Case 1:12-cv PGG Document 1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 1 of 36

Case 1:12-cv-02076-PGG Document 1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 1 of 36

Case 1:12-cv-02076-PGG Document 1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 2 of 36 Parties 2. Plaintiff Wilfredo Robles is a natural person residing in Bronx County, New York. 3. Plaintiff Victor Pichazaca is a natural person residing in Bronx County, New York. 4. Plaintiff Elifoncio Morocho is a natural person residing in Bronx County, New York. 5. Upon information and belief, Defendant Simpson 911 Realty, LLC is a New York limited liability company with its principal place of business located at 911 Simpson Street, Bronx, NY 10459 and with a registered address at C/O Quality A Management, PO Box 1550, New York, NY, 10101-1550. 6. Upon information and belief, 1466 GC Realty, LLC is a New York limited liability company with its principal place of business located at 1466 Grand Concourse, Bronx, NY 10457 and with a registered address at C/O Tristate Realty Holdings LLC, Zalman Schochet Esq., 225 Broadway, New York, NY, 10007. 7. Upon information and belief, Defendant Quality One Management, LLC, d/b/a Quality 1 Management, d/b/a Quality A Management, is a New York limited liability company with its principal place of business and registered address located at 203-211 West 145th Street, New York, NY 10039. 8. Upon information and belief, Defendant Amsterdam Hospitality Group, LLC is a New York limited liability company with its principal place of business located at 888 7th Avenue, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10019 and with a registered address at C/O Altman Schochet, LLP, 225 Broadway, 39th Floor, New York, NY 10007. 9. Upon information and belief, Defendant Aguila, Inc., is a New York not-for-profit corporation with a principal place of business located at 1056 Boynton Avenue, Bronx, NY 10472 and with a registered address at 661 Cauldwell Avenue, Bronx, NY, 10456. 10. Upon information and belief, Defendant Real Smooth Finish is an unincorporated, unregistered

Case 1:12-cv-02076-PGG Document 1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 3 of 36 entity under the ownership and control of Defendant Fabian Redhead, in part or in whole, with a principal place of business located at 16-58 Prospect Pl., 1st Floor, Brooklyn, NY 11233-4511. 11. Upon information and belief, Defendants Simpson 911 Realty, LLC; 1466 GC Realty, LLC; Quality One Management, LLC; Amsterdam Hospitality Group, LLC; Aguila, Inc.; and Real Smooth Finish are each part of a network of corporate parent, child, and sibling entities under common and/or overlapping ownership and/or control, so organized, in part, for the purposes of evading liability, hindering creditors, and reaping a profit from a purportedly not-for-profit endeavor. 12. Upon information and belief, Defendants John Doe Corp.s #1-10 are other corporate entities within the network of corporate entities described in paragraph 11, whose identities are presently unknown to Plaintiffs. 13. Hereinafter, the Defendants referred to in paragraphs 11 and 12 shall be referred to as the Corporate Defendants. 14. Upon information and belief, Defendant Nate Follman is a natural person residing at an unknown address in or around New York City who is a principal, director, officer, and/or managing agent of one or more of the Corporate Defendants, and owns, operates, and/or controls the day-to-day operations and management thereof, and whose place of business is 203 West 145th Street, New York, NY 10039. 15. Upon information and belief, Defendant Fabian Redhead is a natural person residing at 16-58 Prospect Pl., 1st Floor, Brooklyn, NY 11233-4511 who is a principal, director, officer, and/or managing agent of one or more of the Corporate Defendants, and owns, operates, and/or controls the day-to-day operations and management thereof, and whose place of business is also 16-58 Prospect Pl., 1st Floor, Brooklyn, NY 11233-4511. 16. Upon information and belief, Defendant David Redhead is a natural person residing at an unknown address in or around New York City who is a principal, director, officer, and/or

Case 1:12-cv-02076-PGG Document 1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 4 of 36 managing agent of one or more of the Corporate Defendants, and owns, operates, and/or controls the day-to-day operations and management thereof, and whose place of business is 16-58 Prospect Pl., 1st Floor, Brooklyn, NY 11233-4511. 17. Upon information and belief, Defendant John Kujawski is a natural person residing at an unknown address in or around New York City who is a principal, director, officer, and/or managing agent of one or more of the Corporate Defendants, and owns, operates, and/or controls the day-to-day operations and management thereof, and whose place of business is 888 7th Avenue, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10019. 18. Upon information and belief, Defendant Frank Scarpinatto is a natural person residing at an unknown address in or around New York City who is a principal, director, officer, and/or managing agent of one or more of the Corporate Defendants, and owns, operates, and/or controls the day-to-day operations and management thereof, and whose place of business is 1056 Boynton Avenue, Bronx, NY 10472. 19. Upon information and belief, John Does #1-10 are principals, directors, officers, and/or managing agents of one or more of the Corporate Defendants, and own, operate, and/or control the day-to-day operations and management thereof, whose identities are presently unknown to Plaintiffs. Jurisdiction and Venue 20. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims arising under 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. (the Fair Labor Standards Act) pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(b) and 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1337, and over the other claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(a). 21. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to New York jurisdictional rules, as incorporated by Fed. Rule Civ. Pro. 4(k)(1)(A), because each and every Defendant is, upon information and belief, a New York resident or corporate entity, and each and every one of

Case 1:12-cv-02076-PGG Document 1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 5 of 36 Defendants has engaged in acts that constitute a continuous and systematic course of doing business in New York, and this District, within the meaning of N.Y. C.P.L.R. 301 specifically, the operation of a number of low-income apartment buildings, DHS-funded homeless shelters, and luxury hotels within New York, and this District. 22. Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(1) and (2). Facts Enterprise Engaged in Interstate Commerce 23. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, each and every Defendant and their employees participated in related activities performed, through unified operation, or common control, or both, for a common business purpose, in one or more establishments, or corporate or other organizational units, or both to wit, the operation of a number of low-income apartment buildings, DHS-funded homeless shelters, and luxury hotels. In short, Defendants constitute an enterprise within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 203(r). 24. At all relevant times, Defendants, qua the enterprise described in paragraph 23, engaged in interstate commerce in that they: A. Had employees handling or otherwise working on goods or materials that had been moved in or produced for foreign or interstate commerce by any person; and B. Provided travel lodgings to foreign and interstate travelers. 25. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Defendants, qua the enterprise described in paragraph 23, had annual gross revenues not less than $500,000. Facts Direct Employee Participation in Interstate Commerce 26. At all relevant times, Wilfredo Robles engaged in interstate commerce in the regular course of his employment in that he received and signed for shipments of goods or materials from without the state of New York, and handled or otherwise worked on goods or materials that had been

Case 1:12-cv-02076-PGG Document 1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 6 of 36 moved in or produced for interstate commerce. 27. At all relevant times, Victor Pichazaca engaged in interstate commerce in the regular course of his employment in that he handled or otherwise worked on goods or materials that had been moved in or produced for interstate commerce. 28. At all relevant times, Elifoncio Morocho engaged in interstate commerce in the regular course of his employment in that he handled or otherwise worked on goods or materials that had been moved in or produced for interstate commerce. Facts Respecting Plaintiff Wilfredo Robles 29. Wilfredo Robles was employed by Defendants from on or around 11/25/2010 through on or around 11/2/2011. 30. Upon information and belief, each and every Defendant (except Fabian Redhead, David Redhead, and Real Smooth Finish), either directly or indirectly, had the power to hire or fire Wilfredo Robles; supervised and controlled his work schedules or conditions of employment; determined the rate and method of his payment; and maintained records regarding his employment. 31. Wilfredo Robles was hired by Nate Follman to be the superintendent of Defendants building at 911 Simpson Street, Bronx, New York, which is a combination low-income apartment building and DHS-funded homeless shelter. 32. At the time he was hired, the agreed upon terms of Wilfredo Robles s employment were that Mr. Robles would work from 8 AM to 4 PM, Monday through Friday, in exchange for $400 per week, plus lodging. 33. Additionally, Nate Follman promised Wilfredo Robles that if he did extra work assisting the superintendents of Defendants other buildings in the Bronx with construction/repairs and assisting them with supervising the laborers doing construction/repairs to both those buildings

Case 1:12-cv-02076-PGG Document 1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 7 of 36 and the homeless shelters in those buildings, he would receive a $100 per week raise in pay after 60 days. 34. During the period from on or around 11/25/2010 through on or around 3/4/2011, Wilfredo Robles worked from 8 AM until 11:30 PM, on average, Monday through Saturday, between his tasks as superintendent of 911 Simpson and assisting the superintendents of Defendants other properties in the Bronx. 35. On or around 3/4/2011, when it became apparent to Wilfredo Robles that Defendants had no intention of honoring their promise to give him a raise for his extra work assisting the superintendents of Defendants other properties in the Bronx, he ceased doing this extra work. 36. Thereafter, during the period from on or around 3/5/2011 through on or around 11/2/2011, Wilfredo Robles worked from 8 AM until 10 PM, on average, Monday through Saturday, exclusively at 911 Simpson. 37. Upon information and belief, Defendants failed to make, keep, and preserve records with respect to Wilfredo Robles sufficient to determine his wages, hours, and other conditions and practices of employment in violation of 29 U.S.C. 211(c) and N.Y. Labor Law 195. 38. At all relevant times, Defendants paid Wilfredo Robles $400 per week, without regard to how many hours he worked, and without regard to minimum wage, overtime, and spread-of-hours laws. 39. Beginning with the pay period beginning 1/29/2011, Defendants deduced $75 per week ($150 per paycheck) from Wilfredo Robles s pay for child support. 40. However, on at least seven occasions, Defendants failed to remit the money so deducted to NYC Child Support Enforcement within seven business days, as required by law, N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5241(g) and 18 N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. 347.9(a)(2)(iv)(k)(2). Defendants remitted payments as much as a month late, and often only after significant prodding by Wilfredo Robles.

Case 1:12-cv-02076-PGG Document 1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 8 of 36 41. Defendants failure to timely remit to NYC Child Support Enforcement the amounts they were deducting from Wilfredo Robles s pay resulted in a Tax Warrant being issued against him on 7/26/2011. 42. At all relevant times Defendants required that Wilfredo Robles reside in the basement apartment at 911 Simpson. This space constituted an illegal basement or cellar apartment in that: A. Upon information and belief, Defendants do not have a Certificate of Occupancy permitting the use of this space as an apartment, as required by N.Y. Multiple Dwelling Law 301; B. Upon information and belief, Defendants do not have a permit permitting the occupancy for living purposes of the basement/cellar, as required by N.Y. Multiple Dwelling Law 300(6); and C. Within the space, there are numerous substantive violations of the New York Multiple Dwelling Law and NYC Housing Maintenance Code affecting human health and safety. 43. Even though an actual apartment within the building was vacant and available, and Wilfredo Robles asked be permitted to reside that apartment, Defendants insisted that he reside in the basement apartment. Facts Respecting Plaintiff Victor Pichazaca 44. Victor Pichazaca was employed by Defendants from on or around 1/10/2011 through on or around 8/31/2011, and then again from on or around 10/10/2011 through on or around 10/30/2011. 45. Upon information and belief, each and every Defendant, either directly or indirectly, had the power to hire or fire Victor Pichazaca; supervised and controlled his work schedules or conditions of employment; determined the rate and method of his payment; and maintained records regarding his employment.

Case 1:12-cv-02076-PGG Document 1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 9 of 36 46. Victor Pichazaca was hired by Fabian Redhead as a general maintenance/repair/construction laborer for several of Defendants buildings in Brooklyn and the Bronx, each of which is either a low-income apartment building or a combination low-income apartment building and DHSfunded homeless shelter. 47. At the time he was hired, the agreed upon terms of Victor Pichazaca s employment were that he would work from 8 AM to 5 PM, seven days per week, in exchange for $150 per day. 48. Shortly after Victor Pichazaca began working, Fabian Redhead and/or David Redhead began to ask him to work late until 7 or 8 PM as a favor. As time went on, Defendants asked for this favor more and more often, and eventually it became expected of Victor Pichazaca that he would work late without being asked. By on or around 4/1/2011, Victor Pichazaca was working 10.5 hours per day, on average, seven days per week; by on or around 5/1/2011, he was working 12 hours per day, on average, and sometimes even as late as 11 PM, seven days per week. This continued through the end of his continuous employment on or around 8/31/2011. 49. Victor Pichazaca returned to work for Defendants from on or around 10/10/2011 through on or around 10/30/2011. During this time he worked as a a general maintenance/repair/construction laborer for Defendants building at 911 Simpson Street, Bronx, New York, working on repairs in unit 31, from 5 PM to 11:30 PM, on average, seven days per week. 50. Upon information and belief, Defendants failed to make, keep, and preserve records with respect to Victor Pichazaca sufficient to determine his wages, hours, and other conditions and practices of employment in violation of 29 U.S.C. 211(c) and N.Y. Labor Law 195. 51. At all relevant times, Defendants paid Victor Pichazaca primarily in empty promises, to wit: A. Fabian Redhead and/or David Redhead often promised that Victor Pichazaca would be paid for the work he had already done in the near future, or paid when a certain project was finished, or when certain funds became available. However, Defendants did not pay him at all, except as described in paragraph 52.

Case 1:12-cv-02076-PGG Document 1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 10 of 36 B. Fabian Redhead and/or David Redhead often promised that if Victor Pichazaca would stop pestering them about his unpaid wages, they would arrange for him to be hired by a large, well-paying construction project in North Carolina that Defendants were somehow involved in. Victor Pichazaca was never hired for this North Carolina project, and, upon information and belief, no such project ever existed. C. During the later months of Victor Pichazaca s employment, Fabian Redhead and/or David Redhead sometimes offered to pay him on a per piece basis rather than a per day basis. However, Defendants still did not pay him at all, except as described in paragraph 52. 52. Defendants paid Victor Pichazaca around $800 in total during the entire time he was employed by them. This amount was paid piecemeal in amounts of around $50 or $100 at a time on an irregular basis. 53. Defendant s failure to pay Victor Pichazaca s wages resulted in severe economic hardship, including, inter alia, being unable to pay his rent, resulting in eviction and a brief period of homelessness. Facts Respecting Plaintiff Elifoncio Morocho 54. Elifoncio Morocho was employed by Defendants from on or around 3/15/2011 through on or around 8/31/2011, and then again from on or around 10/10/2011 through on or around 10/30/2011. 55. Upon information and belief, each and every Defendant, either directly or indirectly, had the power to hire or fire Elifoncio Morocho; supervised and controlled his work schedules or conditions of employment; determined the rate and method of his payment; and maintained records regarding his employment. 56. Elifoncio Morocho was hired by Fabian Redhead as a general maintenance/repair/construction laborer for several of Defendants buildings in Brooklyn and the Bronx, each of which is either

Case 1:12-cv-02076-PGG Document 1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 11 of 36 a low-income apartment building or a combination low-income apartment building and DHSfunded homeless shelter. 57. At the time he was hired, the agreed upon terms of Elifoncio Morocho s employment were that he would work from 8 AM to 5 PM, seven days per week, in exchange for $150 per day. 58. At all relevant times, Defendants assigned Elifoncio Morocho to work on the same projects at the same buildings as Victor Pichazaca, probably because they were brothers-in-law and roommates who worked well together and could be relied upon to arrive to and depart from work at the same time. 59. Shortly after Elifoncio Morocho began working, Fabian Redhead and/or David Redhead began to ask him to work late until 7 or 8 PM as a favor. As time went on, Defendants asked for this favor more and more often, and eventually it became expected of Elifoncio Morocho that he would work late without being asked. By on or around 4/1/2011, Elifoncio Morocho was working 10.5 hours per day, on average, seven days per week; by on or around 5/1/2011, he was working 12 hours per day, on average, and sometimes even as late as 11 PM, seven days per week. This continued through the end of his continuous employment on or around 8/31/2011. 60. Elifoncio Morocho returned to work for Defendants from on or around 10/10/2011 through on or around 10/30/2011. During this time he worked as a a general maintenance/repair/construction laborer for Defendants building at 911 Simpson Street, Bronx, New York, working on repairs in unit 31, from 5 PM to 11:30 PM, on average, seven days per week. 61. Upon information and belief, Defendants failed to make, keep, and preserve records with respect to Elifoncio Morocho sufficient to determine his wages, hours, and other conditions and practices of employment in violation of 29 U.S.C. 211(c) and N.Y. Labor Law 195. 62. At all relevant times, Defendants paid Elifoncio Morocho primarily in empty promises, to wit: A. Fabian Redhead and/or David Redhead often promised that Elifoncio Morocho would be

Case 1:12-cv-02076-PGG Document 1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 12 of 36 paid for the work he had already done in the near future, or paid when a certain project was finished, or when certain funds became available. However, Defendants did not pay him at all, except as described in paragraph 63. B. Fabian Redhead and/or David Redhead often promised that if Elifoncio Morocho would stop pestering them about his unpaid wages, they would arrange for him to be hired by a large, well-paying construction project in North Carolina that Defendants were somehow involved in. Elifoncio Morocho was never hired for this North Carolina project, and, upon information and belief, no such project ever existed. C. During the later months of Elifoncio Morocho s employment, Fabian Redhead and/or David Redhead sometimes offered to pay him on a per piece basis rather than a per day basis. However, Defendants still did not pay him at all, except as described in paragraph 63. 63. Defendants paid Elifoncio Morocho around $800 in total during the entire time he was employed by them. This amount was paid piecemeal in amounts of around $50 or $100 at a time on an irregular basis. 64. Defendant s failure to pay Elifoncio Morocho s wages resulted in severe economic hardship, including, inter alia, being unable to pay his rent, resulting in eviction and a brief period of homelessness. First Cause of Action by Wilfredo Robles N.Y. Labor Law 193(1) Illegal Deduction from Wages 65. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 64 with the same force and effect as if they were set for fully herein. 66. As described in paragraphs 29 through 31, at all relevant times, Wilfredo Robles was the employee of Defendants (except Fabian Redhead, David Redhead, and Real Smooth Finish) and Defendants (except Fabian Redhead, David Redhead, and Real Smooth Finish) were employers of Wilfredo Robles within the meaning of N.Y. Labor Law 2(5) and (6) and 651(5) and (6

Case 1:12-cv-02076-PGG Document 1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 13 of 36 67. As described in paragraphs 39 through 41, on at least seven occasions, Defendants a made a deduction from Wilfredo Robles s wages that was purportedly for child support, but did not timely remit the money so deducted to NYC Child Support Enforcement. 68. This deduction was not made in accordance with the provisions of any law or any rule or regulation issued by any governmental agency (and in violation of N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5241(g) and 18 N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. 347.9(a)(2)(iv)(k)(2)). 69. This deduction was not expressly authorized in writing by Wilfredo Robles; nor was it for his benefit. 70. Wilfredo Robles is entitled to recover from Defendants the amount illegally deducted from his pay, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorney s fees, and costs and disbursements of this action, pursuant to N.Y. Labor Law 198(1-a). (Provided, however, that the liquidated damages for illegal deductions made prior to 4/9/2011 is an additional 25% rather than 100%.) Second Cause of Action by Wilfredo Robles 29 U.S.C. 206(a) Failure to Pay Minimum Wage 71. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 70 with the same force and effect as if they were set for fully herein. 72. As described in paragraphs 29 through 31, at all relevant times, Wilfredo Robles was the employee of Defendants (except Fabian Redhead, David Redhead, and Real Smooth Finish) and Defendants (except Fabian Redhead, David Redhead, and Real Smooth Finish) were employers of Wilfredo Robles within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 203(d) and (e). 73. As described in paragraph 26, at all relevant times, Wilfredo Robles s job duties in his employment by Defendants constituted commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 203(b). 74. As described in paragraphs 23 through 25, at all relevant times, Wilfredo Robles was employed by Defendants in an enterprise engaged in commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C.

Case 1:12-cv-02076-PGG Document 1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 14 of 36 203(s). 75. As described in paragraphs 32 through 43, at all relevant times, Defendants failed to pay Wilfredo Robles the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour as required by 29 U.S.C. 206(a). 76. At all relevant times, Defendants were aware of their obligation to pay minimum wage to Wilfredo Robles, and made a willful and deliberate decision to ignore the law. 77. Due to Defendants willful failure to pay him minimum wage, Wilfredo Robles is entitled to recover from Defendants his unpaid minimum wage, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorney s fees, and costs and disbursements of this action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(b). Third Cause of Action by Wilfredo Robles N.Y. Labor Law 652(1) Failure to Pay Minimum Wage 78. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 77 with the same force and effect as if they were set for fully herein. 79. As described in paragraphs 29 through 31, at all relevant times, Wilfredo Robles was the employee of Defendants (except Fabian Redhead, David Redhead, and Real Smooth Finish) and Defendants (except Fabian Redhead, David Redhead, and Real Smooth Finish) were employers of Wilfredo Robles within the meaning of N.Y. Labor Law 2(5) and (6) and 651(5) and (6). 80. As described in paragraphs 32 through 43, at all relevant times, Defendants failed to pay Wilfredo Robles the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour as required by N.Y. Labor Law 652(1). 81. At all relevant times, Defendants were aware of their obligation to pay minimum wage to Wilfredo Robles, and made a willful and deliberate decision to ignore the law. 82. Due to Defendants willful failure to pay him minimum wage, Wilfredo Robles is entitled to recover from Defendants his unpaid minimum wage, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorney s fees, and costs and disbursements of this action, pursuant to N.Y. Labor Law 663(1). (Provided, however, that the liquidated damages for

Case 1:12-cv-02076-PGG Document 1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 15 of 36 unpaid minimum wages for weeks prior to 4/9/2011 is an additional 25% rather than 100%.) Fourth Cause of Action by Wilfredo Robles 29 U.S.C. 207(a) Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation 83. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 82 with the same force and effect as if they were set for fully herein. 84. As described in paragraphs 29 through 31, at all relevant times, Wilfredo Robles was the employee of Defendants (except Fabian Redhead, David Redhead, and Real Smooth Finish) and Defendants (except Fabian Redhead, David Redhead, and Real Smooth Finish) were employers of Wilfredo Robles within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 203(d) and (e). 85. As described in paragraph 26, at all relevant times, Wilfredo Robles s job duties in his employment by Defendants constituted commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 203(b). 86. As described in paragraphs 23 through 25, at all relevant times, Wilfredo Robles was employed by Defendants in an enterprise engaged in commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 203(s). 87. As described in paragraphs 34 through 36, at all relevant times, Wilfredo Robles worked in excess of 40 hours per week. 88. As described in paragraphs 32 through 43, at all relevant times, Defendants failed to compensate Wilfredo Robles for overtime at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay (or, in this instance, the minimum wage he should have been paid) for work performed in excess of forty hours in a workweek as required by 29 U.S.C. 207(a). 89. At all relevant times, Defendants were aware of their obligation to compensate Wilfredo Robles for overtime at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay (or, in this instance, the minimum wage he should have been paid) for work performed in excess of forty hours in a workweek, and made a willful and deliberate decision to ignore the law. 90. Due to Defendants willful failure to pay him overtime compensation, Wilfredo Robles is

Case 1:12-cv-02076-PGG Document 1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 16 of 36 entitled to recover from Defendants his unpaid overtime compensation, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorney s fees, and costs and disbursements of this action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(b). Fifth Cause of Action by Wilfredo Robles 12 N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. 142-2.2 Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation 91. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 90 with the same force and effect as if they were set for fully herein. 92. As described in paragraphs 29 through 31, at all relevant times, Wilfredo Robles was the employee of Defendants (except Fabian Redhead, David Redhead, and Real Smooth Finish) and Defendants (except Fabian Redhead, David Redhead, and Real Smooth Finish) were employers of Wilfredo Robles within the meaning of N.Y. Labor Law 2(5) and (6) and 651(5) and (6). 93. As described in paragraphs 34 through 36, at all relevant times, Wilfredo Robles worked in excess of 40 hours per week. 94. As described in paragraphs 32 through 43, at all relevant times, Defendants failed to compensate Wilfredo Robles for overtime at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay (or, in this instance, the minimum wage he should have been paid) for work performed in excess of forty hours in a workweek as required by 12 N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. 142-2.2 promulgated by the Commissioner of Labor pursuant to the Minimum Wage Act, N.Y. Labor Law 650 et seq. 95. At all relevant times, Defendants were aware of their obligation to compensate Wilfredo Robles for overtime at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay (or, in this instance, the minimum wage he should have been paid) for work performed in excess of forty hours in a workweek, and made a willful and deliberate decision to ignore the law. 96. Due to Defendants willful failure to pay him overtime compensation, Wilfredo Robles is entitled to recover from Defendants his unpaid overtime compensation, an additional equal

Case 1:12-cv-02076-PGG Document 1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 17 of 36 amount as liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorney s fees, and costs and disbursements of this action, pursuant to N.Y. Labor Law 663(1). (Provided, however, that the liquidated damages for unpaid overtime compensation for weeks prior to 4/9/2011 is an additional 25% rather than 100%.) Sixth Cause of Action by Wilfredo Robles 12 N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. 142-2.4 Failure to Pay Spread of Hours Pay 97. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 96 with the same force and effect as if they were set for fully herein. 98. As described in paragraphs 29 through 31, at all relevant times, Wilfredo Robles was the employee of Defendants (except Fabian Redhead, David Redhead, and Real Smooth Finish) and Defendants (except Fabian Redhead, David Redhead, and Real Smooth Finish) were employers of Wilfredo Robles within the meaning of N.Y. Labor Law 2(5) and (6) and 651(5) and (6). 99. As described in paragraphs 34 through 36, at all relevant times, the interval between the beginning and the end of Wilfredo Robles s workday exceeded 10 hours. 100. As described in paragraphs 32 through 43, at all relevant times, Defendants failed to pay Wilfredo Robles one hour s pay at the basic minimum hourly wage rate, in addition to the minimum wage for days in which the spread of hours exceeded 10 hours, as required by 12 N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. 142-2.4 promulgated by the Commissioner of Labor pursuant to the Minimum Wage Act, N.Y. Labor Law 650 et seq. 101. At all relevant times, Defendants were aware of their obligation to pay Wilfredo Robles one hour s pay at the basic minimum hourly wage rate, in addition to the minimum wage for days in which the spread of hours exceeded 10 hours, and made a willful and deliberate decision to ignore the law. 102. Due to Defendants willful failure to pay him spread of hours pay, Wilfredo Robles is entitled to recover from Defendants his unpaid spread of hours pay, an additional equal

Case 1:12-cv-02076-PGG Document 1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 18 of 36 amount as liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorney s fees, and costs and disbursements of this action, pursuant to N.Y. Labor Law 663(1). (Provided, however, that the liquidated damages for unpaid spread of hours pay for weeks prior to 4/9/2011 is an additional 25% rather than 100%.) Seventh Cause of Action by Wilfredo Robles N.Y. Labor Law 195(3) Failure to Furnish Required Statement with Payment of Wages 103. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 102 with the same force and effect as if they were set for fully herein. 104. As described in paragraphs 29 through 31, at all relevant times, Wilfredo Robles was the employee of Defendants (except Fabian Redhead, David Redhead, and Real Smooth Finish) and Defendants (except Fabian Redhead, David Redhead, and Real Smooth Finish) were employers of Wilfredo Robles within the meaning of N.Y. Labor Law 2(5) and (6) and 651(5) and (6). 105. At all relevant times, Defendants issued a paystub to Wilfredo Robles with each payment of wages, however these paystubs were deficient with respect to the requirements imposed by N.Y. Labor Law 195(3) in that they did not include: A. The regular hourly rate or rates of pay; B. The overtime rate or rates of pay; C. The number of regular hours worked; D. The number of overtime hours worked; and E. Allowances, if any, claimed as part of the minimum wage. 106. Due to Defendants failure to furnish him with a statement with every payment of wages, listing the information required by N.Y. Labor Law 195(3), Wilfredo Robles is entitled to recover from Defendants $100 per work week (beginning with the first payment of wages on or after 4/9/2011, and in no event more than $2,500), interest, reasonable attorney s fees, and costs and disbursements of this action, pursuant to N.Y. Labor Law 198(1-d).

Case 1:12-cv-02076-PGG Document 1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 19 of 36 First Cause of Action by Victor Pichazaca Breach of Contract 107. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 106 with the same force and effect as if they were set for fully herein. 108. As described in paragraphs 46 through 47, Defendants, through Fabian Redhead, offered to enter into an employment contract with Victor Pichazaca, and Victor Pichazaca accepted this offer. 109. Neither party was an infant, mentally incompetent, or in any other way lacking capacity to enter into a valid contract. 110. The central purpose of the contract, to employ a person to perform building repairs, maintenance, and construction, was neither illegal nor contrary to the public policy of New York. 111. The terms of the contract called for a mutual exchange of consideration, to wit, Victor Pichazaca would work for Defendants, and Defendants would pay him $150 per day. 112. As described in paragraphs 48 through 49, Victor Pichazaca did work for Defendants. 113. As described in paragraphs 51 through 52, Defendants did not pay Victor Pichazaca as they promised to. 114. As a result of Defendants breach, Victor Pichazaca is entitled to recover $150 for each day that he worked for them (minus the small amount he was actually paid, as described in paragraph 52). Second Cause of Action by Victor Pichazaca 29 U.S.C. 206(a) Failure to Pay Minimum Wage 115. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 114 with the same force and effect as if they were set for fully herein. 116. As described in paragraphs 44 through 46, at all relevant times, Victor Pichazaca was the

Case 1:12-cv-02076-PGG Document 1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 20 of 36 employee of Defendants and Defendants were employers of Victor Pichazaca within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 203(d) and (e). 117. As described in paragraph 27, at all relevant times, Victor Pichazaca s job duties in his employment by Defendants constituted commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 203(b). 118. As described in paragraphs 23 through 25, at all relevant times, Victor Pichazaca was employed by Defendants in an enterprise engaged in commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 203(s). 119. As described in paragraphs 48 through 53, at all relevant times, Defendants failed to pay Victor Pichazaca the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour as required by 29 U.S.C. 206(a). 120. At all relevant times, Defendants were aware of their obligation to pay minimum wage to Victor Pichazaca, and made a willful and deliberate decision to ignore the law. 121. Due to Defendants willful failure to pay him minimum wage, Victor Pichazaca is entitled to recover from Defendants his unpaid minimum wage, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorney s fees, and costs and disbursements of this action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(b). Third Cause of Action by Victor Pichazaca N.Y. Labor Law 652(1) Failure to Pay Minimum Wage 122. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 121 with the same force and effect as if they were set for fully herein. 123. As described in paragraphs 44 through 46, at all relevant times, Victor Pichazaca was the employee of Defendants and Defendants were employers of Victor Pichazaca within the meaning of N.Y. Labor Law 2(5) and (6) and 651(5) and (6). 124. As described in paragraphs 48 through 53, at all relevant times, Defendants failed to pay Victor Pichazaca the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour as required by N.Y. Labor Law 652(1). 125. At all relevant times, Defendants were aware of their obligation to pay minimum wage to

Case 1:12-cv-02076-PGG Document 1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 21 of 36 Victor Pichazaca, and made a willful and deliberate decision to ignore the law. 126. Due to Defendants willful failure to pay him minimum wage, Victor Pichazaca is entitled to recover from Defendants his unpaid minimum wage, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorney s fees, and costs and disbursements of this action, pursuant to N.Y. Labor Law 663(1). (Provided, however, that the liquidated damages for unpaid minimum wages for weeks prior to 4/9/2011 is an additional 25% rather than 100%.) Fourth Cause of Action by Victor Pichazaca 29 U.S.C. 207(a) Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation 127. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 126 with the same force and effect as if they were set for fully herein. 128. As described in paragraphs 44 through 46, at all relevant times, Victor Pichazaca was the employee of Defendants and Defendants were employers of Victor Pichazaca within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 203(d) and (e). 129. As described in paragraph 27, at all relevant times, Victor Pichazaca s job duties in his employment by Defendants constituted commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 203(b). 130. As described in paragraphs 23 through 25, at all relevant times, Victor Pichazaca was employed by Defendants in an enterprise engaged in commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 203(s). 131. As described in paragraphs 47 through 49, at all relevant times, Victor Pichazaca worked in excess of 40 hours per week. 132. As described in paragraphs 48 through 53, at all relevant times, Defendants failed to compensate Victor Pichazaca for overtime at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay (or, in this instance, the minimum wage he should have been paid) for work performed in excess of forty hours in a workweek as required by 29 U.S.C. 207(a). 133. At all relevant times, Defendants were aware of their obligation to compensate Victor

Case 1:12-cv-02076-PGG Document 1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 22 of 36 Pichazaca for overtime at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay (or, in this instance, the minimum wage he should have been paid) for work performed in excess of forty hours in a workweek, and made a willful and deliberate decision to ignore the law. 134. Due to Defendants willful failure to pay him overtime compensation, Victor Pichazaca is entitled to recover from Defendants his unpaid overtime compensation, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorney s fees, and costs and disbursements of this action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(b). Fifth Cause of Action by Victor Pichazaca 12 N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. 142-2.2 Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation 135. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 134 with the same force and effect as if they were set for fully herein. 136. As described in paragraphs 44 through 46, at all relevant times, Victor Pichazaca was the employee of Defendants and Defendants were employers of Victor Pichazaca within the meaning of N.Y. Labor Law 2(5) and (6) and 651(5) and (6). 137. As described in paragraphs 47 through 49, at all relevant times, Victor Pichazaca worked in excess of 40 hours per week. 138. As described in paragraphs 48 through 53, at all relevant times, Defendants failed to compensate Victor Pichazaca for overtime at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay (or, in this instance, the minimum wage he should have been paid) for work performed in excess of forty hours in a workweek as required by 12 N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. 142-2.2 promulgated by the Commissioner of Labor pursuant to the Minimum Wage Act, N.Y. Labor Law 650 et seq. 139. At all relevant times, Defendants were aware of their obligation to compensate Victor Pichazaca for overtime at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay (or, in this instance, the minimum wage he should have been paid) for work performed in excess of

Case 1:12-cv-02076-PGG Document 1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 23 of 36 forty hours in a workweek, and made a willful and deliberate decision to ignore the law. 140. Due to Defendants willful failure to pay him overtime compensation, Victor Pichazaca is entitled to recover from Defendants his unpaid overtime compensation, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorney s fees, and costs and disbursements of this action, pursuant to N.Y. Labor Law 663(1). (Provided, however, that the liquidated damages for unpaid overtime compensation for weeks prior to 4/9/2011 is an additional 25% rather than 100%.) Sixth Cause of Action by Victor Pichazaca 12 N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. 142-2.4 Failure to Pay Spread of Hours Pay 141. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 140 with the same force and effect as if they were set for fully herein. 142. As described in paragraphs 44 through 46, at all relevant times, Victor Pichazaca was the employee of Defendants and Defendants were employers of Victor Pichazaca within the meaning of N.Y. Labor Law 2(5) and (6) and 651(5) and (6). 143. As described in paragraphs 47 through 48, during the period from on or around 4/1/2011 through on or around 8/31/2011, the interval between the beginning and the end of Victor Pichazaca s workday exceeded 10 hours. 144. As described in paragraphs 48 through 53, at all relevant times, Defendants failed to pay Victor Pichazaca one hour s pay at the basic minimum hourly wage rate, in addition to the minimum wage for days in which the spread of hours exceeded 10 hours, as required by 12 N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. 142-2.4 promulgated by the Commissioner of Labor pursuant to the Minimum Wage Act, N.Y. Labor Law 650 et seq. 145. At all relevant times, Defendants were aware of their obligation to pay Victor Pichazaca one hour s pay at the basic minimum hourly wage rate, in addition to the minimum wage for days in which the spread of hours exceeded 10 hours, and made a willful and deliberate decision to

Case 1:12-cv-02076-PGG Document 1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 24 of 36 ignore the law. 146. Due to Defendants willful failure to pay him spread of hours pay, Victor Pichazaca is entitled to recover from Defendants his unpaid spread of hours pay, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorney s fees, and costs and disbursements of this action, pursuant to N.Y. Labor Law 663(1). (Provided, however, that the liquidated damages for unpaid spread of hours pay for weeks prior to 4/9/2011 is an additional 25% rather than 100%.) Seventh Cause of Action by Victor Pichazaca N.Y. Labor Law 195(3) Failure to Furnish Required Statement with Payment of Wages 147. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 146 with the same force and effect as if they were set for fully herein. 148. As described in paragraphs 44 through 46, at all relevant times, Victor Pichazaca was the employee of Defendants and Defendants were employers of Victor Pichazaca within the meaning of N.Y. Labor Law 2(5) and (6) and 651(5) and (6). 149. At all relevant times, Defendants did not issue any paystubs whatsoever to Victor Pichazaca. 150. Due to Defendants failure to furnish him with a statement with every payment of wages, listing the information required by N.Y. Labor Law 195(3), Victor Pichazaca is entitled to recover from Defendants $100 per work week (beginning with the first payment of wages on or after 4/9/2011, but in no event more than $2,500), interest, reasonable attorney s fees, and costs and disbursements of this action, pursuant to N.Y. Labor Law 198(1-d). First Cause of Action by Elifoncio Morocho Breach of Contract 151. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 150 with the same force and effect as if they were set for fully herein. 152. As described in paragraphs 56 through 57, Defendants, through Fabian Redhead, offered to

Case 1:12-cv-02076-PGG Document 1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 25 of 36 enter into an employment contract with Elifoncio Morocho, and Elifoncio Morocho accepted this offer. 153. Neither party was an infant, mentally incompetent, or in any other way lacking capacity to enter into a valid contract. 154. The central purpose of the contract, to employ a person to perform building repairs, maintenance, and construction, was neither illegal nor contrary to the public policy of New York. 155. The terms of the contract called for a mutual exchange of consideration, to wit, Elifoncio Morocho would work for Defendants, and Defendants would pay him $150 per day. 156. As described in paragraphs 59 through 60, Elifoncio Morocho did work for Defendants. 157. As described in paragraphs 62 through 63, Defendants did not pay Elifoncio Morocho as they promised to. 158. As a result of Defendants breach, Elifoncio Morocho is entitled to recover $150 for each day that he worked for them (minus the small amount he was actually paid, as described in paragraph 63). Second Cause of Action by Elifoncio Morocho 29 U.S.C. 206(a) Failure to Pay Minimum Wage 159. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 158 with the same force and effect as if they were set for fully herein. 160. As described in paragraphs 54 through 56, at all relevant times, Elifoncio Morocho was the employee of Defendants and Defendants were employers of Elifoncio Morocho within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 203(d) and (e). 161. As described in paragraph 28, at all relevant times, Elifoncio Morocho s job duties in his employment by Defendants constituted commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 203(b). 162. As described in paragraphs 23 through 25, at all relevant times, Elifoncio Morocho was

Case 1:12-cv-02076-PGG Document 1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 26 of 36 employed by Defendants in an enterprise engaged in commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 203(s). 163. As described in paragraphs 59 through 64, at all relevant times, Defendants failed to pay Elifoncio Morocho the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour as required by 29 U.S.C. 206(a). 164. At all relevant times, Defendants were aware of their obligation to pay minimum wage to Elifoncio Morocho, and made a willful and deliberate decision to ignore the law. 165. Due to Defendants willful failure to pay him minimum wage, Elifoncio Morocho is entitled to recover from Defendants his unpaid minimum wage, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorney s fees, and costs and disbursements of this action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(b). Third Cause of Action by Elifoncio Morocho N.Y. Labor Law 652(1) Failure to Pay Minimum Wage 166. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 165 with the same force and effect as if they were set for fully herein. 167. As described in paragraphs 54 through 56, at all relevant times, Elifoncio Morocho was the employee of Defendants and Defendants were employers of Elifoncio Morocho within the meaning of N.Y. Labor Law 2(5) and (6) and 651(5) and (6). 168. As described in paragraphs 59 through 64, at all relevant times, Defendants failed to pay Elifoncio Morocho the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour as required by N.Y. Labor Law 652(1). 169. At all relevant times, Defendants were aware of their obligation to pay minimum wage to Elifoncio Morocho, and made a willful and deliberate decision to ignore the law. 170. Due to Defendants willful failure to pay him minimum wage, Elifoncio Morocho is entitled to recover from Defendants his unpaid minimum wage, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorney s fees, and costs and disbursements of this action,

Case 1:12-cv-02076-PGG Document 1 Filed 03/21/12 Page 27 of 36 pursuant to N.Y. Labor Law 663(1). (Provided, however, that the liquidated damages for unpaid minimum wages for weeks prior to 4/9/2011 is an additional 25% rather than 100%.) Fourth Cause of Action by Elifoncio Morocho 29 U.S.C. 207(a) Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation 171. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 170 with the same force and effect as if they were set for fully herein. 172. As described in paragraphs 54 through 56, at all relevant times, Elifoncio Morocho was the employee of Defendants and Defendants were employers of Elifoncio Morocho within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 203(d) and (e). 173. As described in paragraph 28, at all relevant times, Elifoncio Morocho s job duties in his employment by Defendants constituted commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 203(b). 174. As described in paragraphs 23 through 25, at all relevant times, Elifoncio Morocho was employed by Defendants in an enterprise engaged in commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 203(s). 175. As described in paragraphs 57 through 60, at all relevant times, Elifoncio Morocho worked in excess of 40 hours per week. 176. As described in paragraphs 59 through 64, at all relevant times, Defendants failed to compensate Elifoncio Morocho for overtime at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay (or, in this instance, the minimum wage he should have been paid) for work performed in excess of forty hours in a workweek as required by 29 U.S.C. 207(a). 177. At all relevant times, Defendants were aware of their obligation to compensate Elifoncio Morocho for overtime at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay (or, in this instance, the minimum wage he should have been paid) for work performed in excess of forty hours in a workweek, and made a willful and deliberate decision to ignore the law. 178. Due to Defendants willful failure to pay him overtime compensation, Elifoncio Morocho is