1
Qinyu Fan, Esq.
Hang & Associates, PLLC
136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G
Flushing, NY 11354
Tel: (718) 353-8588
Fax: (718) 353-6288
Email: [email protected]
Attorney for Plaintiff and proposed FLSA Collective
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
----------------------------------------------------------X
Luis Lema, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
Case No.:
-against-
Petros & Son’s, Inc. of Ewing N.J. d/b/a Ewing Diner,
Petros Grumitsaris a/k/a Peter, and Peter Kritsikokas,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------X
Plaintiff, Luis Lema, by and through his undersigned attorneys, brings this complaint
against the Defendants Petros & Sons, Inc. of Ewing N.J. d/b/a Ewing Diner, Petros Grumitsaris
a/k/a Peter, and Peter Kritsikokas (collectively “Defendants”), allege and show the Court the
following:
INTRODUCTION
1. This action is brought by Plaintiff, on behalf of himself as well as all other
employees similarly situated, against Defendants for alleged violations of the Federal Labor
Standards Act, (“FLSA”) 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., and of the New Jersey State Wage and Hour
COLLECTIVE ACTION
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-16457-MAS-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 15 PageID: 1
2
Law, NJSA§34:11-56 et seq. (hereinafter “NJWHL”), arising from Defendants’ various willful
and unlawful employment policies, patterns and/or practices.
2. Upon information and belief, Defendants have willfully and intentionally
committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NJWHL by engaging in a pattern and practice
of failing to adequately pay its employees, including Plaintiff, overtime compensation for all hours
worked over forty (40) each workweek.
3. Plaintiff alleges pursuant to the FLSA, that he is entitled to recover from the
Defendants: (1) unpaid overtime wages, (2) liquidated damages, (3) prejudgment and post-
judgment interest; and (4) attorneys’ fees and costs.
4. Plaintiff further alleges pursuant to New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law
(“NJWHL”) that he is entitled to recover from the Defendants: (1) unpaid overtime compensation,
(2) liquidated damages equal to the unpaid overtime, (3) prejudgment interest, (4) post-judgment
interest, and (5) attorney’s fees and costs.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. This Court has original federal question jurisdiction over this controversy under
29 U.S.C. §216(b), 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and has supplemental jurisdiction over the New Jersey State
Law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
6. Venue is proper in the District of New Jersey pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and
(c), because Defendants conduct business in this District, and the acts and omissions giving rise to
the claims herein alleged took place in the jurisdiction of this District.
PLAINTIFF
Case 3:19-cv-16457-MAS-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 15 PageID: 2
3
7. From on or around October 1, 2017 to on or around April 21, 2019, Plaintiff Luis
Lema was employed as a cook in Defendants’ restaurant located at 1099 Parkway Ave., Ewing,
NJ 08628.
8. Plaintiff’s daily duties include chef helper, dishwasher, stock boy, and more.
DEFENDANTS
Corporate Defendant
9. Defendant Petros & Son’s, Inc. of Ewing N.J. trading as Ewing Diner (hereinafter
“Ewing Diner”) is a corporation incorporated under the laws of New Jersey and has its registered
office at 1148 River Road, W. Trenton, NJ 08628.
10. Upon information and belief, Corporate Defendant has about 10 employees.
11. Upon information and belief, Corporate Defendant at all relevant times is a business
engaged in interstate commerce that has gross sales in excess of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars
($500,000) per year.
12. Upon information and belief, Corporate Defendant purchased, and handled goods
moved in interstate commerce. For instance, Corporate Defendant has employees who handled
and worked on goods moved in interstate commerce such as flour and food supplies.
13. At all relevant times, Corporate Defendant was, and continues to be, an “enterprise
engaged in commerce” within the meaning of FLSA.
Owner/ Operator Defendants
14. Upon information and belief, Defendant Petros Gromitsaris a/k/a Peter is the owner,
chief executive officer, and/or managing agent of Defendant Corporation and participated in the
day-to-day operations of Defendant Corporation.
15. Upon information and belief, Defendant Petros Gromitsaris determined the wages
and compensation of the employees of Defendants, including Luis Lema, and established work
Case 3:19-cv-16457-MAS-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 3 of 15 PageID: 3
4
schedules and workload of the employees, maintained employee records, and had the authority to
hire and fire employees.
16. Defendant Petros Gromitsaris acted intentionally and maliciously, and is an
employer pursuant to FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §203d, and regulations promulgated thereunder, 29 C.F.R.
§791.2; NJWHL §34:11-4.1 and the regulations thereunder; and is jointly and severally liable with
Defendant Corporation.
Peter Kritsikokas
17. Upon information and belief, Defendant Peter Kritsikokas is the owner, chief executive
officer, and/or managing agent of Defendant Corporation and participated in the day-to-
day operations of Defendant Corporation.
18. Upon information and belief, Defendant Peter Kritsikokas determined the wages and
compensation of the employees of Defendants, including Luis Lema, and established the
type of work to be completed by employees.
19. Defendant Peter Kritsikokas acted intentionally and maliciously, and is an employer
pursuant to FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §203d, and regulations promulgated thereunder, 29 C.F.R.
§791.2; NJWHL §34:11-4.1 and the regulations thereunder; and is jointly and severally
liable with Defendant Corporation.
20. Plaintiff has fulfilled all conditions precedent to the institution of this action and/or
conditions have been waived.
FLSA COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS
21. Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all other and former non-exempt
employees who have been or were employed by the Defendants at their restaurant locations
for up to the last three (3) years, through entry of judgment in this case (the “Collective
Case 3:19-cv-16457-MAS-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 4 of 15 PageID: 4
5
Action Period”) (the “Collective Action Members”). Upon information and belief, the
Collection Action Members are so numerous the joinder of all members is impracticable.
The identity and precise number of such persons are unknown, and the facts upon which
the calculations of that number may be ascertained are presently within the sole control of
the Defendants. Upon information and belief, there are more than 8 Collective Action
members, who have worked for or have continued to work for the Defendants during the
Collective Action Period, most of whom would not likely file individual suits because they
fear retaliation, lack adequate financial resources, access to attorneys, or knowledge of their
claims. Therefore, Plaintiff submits that this case should be certified as a collection action
under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §216(b).
22. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Collective Action Members,
and have retained counsel that is experienced and competent in the field of employment
law and class action litigation. Plaintiff has no interests that are contrary to or in conflict
with those members of this collective action.
23. This action should be certified as a collective action because the prosecution of separate
actions by individual members of the collective action would risk creating either
inconsistent or varying adjudication with respect to individual members of this class that
would as a practical matter be dispositive of the interest of the other members not party to
the adjudication, or subsequently impair or impede their ability to protect their interests.
24. A collective action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
adjudication of this controversy, since joinder of all members is impracticable.
Furthermore, inasmuch as the damages suffered by individual Collective Action Members
may be relatively small, the expense and burden of individual litigation makes it virtually
Case 3:19-cv-16457-MAS-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 5 of 15 PageID: 5
6
impossible for the members of the collective action to individually seek redress for the
wrongs done to them. There will be no difficulty in the management of this action as a
collective action.
25. Questions of law and fact common to members of the collective action predominate over
questions that may affect only individual members because Defendants have acted on
grounds generally applicable to all members. Among the questions of fact common to
Plaintiff and other Collective Action Members are:
a. Whether the Defendants employed Collective Action members within the meaning of
the FLSA;
b. Whether the Defendants’ violations of the FLSA are willful as that terms are used within
the context of the FLSA; and,
c. Whether the Defendants are liable for all damages claimed hereunder, including but not
limited to compensatory, punitive, and statutory damages, interest, costs and disbursements
and attorneys’ fees.
26. Plaintiff knows of no difficulty that will be encountered in the management of this litigation
that would preclude its maintenance as a collective action.
27. Plaintiff and others similarly situated have been substantially damaged by Defendants’
unlawful conduct.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
28. Defendants committed the following alleged acts knowingly, intentionally and willfully.
29. Defendants knew that the nonpayment of minimum wage and overtime pay would
financially injure Plaintiff and similarly situated employees and violate state and federal
laws.
Case 3:19-cv-16457-MAS-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 6 of 15 PageID: 6
7
30. From on or around October 1, 2017 to on or around April 21, 2019, Plaintiff Luis Lema
was employed as a dish washer, stock boy, and chef helper in Defendants’ restaurant
located at 1099 Parkway Ave., Ewing, NJ 08628.
31. Plaintiff Lema’s job duties includes helping the chef, stocking, dish washing, and
performing other side work including organizing the inventories.
32. Upon information and belief, Defendant Petros Gromitsaris known as "Peter” to Plaintiff,
is the owner/member of Ewing Diner, and maintains active operational control over Ewing
Diner, including, without limitation to hiring and firing employees, supervising and
controlling the employees, setting their work schedule, determining their rates of
compensation and methods of payment, handling payrolls, and maintaining employee
records.
33. Defendant Petros Gromitsaris controlled and determined the work schedule of Plaintiff
Luis Lema.
34. Defendant Petros Gromitsaris determined the rates of compensation of Plaintiff Luis Lema
and methods of payment.
35. Defendant Petros Gromitsaris handled wage payments to Plaintiff Luis Lema and
maintained his employment records.
36. Plaintiff worked five days per week. From approximately October 1, 2017 to on or around
April 21, 2019. On Monday and Tuesday Plaintiff worked from 9:00 am to 6:00pm, and
Friday to Sunday he worked from 9:00 am to 7:00pm. Plaintiff was not able to take meal
breaks during each shift, and when he could catch a break between works, each break lasts
about 5 to 10 minutes. Plaintiff Luis Lema therefore worked seventy (70) hours per week.
Case 3:19-cv-16457-MAS-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 7 of 15 PageID: 7
8
37. For Plaintiff Lema’s employment with Defendants from October 1, 2017 to on or around
January 1, 2019, Plaintiff was paid at $10.00 per hour regardless the number of hours he
actually worked each week. From January 1, 2019 to on or around March 19, 2019, Plaintiff
was paid at $11.00 per hour regardless the number of hours he actually worked each week.
From March 19, 2019 to April 21, 2019, Plaintiff was paid $12.00 per hour.
38. Throughout his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff Lema was not compensated for all
hours worked above forty (40) in each workweek according to state and federal laws as he
did not receive the time and half of his regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours in any given week.
39. Throughout his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff Lema was not overtime-exempt
under federal and state laws.
40. Upon information and belief, Defendants failed to keep full and accurate records of
Plaintiff Lema’s hours and wages. The hours reflected on Plaintiff’s pay stubs do not
represent the number of hours he actually worked.
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
COUNT I.
[Violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act—Overtime Wage
Brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective]
41. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully
set forth herein.
42. At all relevant times, upon information and belief, Defendants have been, and continue to
be, “employers” engaged in interstate “commerce” and/or in the production of “goods” for
Case 3:19-cv-16457-MAS-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 8 of 15 PageID: 8
9
“commerce,” within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §207(a). Further, Plaintiff is
covered within the meaning of FLSA, U.S.C. §207(a).
43. At all relevant times, Defendants employed “employees” including Plaintiff, within the
meaning of FLSA.
44. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Defendants have had gross revenues in
excess of $500,000.
45. The FLSA provides that no employer engaged in commerce shall employ a covered
employee for a work week longer than forty (40) hours unless such employee receives
compensation for employment in excess of forty (40) hours at a rate not less than one and
one-half times the regular rate at which he or she is employed, or one and one-half times
the minimum wage, whichever is greater. 29 USC §207(a).
46. The FLSA provides that any employer who violates the provisions of 29 U.S.C. §207 shall
be liable to the employees affected in the amount of their unpaid overtime compensation,
and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages. 29 U.S.C. §216(b).
47. Here, Plaintiff was paid a fixed rate of $10.00 per hour regardless the number of hours he
actually worked each week from October 1, 2017 to on or around January 1, 2019. From
January 1, 2019 to on or around March 19, 2019, Plaintiff was paid at $11.00 per hour
From March 19, 2019 to April 21, 2019, Plaintiff was paid $12.00 per hour. Thus, during
the employment, Plaintiff was paid at a fixed rate regardless the number of hours he
actually worked. In this way, for the hours Plaintiff worked over forty(40) a week, Plaintiff
was compensated at his or her regular hourly rate, while the FLSA requires a compensation
at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he or she is employed.
Case 3:19-cv-16457-MAS-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 9 of 15 PageID: 9
10
48. Therefore, at all relevant times, Defendants had, and continue to have, a policy of practice
of refusing to pay overtime compensation at the statutory rate of time and a half to Plaintiff
and Collective Action Members for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per
workweek, which violated and continues to violate the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§201, et
seq., including 29 U.S.C. §§207(a)(1) and 215(a).
49. The FLSA and supporting regulations required employers to notify employees of
employment law requirements. 29 C.F.R. §516.4.
50. Defendants willfully failed to notify Plaintiff and FLSA Collective of the requirements of
the employment laws in order to facilitate their exploitation of Plaintiff and FLSA
Collectives’ labor.
51. Defendants knowingly and willfully disregarded the provisions of the FLSA as evidenced
by their failure to compensate Plaintiff and Collective Class Members the statutory
overtime rate of time and one half for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per week
when they knew or should have known such was due and that failing to do so would
financially injure Plaintiff and Collective Action members.
52. For the above reasons, Plaintiff is entitled to an award for his or her unpaid overtime
compensation required by the FLSA, and the liquidate damage equal to this amount.
COUNT II.
[Violation of New Jersey Wage and Hour Law—Overtime Pay
Brought on behalf of Plaintiff]
53. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully
set forth herein.
54. NJWHL 12:56-6.1 provides that, for each hour of working time in excess of 40 hours in
any week, except for those exemptions set forth in N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a4 or as provided in
Case 3:19-cv-16457-MAS-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 10 of 15 PageID: 10
11
N.J.A.C. 12:56-7.1, every employer shall pay to each of his or her employees, wages at a
rate of not less than 1 and ½ times such employee’s regular hourly wage.
55. The NJWHL and supporting regulations required employers to notify employees of
employment law requirements. NJWHL 8:43E-8.6 et seq.
56. Here, as discussed above, Plaintiff, during the employment, was paid at a fixed rate
regardless the number of hours he actually worked. In this way, for the hours Plaintiff
worked over forty(40) a week, Plaintiff was only compensated at his or her regular hourly
rate, while the NJWHL requires a compensation at a rate not less than one and one-half
times the regular rate at which he or she is employed.
57. At all relevant times, Defendants had a policy and practice of refusing to pay the overtime
compensation to Plaintiff at time and one half times the regular rate the Plaintiff in violation
of New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.
58. Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff adequate compensation was not in good faith.
59. By failing to pay Plaintiff and the Collective Class Members, the Plaintiff and the
Collective Class Members are entitled to recover from Defendants their full unpaid
overtime pay, damages for unreasonably delayed payment of wages, liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and disbursement of the action pursuant to NJWHL
§§34:11-56a et seq.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself, and the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs,
respectfully requests that this Court enter a Judgment providing the following relief:
Case 3:19-cv-16457-MAS-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 11 of 15 PageID: 11
12
a) Authorizing Plaintiff at the earliest possible time to give notice of this collective action, or
that the Court issue such notice, to all persons who are presently, or have up through the extent
allowable under the statute of limitations and including the date of issuance of court-supervised
notice, been employed by Defendants as non-exempt employees. Such notice shall inform them
that the civil notice has been filed, of the nature of the action, of their right to join this lawsuit if
they believe they were denied premium overtime wages;
b) Certification of this case as a collective action pursuant to FLSA;
c) Issuance of notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) to all similarly situated members of the
FLSA opt-in class, apprising them of the pendency of this action, and permitting them to assert
timely FLSA claims and state claims in this action by filing individual Consent to Sue forms
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and appointing Plaintiff and his counsel to represent the Collective
Action Members;
d) A declaratory judgment that the practices complained of herein are unlawful under
FLSA and NJWHL;
e) An injunction against Corporate Defendants, its officers, agents, successors, employees,
representatives and any and all persons acting in concert with them as provided by law, from
engaging in each of unlawful practices and policies set forth herein;
f) Award Plaintiff unpaid wages, and unpaid overtime due under the FLSA and the NJWHL
plus compensatory and liquidated damages;
g) Award Plaintiff reimbursement of tools of trade under FLSA;
h) An award of costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys’ and
expert fees pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b) and NJWHL;
i) The cost and disbursements of this action;
Case 3:19-cv-16457-MAS-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 12 of 15 PageID: 12
13
j) An award of prejudgment and post-judgment fees; and
k) Such other and further legal and equitable relief as this Court deems necessary, just, and
proper.
JURY DEMAND
Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff demands a trial by
jury of all issues so triable.
Dated: Flushing, New York
August 2, 2019
Respectfully Submitted,
HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
By: _____s/_Qinyu Fan ____________
Qinyu Fan, Esq.
136-20 38th Ave. Suite 10G
Flushing, NY 11354
Tel: (718) 353-8588
Fax: (718) 353-6288
E-mail: [email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff(s)
Case 3:19-cv-16457-MAS-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 13 of 15 PageID: 13
14
Exhibit 1
Case 3:19-cv-16457-MAS-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 14 of 15 PageID: 14
15
Case 3:19-cv-16457-MAS-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 15 of 15 PageID: 15
JS 44 (Rev. 06/17) CIVIL COVER SHEETThe JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except asprovided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for thepurpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
’ 1 U.S. Government ’ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEFPlaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State ’ 1 ’ 1 Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4
of Business In This State
’ 2 U.S. Government ’ 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State ’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place ’ 5 ’ 5Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a ’ 3 ’ 3 Foreign Nation ’ 6 ’ 6 Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
’ 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY ’ 625 Drug Related Seizure ’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 ’ 375 False Claims Act’ 120 Marine ’ 310 Airplane ’ 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 ’ 423 Withdrawal ’ 376 Qui Tam (31 USC ’ 130 Miller Act ’ 315 Airplane Product Product Liability ’ 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))’ 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability ’ 367 Health Care/ ’ 400 State Reapportionment’ 150 Recovery of Overpayment ’ 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS ’ 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury ’ 820 Copyrights ’ 430 Banks and Banking’ 151 Medicare Act ’ 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability ’ 830 Patent ’ 450 Commerce’ 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability ’ 368 Asbestos Personal ’ 835 Patent - Abbreviated ’ 460 Deportation
Student Loans ’ 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application ’ 470 Racketeer Influenced and (Excludes Veterans) ’ 345 Marine Product Liability ’ 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
’ 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY ’ 480 Consumer Credit of Veteran’s Benefits ’ 350 Motor Vehicle ’ 370 Other Fraud ’ 710 Fair Labor Standards ’ 861 HIA (1395ff) ’ 490 Cable/Sat TV
’ 160 Stockholders’ Suits ’ 355 Motor Vehicle ’ 371 Truth in Lending Act ’ 862 Black Lung (923) ’ 850 Securities/Commodities/’ 190 Other Contract Product Liability ’ 380 Other Personal ’ 720 Labor/Management ’ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange’ 195 Contract Product Liability ’ 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations ’ 864 SSID Title XVI ’ 890 Other Statutory Actions’ 196 Franchise Injury ’ 385 Property Damage ’ 740 Railway Labor Act ’ 865 RSI (405(g)) ’ 891 Agricultural Acts
’ 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability ’ 751 Family and Medical ’ 893 Environmental Matters Medical Malpractice Leave Act ’ 895 Freedom of Information
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS ’ 790 Other Labor Litigation FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act’ 210 Land Condemnation ’ 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: ’ 791 Employee Retirement ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff ’ 896 Arbitration’ 220 Foreclosure ’ 441 Voting ’ 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act or Defendant) ’ 899 Administrative Procedure’ 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment ’ 442 Employment ’ 510 Motions to Vacate ’ 871 IRS—Third Party Act/Review or Appeal of’ 240 Torts to Land ’ 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision’ 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations ’ 530 General ’ 950 Constitutionality of’ 290 All Other Real Property ’ 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION State Statutes
Employment Other: ’ 462 Naturalization Application’ 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 540 Mandamus & Other ’ 465 Other Immigration
Other ’ 550 Civil Rights Actions’ 448 Education ’ 555 Prison Condition
’ 560 Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
’ 1 OriginalProceeding
’ 2 Removed fromState Court
’ 3 Remanded fromAppellate Court
’ 4 Reinstated orReopened
’ 5 Transferred fromAnother District(specify)
’ 6 MultidistrictLitigation -Transfer
’ 8 Multidistrict Litigation - Direct File
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): Brief description of cause:
VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:
’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTIONUNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
JURY DEMAND: ’ Yes ’No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY (See instructions):
JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE
Case 3:19-cv-16457-MAS-TJB Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 16
JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 06/17)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers asrequired by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, isrequired for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk ofCourt for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, notingin this section "(see attachment)".
II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X" in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark thissection for each principal party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441. When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date.Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict litigation transfers.Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket. PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to changes in statue.
VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.
Case 3:19-cv-16457-MAS-TJB Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 17