010 Page 3 of 5
Plaintiff has no idea what taxes, if any, were withheld and forwarded to the IRS and other state and federal revenue agencies. 17. 18. 19. Plaintiff has not received a W-2 for 2009. Plaintiff did not want to be compensated with a VISA gift card. When Plaintiff attempted to activate the VISA gift card, the activation failed
because the card was already “activated” by another unidentified person. 20. 21. Plaintiff has received no compensation for his services to WIS. Upon information and belief, WIS has a policy and practice of paying employees
with VISA gift cards, rather than with ordinary payroll checks. 22. Upon information and belief, WIS has a contract with a third-party, MetaBank, of
Sioux Falls, South Dakota, to provide payroll services. See Exhibit B (“Money Network Card” document). 23. WIS is no stranger to employment litigation. WIS has been sued in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri for violating the FLSA and in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California for violating the FLSA and California labor law. WIS recently settled a California class action with similar allegations. See Chavez v. WIS Holdings Corp., Case No. 07-01932 (S.D. Cal.). Count I – Fair Labor Standards Act (Minimum Wage Violation) 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 – 23. Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee of WIS within the meaning of the FLSA. WIS was and remains an employer within the meaning of the FLSA. Plaintiff worked for WIS. Plaintiff was not paid any wages from WIS for the time periods stated above. WIS’s violation of the FLSA was willful and intentional. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of back pay and liquidated damages equal to the
amount of the back pay. Count II – Fair Labor Standards Act (Unpaid Overtime Violation) 31. 32. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 – 23. Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee of WIS within the meaning of the FLSA.
-3SARELSON LAW FIRM, P.A., 1401 Brickell Avenue, Suite 510, Miami, Florida 33131, 305-379-0305, 800-421-9954(fax) www.FloridaEmploymentLawyerBlog.com www.Sarelson.com
Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2010 Page 4 of 5
WIS was and remains an employer within the meaning of the FLSA. Plaintiff worked for WIS and worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff was not paid overtime wages by WIS for the time periods stated above. WIS’s violation of the FLSA was willful and intentional. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of back pay and liquidated damages equal to the
amount of the back pay. Count III – Florida Minimum Wage Act 38. 39. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 – 23. Plaintiff was a non-exempt employees of WIS within the meaning of the Florida
Minimum Wage Act, Fla. Stat. § 448.110 (“FMWA”). 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. WIS was and remains an employer within the meaning of the FMWA. Plaintiff worked for WIS. Plaintiff was not paid any wages from WIS for the time periods stated above. WIS’s violation of the FMWA was willful and intentional. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of back pay and liquidated damages equal to the
amount of the back pay. Count IV – Unjust Enrichment 45. 46. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 – 23. Plaintiff worked for WIS and was not paid any wages, thereby conferring a
benefit on WIS. 47. WIS had knowledge that the Plaintiff, as their employee, worked for WIS without
receiving any wages. 48. WIS accepted the Plaintiff’s work and retains the benefits of the Plaintiff’s work
without paying any wages to Plaintiff. 49. WIS has been unjustly enriched by the benefits received from Plaintiff’s unpaid
work because WIS has not paid any wages to Plaintiff. Count V – Unpaid Wages under Florida Common Law 50. 51. 52. 53. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 – 23. Plaintiff was employed by WIS, and was not an independent contractor. Plaintiff provided services to WIS. WIS failed to pay Plaintiff the proper wages while employed.
-4SARELSON LAW FIRM, P.A., 1401 Brickell Avenue, Suite 510, Miami, Florida 33131, 305-379-0305, 800-421-9954(fax) www.FloridaEmploymentLawyerBlog.com www.Sarelson.com
Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2010 Page 5 of 5
WIS was unjustly enriched by the Plaintiff because they performed work on its
behalf without proper compensation. 55. WIS is obligated to pay Plaintiff his unpaid wages and attorneys’ fees pursuant to
Fla. Stat. § 448.08. Demand for Jury Trial Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. Prayer for Relief Plaintiff prays that this Court enter judgment in his favor against Defendants, WIS Holdings Corporation, a Delaware corporation, and Washington Inventory Service, Inc., a California corporation (jointly and severally) and award monetary damages for back pay, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and any other relief this Court deems appropriate.
Dated: February 26, 2010 Respectfully submitted, ___/s/ Matthew Sarelson__________ Matthew Seth Sarelson, Esq. Fla. Bar No. 888281 SARELSON LAW FIRM, P.A. 1401 Brickell Avenue, Suite 510 Miami, Florida 33131 305-379-0305 800-421-9954 (fax) msarelson@sarelson.com Counsel for Plaintiff
-5SARELSON LAW FIRM, P.A., 1401 Brickell Avenue, Suite 510, Miami, Florida 33131, 305-379-0305, 800-421-9954(fax) www.FloridaEmploymentLawyerBlog.com www.Sarelson.com
Recommended DocumentsDocuments Similar To Blot v. WIS International and Washington InventorySkip carouselDepartment of LaborDepartment of LaborNew DOL Wage & Hour Regulations 4/11Polycarpe FLSA OpinionRaymond J. Donovan, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. M & M Wrecker Service, Inc., a Corporation, H.E. Black and Ralph Black, as Individuals and Doing Business as M & M Wrecker Service, Inc., 733 F.2d 83, 10th Cir. (1984)Gerard Morrison v. County of Fairfax, VA, 4th Cir. (2016)Proposed RuleDepartment of LaborDepartment of LaborDepartment of LaborDepartment of LaborDepartment of LaborMoreno v. International Shipping Partners Class ActionDepartment of LaborDepartment of LaborDepartment of LaborJohnston v. Volunteers of Amer, 213 F.3d 559, 10th Cir. (2000)Erica Jones, Crystal Winter and Selisha Brooks v JaguarsDepartment of LaborDepartment of LaborDepartment of LaborHRM 593 Employment LawOvernite Transportation Co. v. Betty L. Tianti, Commissioner of Labor of the State of Connecticut, 926 F.2d 220, 2d Cir. (1991)Chap 011Internship LawAlbert J. Brooks, and Others Similarly Situated v. Village of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey Ridgefield Park Police Department Village of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, 185 F.3d 130, 3rd Cir. (1999)Beauford v. ACTIONLINK, LLCWhyandHowtoConductaHumanResourcesAuditinMinnesota.pdfKelsey Oldershaw et. al. v. DaVita et. al.Rules_2011Documents About Fair Labor Standards ActSkip carouselABA Letter to Dept. of LaborConner v. Schnuck Markets, 10th Cir. (1997)SENATE HEARING, 111TH CONGRESS - PREVENTING WORKER EXPLOITATIONChavez v. City of Albuquerque, 630 F.3d 1300, 10th Cir. (2011)Carla Cornell v. CF Center, LLC, 11th Cir. (2011)Phillip Adkins George N. Boyd James M. Ferrell Curtis E. Hickle James G. Turner, and Wade A. Adkins Forrest R. Adkins, Jr. David G. Ball James O. Barr Bill R. Barrett James W. Batten Danielle L. Bauer Jerry L. Beckett Terry L. Berry Marshall P. Blain, Jr. Roger A. Blake Gary E. Carroll Walter N. Carroll Jimmy L. Carver Stephen R. Childers Claude Cremeans, Jr. Gary L. Crossen Danny S. Cutler Admiral D. Davis Rodney D. Davis Larry A. Diamond Mark S. Doss Roger A. Earl Stephen D. Earl Carl L. Eastham Timothy A. Gibbs James A. Hanshaw Jimmie D. Hardy Harry T. Hart Maurice F. Hartz Robert A. Herbert Thomas I. Hosey Kendall G. James Gary L. Johnson Garry D. Koontz Matthew E. Layne Jimmie L. Lemon Donald P. Lewis Harold L. Marcum William Marcum Herschel E. Marshall James L. McCaw Karl T. McDermott Boyd E. Mellert Paul F. Mellert Richard A. Miller Roger L. Mitchell Charles E. Nease James E. Nelson Ira Noble Charles D. Penvose Timothy S. Provaznik Gordan K. Pyles Freddie H. Ramey Robert R. RatcLopez v. Pio Pio - Labor Law Corporate Defendants Are EmployersBall v. Memphis Bar B Q Co, 4th Cir. (2000)Muston v. MKI Systems Inc, 4th Cir. (1997)Laura McFeeley v. Jackson Street Entertainment, 4th Cir. (2016)Antenor v. D & S Farms, 88 F.3d 925, 11th Cir. (1996)Dinicola Appeals Court RulingChristensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576 (2000)Human Trafficking by the Numbers, 2016Montes v. Shearson Lehman Brothers, 128 F.3d 1456, 11th Cir. (1997)Willie Davis, Jr. Nathaniel Briddell Joseph Garrison Larry E. Gibb S Roy H. Walters v. Mountaire Farms, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Mountaire Farms of Delmarva, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Mountaire Farms Delaware, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, 453 F.3d 554, 3rd Cir. (2006)Kellogg v. Energy Safety Services Inc., 544 F.3d 1121, 10th Cir. (2008)Southland Gasoline Co. v. Bayley, 319 U.S. 44 (1943)Joseph Robert Ralph v. Tidewater Construction Corporation, a Corporation, Raymond International, Inc., a Corporation, and Peter Kiewit Sons' Co., a Corporation, Joint Venturers, Trading as Tidewater-Raymond-Kiewit, Eugene C. Lewis v. Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corporation, M. Ray Hurst, Jr. v. Tidewater Construction Corporation, a Corporation, Raymond International, Inc., a Corporation, and Peter Kiewit Sons' Co., a Corporation, Joint Venturers, Trading as Tidewater-Raymond-Kiewit, 361 F.2d 806, 4th Cir. (1966)Mayhew v. Wells, 4th Cir. (1997)Randolph Johnson, Jr. v. City of Columbia, South Carolina, Randolph Johnson, Jr. v. The City of Columbia, 949 F.2d 127, 4th Cir. (1991)Jerry Shelton v. M.P. Ervin and Betty Ervin, D/B/A Ervin's Liquor Store, 830 F.2d 182, 11th Cir. (1987)Mikael Safarian v. American DG Energy, 3rd Cir. (2015)Garcia v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 534 F.3d 1320, 10th Cir. (2008)William Wheeler, Ii, an Individual, and Robert J. Lomb, an Individual, on Behalf of Themselves and Other Individuals Similarly Situated v. Hampton Township, 399 F.3d 238, 3rd Cir. (2005)International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 2203, David Anderson, Glen W. Ayers, Dennis J. Eulberg, Jeffrey L. Bybee, William P. Dolan, Michael J. Dufford, Shawn P. Dufford, Tim K. Ekberg, Daniel P. Frey, Leonard J. Grant, Kenneth W. Guthrie, Timothy G. Hanlon, Edward T. Hobaugh, Jerry Kaczmarski, David L. Kelln, Wilson T. Lindquist, Howard A. MacPherson Terry E. Malone, Mahlon L. Miller, Randy Miller, Stanley Craig Mowry, Russell L. Williams, Steven Pelster, David A. Ramos, Charles O. Rutenbeck, James A. Schanel, James E. Simington Ii, Bob Snider, Kevin J. Sweeney, Michael L. Turner, Paul E. Venette, Robert E. Westlund, Bruce Ginther, Richard Randall, Terry Travis, Troy Branham, Jim Madden, Dave Nuss, Floyd Couch, Dennis Day, and John L. McNair v. West Adams County Fire Protection District, 877 F.2d 814, 10th Cir. (1989)Lee v. Vance Executive, 4th Cir. (2001)Christopher v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 132 S. Ct. 2156 (2012)Charles Thomas v. William E. Brock, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, William E. Brock, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Global Home Products, Inc., a Corporation, D/B/A North Carolina Youth Team, Student Aid Program and Junior Opportunities Fund Raiser Products, Inc., a Corporation, D/B/A North Carolina Youth Team, Student Aid Program and Junior Opportunities Gerald Winters and Ronald Kelso, 810 F.2d 448, 4th Cir. (1987)Melania Felix De Asencio Manuel A. Gutierrez Asela Ruiz Eusebia Ruiz Luis A. Vigo Luz Cordova Hector Pantajos, on Behalf of Themselves and All Other Similarly Situated Individuals v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 342 F.3d 301, 3rd Cir. (2003)More From Matthew Seth SarelsonSkip carouselOrder Dismissing Regalado's Lawsuit Against Mayor Carlos JimenezOrder Certifying Class Action against Akal Security reFinal Judgment and Order Granting FeesSchneider Class Action Complaint against Lumber LiquidatorsFilomena Ruffa v. SaftPay - Initial BriefRobinson v. TBTI ComplaintRazorback Funding LLC v. Gersten Savage LLP - Brief reRisa Kaplan v. Code Blue Unpaid Internship under FLSA Cert PetitionMedVance Settlement With Florida Attorney GeneralAda Ramirez Initial Brief Eleventh CircuitDawn Willis v. Sheriff May Amended ComplaintBrett Strong v MedVance Institute Initial Brief Eleventh CircuitVentura v. Alexis Respondent's Jurisdictional BriefDavid Ahl v. Fairholme Capital Management LawsuitVanessa Gifaldi v. Octagon, Inc. & Interpublic Group CompaniesJones v. MedVance LawsuitFLSA Complaint against Magnetic Medical ManagementSmith v. Lockheed Martin - Reverse DiscriminationAlexis v. Ventura - Tortious Interference By Co-workerDE_150_ThirdAmendedComplaintMora v. Jackson Memorial Initial Brief Final - Eleventh Circuit Court of AppealsMarks v. Orion -- Plaintiff's Response to MSJAT&amp;T v Conception Class Action ArbitrationRamirez v Quarles and BradyDavid Stern v US BankDavid Stern v US BankFour Loko Class Action CaliforniaFour Loko Class Action FloridaFitzpatrick v General Mills Class Certification AffirmedRomero v Randle Eastern Response to MSJ