Pointer et al. v. DirecTV, LLC et al. - 4:17-cv-00772-SWW · Moses Holdings, LLC can be served...
Transcript of Pointer et al. v. DirecTV, LLC et al. - 4:17-cv-00772-SWW · Moses Holdings, LLC can be served...
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
DAVID POINTER, MICHAEL MONDAY, And MICHAEL HALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
uFJJ~~Q~~ ~.1,f~'t['f;r, <;;:s i'R:CT i£tili..t<SAS
v. CASEN0.Jl•11cz11 7z:l-e$~w .
DIRECTV, LLC; DAVID MOSES This case assigned to Dis~ d/b/a/ SKY CONNECT, ENDEAVOR and to Magistrate Judge ~ COMMUNICATIONS, ENDEAVOR -HOLDINGS, and SKY HIGH COMMUNICATIONS; MOSES CAPITAL GROUP, LLC; and MOSES HOLDINGS, LLC DEFENDANTS
CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
I. INTRODUCTION
1. This is an action for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act, and Missouri Minimum Wage Law. Defendants DirecTV, LLC and
David Moses operated a satellite installation business in Arkansas and Missouri to sell
DirecTV services. Plaintiffs were satellite installation and repair technicians who installed
DirecTV satellite services. DirecTV and Moses provided Plaintiffs and their other
technicians with uniforms and training, told them which jobs to complete, and otherwise
controlled their work. DirecTV area mangers inspected the work done by Plaintiffs and
the other technicians to ensure the work met DirecTV' s standards, and if the job did not
satisfy DirecTV, Plaintiffs and the other technicians would not be paid for the work.
Plaintiffs and the other technicians could not tum down jobs and they were required to
purchase materials from Perfect 10- a DirecTV affiliated satellite materials provider. Yet,
Page 1of37
Case 4:17-cv-00772-SWW Document 1 Filed 11/21/17 Page 1 of 40
despite controlling almost every aspect of the employment relationship, DirecTV and
David Moses classified Plaintiffs and the other technicians as independent contractors
and did not pay them overtime. Plaintiffs bring this suit individually and on behalf of
other technicians to recover minimum wage and overtime payments due under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, and the Missouri Minimum Wage
Law.
II. PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
2. Plaintiff David Pointer is a citizen of Lonoke County, Arkansas. Pointer
worked for Defendants as a satellite installation and repair technician in Arkansas from
approximately April 2013 until April 2017. During the past three years, Pointer has
worked more than 40 hours in one or more workweeks, and he was not paid overtime
compensation. Also, during the past three years, Pointer was not paid the minimum wage
for all his hours worked up to 40 in a workweek. At all times relevant to this complaint,
Pointer was classified as an independent contractor, and thus classified as exempt from
the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the FLSA and AMW A. His consent to
join this action is attached as Exhibit "A."
3. Plaintiff Michael Monday is a citizen of Garland County, Arkansas.
Monday worked for Defendants as a satellite installation and repair technician in
Arkansas from approximately March 2016 until March 2017. During the past three years,
Monday has worked more than 40 hours in one or more workweeks, and he was not paid
overtime compensation. Also, during the past three years, Monday was not paid the
minimum wage for all his hours worked up to 40 in a workweek. At all times relevant to
Page 2 of 37
Case 4:17-cv-00772-SWW Document 1 Filed 11/21/17 Page 2 of 40
this complaint, Monday was classified as an independent contractor, and thus classified
as exempt from the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the FLSA and AMW A.
His consent to join this action is attached as Exhibit "B."
4. Plaintiff Michael Hall is a citizen of Lonoke County, Arkansas. Hall worked
for Defendants as a satellite installation and repair technician in Arkansas from
approximately April 2017 until June 2017. During the past three years, Hall has worked
more than 40 hours in one or more workweeks, and he was not paid overtime
compensation. Also, during the past three years, Hall was not paid the minimum wage
for all his hours worked up to 40 in a workweek. At all times relevant to this complaint,
Hall was classified as an independent contractor, and thus classified as exempt from the
minimum wage and overtime requirements of the FLSA and AMW A. His consent to join
this action is attached as Exhibit "C."
5. Defendant DirecTV, LLC is a foreign limited liability company with its
principal place of business in California. DirecTV is one of the largest satellite television
services providers in the United States, providing satellite television services to more than
20 million domestic subscribers, including within Arkansas and Missouri. DirecTV is an
employer of Plaintiffs and putative class members within the meaning of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, and Missouri Minimum Wage Law.
DirecTV can be served through its registered agent The Corporation Company, 124 West
Capitol Avenue, Suite 1900, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201.
6. Defendant David Moses is a citizen of Cabot, Arkansas. David Moses is
known to use the names Endeavor Communications, Endeavor Holdings, Sky Connect,
Page 3 of 37
Case 4:17-cv-00772-SWW Document 1 Filed 11/21/17 Page 3 of 40
and Sky High Communications to conduct business, and he may have other business
names as well. Moses operated these businesses in Arkansas and Missouri. Moses is an
employer of Plaintiffs and putative class members within the meaning of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, and Missouri Minimum Wage Law. Upon
information and belief, David Moses resides at 1115 Greystone Boulevard, Cabot,
Arkansas 72023.
7. Defendant Moses Capital Group, LLC, is an Arkansas limited liability
company formed in June 2015. Upon information and belief, Moses Capital Group, LLC
operated in Arkansas and Missouri. Moses Capital Group, LLC is an employer of
Plaintiffs and putative class members within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, and Missouri Minimum Wage Law. Moses Capital
Group can be served through its registered agent, David Moses, who is believed to reside
at 1115 Greystone Boulevard, Cabot, Arkansas 72023.
8. Defendant Moses Holdings, LLC, is an Arkansas limited liability company
formed in June 2015. Upon information and belief, all members of Moses Holdings, LLC
are citizens of Arkansas. The Arkansas Secretary of State is believed to have revoked the
status of Moses Holdings, LLC for nonpayment of franchise tax. Upon information and
belief, Moses Holdings, LLC operated in Arkansas and Missouri. Moses Holdings, LLC,
is an employer of Plaintiffs and putative class members within the meaning of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, and Missouri Minimum Wage Law.
Moses Holdings, LLC can be served through its registered agent David Moses, who is
believed to reside at 1115 Greystone Boulevard, Cabot, Arkansas 72023.
Page 4 of 37
Case 4:17-cv-00772-SWW Document 1 Filed 11/21/17 Page 4 of 40
9. At all relevant times, Defendants jointly controlled and directed the work
of Plaintiffs and the putative class members. As a result, Defendants are joint employers
of Plaintiffs and putative class members and Defendants are each directly liable for the
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, and Missouri
Minimum Wage Law complained of in this case.
10. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs and the putative class members have been
entitled to the rights, protections, and benefits of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act, and Missouri Minimum Wage Law.
11. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs and the putative class members have been
"employees" of Defendants. 29 U.S.C. § 203(e); Ark. Code Ann.§ 11-4-203(3); Mo. Rev.
Stat. § 290.500(3).
12. At all relevant times, Defendants were the" employers" of Plaintiffs and the
putative class members. 29 U.S.C. § 203(d); Ark. Code Ann.§ 11-4-203(4); Mo. Rev. Stat.
§ 290.500(4).
13. Jurisdiction of this action is conferred on the Court by 29 U.S.C. §§ 216(b),
217; and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
14. This Court has jurisdiction on Plaintiffs' state law claims pursuant to the
Court's supplemental and pendent jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
15. Venue lies within this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred within this
district. Specifically, throughout the relevant period, Defendants maintained offices in
Page 5 of 37
Case 4:17-cv-00772-SWW Document 1 Filed 11/21/17 Page 5 of 40
this district and Plaintiffs regularly performed satellite installation and repairs within this
district.
III. FACTS
16. Defendant David Moses has owned and operated a satellite installation and
sales business for some time. Although his businesses have sometimes used the trade
names "Endeavor Communications," "Endeavor Holdings," "Sky Connect," and "Sky
High Communications," he has not legally formed separate entities to conduct businesses
with those names. Moses, however, serves as the registered agent for Moses Capital
Group, LLC and Moses Holdings, LLC. Moses Capital Group and Moses Holdings are
mere instrumentalities and the alter ego of David Moses, and all are part of a single
integrated enterprise. As a result, David Moses, Moses Capital Group, and Moses
Holdings are jointly and severally liable for the violations complained of herein. David
Moses is also individually liable because he is an "employer" of Plaintiffs and putative
class members. David Moses, Moses Capital Group and Moses Holdings will be
collectively referred to as the "Moses Defendants."
17. Upon information and belief, the Moses Defendants contracted with
DirecTV to sell and install satellite television services under the trade name "Endeavor
Communications," "Endeavor Holdings," and possibly other unknown trade names. The
Moses Defendants' primary office at the time was in Pulaski County at 3204 Old
Shackleford Road, Little Rock, Arkansas 72205. Endeavor Communications also had an
office in Joplin, Missouri within the past three years.
Page 6 of 37
Case 4:17-cv-00772-SWW Document 1 Filed 11/21/17 Page 6 of 40
18. DirecTV is one of the largest satellite television services providers in the
United States, providing satellite television services to more than 20 million domestic
subscribers. Installation and repair of satellite dishes, receivers, and related equipment is
an integral part of DirecTV' s business.
19. To provide installation and repair services to its massive client base,
DirecTV directly employs, or contracts through third party businesses, installation and
repair technicians. Plaintiffs were installation and repair technicians that exclusively
serviced DirecTV customers in Arkansas and Missouri.
20. Regardless of whether DirecTV directly hires the technicians or engages
their services through a third-party business, DirecTV exerts the same level of control
over the technicians, and those technicians are held to the same standards and
expectations. To ensure all technicians are meeting DirecTV's minimum quality
standards, DirecTV exercises significant control over the technicians' daily work lives,
including but not limited to, control over what work the technicians performed, where
that work was performed, when that work was performed, and how that work was
performed.
21. Plaintiffs interviewed with David Moses and other members of the Moses
Defendants' management team before being hired.
22. After being hired, Plaintiffs spent approximately two weeks in training
learning the Moses Defendants' and DirecTV' s standards and expectations for satellite
installation and repair. Despite spending weeks learning how to perform the job to
DirecTV' s standards, they were not paid for that time.
Page 7 of 37
Case 4:17-cv-00772-SWW Document 1 Filed 11/21/17 Page 7 of 40
23. Each day, the Moses Defendants would assign Plaintiffs and the other
technicians to specific jobs where they would service DirecTV customers. Plaintiffs and
the other technicians were required to log into DirecTV' s work order application, FSTP
(Field Services Tech Passport), on their mobile phone to sign into DirecTV's system and
access the work orders for that day.
24. Plaintiffs and the other technicians were required to log in to check the work
orders by 7:00 a.m. each morning.
25. Plaintiffs and the other technicians were required to be at the first job site
at 8:00 a.m. and they were required to work until they completed the last of their assigned
jobs. Once Plaintiffs and the other technicians completed their assigned jobs, they were
required to call the Moses Defendants' offices to check in so they could be reassigned to
help other technicians still in the field.
26. Defendants directed Plaintiffs and the other technicians about the order in
which they needed to perform the assigned jobs. Technicians were not permitted to turn
down jobs, and would be disciplined if they tried to turn down a job.
27. At all stages of the installation process, Plaintiffs and the other technicians
were required to hold themselves out as DirecTV representatives. While working, the
technicians were required to wear a DirecTV uniform, and many technicians were
required to place signage on their vehicle advertising that they were with DirecTV.
28. Likewise, Plaintiffs and the other technicians were trained to introduce
themselves as representatives of DirecTV when they first arrived at their assigned jobs
Page 8 of 37
Case 4:17-cv-00772-SWW Document 1 Filed 11/21/17 Page 8 of 40
and show the customer a DirecTV lanyard identifying the technician as a DirecTV
employee.
29. Plaintiffs and the other technicians were required to contact DirecTV's
support offices during the installation to complete the process, and informed the
customers that if they experienced problems with their satellite services to contact
DirecTV to resolve the problem.
30. Plaintiffs and the other technicians were required to work long hours, six
days per week. Plaintiffs and other technicians routinely worked between 60 and 70
hours per week, and sometimes more.
31. DirecTV and the Moses Defendants mandated that the technicians use
certain DirecTV approved parts and equipment. The items Plaintiffs and the other
technicians had to buy were required to be purchased from Perfect 10 - a distributor of
satellite products and equipment, and an affiliate of DirecTV.
32. In addition, Plaintiffs and other technicians were required to purchase their
own fuel, and they did not receive any reimbursement for those expenses.
33. Despite routinely working over 40 hours per week, Plaintiffs and the other
technicians were not paid an hourly rate. Instead, the technicians were paid on a per job
basis for some of the jobs they performed. Oftentimes, however, Plaintiffs and the other
technicians were never paid for the services they provided, and the Moses Defendants
simply retained the money due to Plaintiffs.
34. DirecTV also determined whether Plaintiffs' and the other technicians'
work merited compensation, including setting the rate of pay to the Moses Defendants
Page 9 of 37
Case 4:17-cv-00772-SWW Document 1 Filed 11/21/17 Page 9 of 40
for the technicians' work. The rate DirecTV and the Moses Defendants paid for each job
was set by Defendants. The rate varied based on the job, and Plaintiffs and the other
technicians could not set or adjust the rate.
35. To ensure its technicians were providing services that met the Company's
minimum quality standards, DirecTV monitored the installations for both its direct
employees and those hired through a third-party business in the same manner.
36. For example, DirecTV' s Site Managers oversaw groups of Quality Control
Technicians that reviewed the work performed by the other technicians doing the actual
installation and repair work. The Site Managers and Quality Control Technicians
oversaw a geographic region, including Arkansas and Missouri, and were responsible for
ensuring the quality of the work performed by Plaintiffs and the other technicians.
37. DirecTV exercised the same standards and job expectations over all its
technicians, including its direct employees and those, like Plaintiffs, who were hired
through a third-party business.
38. Plaintiffs and the other technicians were required to satisfy DirecTV' s
success metrics, which included a scale measuring efficiency rates and other quality
metrics.
39. If the technician did not satisfy the quality metrics, or if a customer
experienced a problem with their installation services within 90 days, the technicians
would be "charged back" the amount of money they were to earn from the job. As a
result, if DirecTV' s quality control inspections or a customer complaint revealed a defect
in the performance, the technician would lose their pay for that job.
Page 10 of 37
Case 4:17-cv-00772-SWW Document 1 Filed 11/21/17 Page 10 of 40
40. In addition to the "charge backs" initiated by DirecTV, the Moses
Defendants would regularly initiate fraudulent charge backs to steal money from
Plaintiffs and the other technicians. For example, on a nearly weekly basis, the Moses
Defendants would fabricate charge backs as an excuse to withhold hundreds of dollars
from different technicians pay checks, or would duplicate charge backs that had
previously been charged in prior pay periods. For example, if DirecTV charged back
$25.00 because a customer experienced an installation problem, the Moses Defendants
would charge the Plaintiffs and putative class members $50.00, or some other, higher
amount than what DirecTV charged. The Moses Defendants' scheme costs Plaintiffs and
the other technicians thousands of dollars each month.
41. Moreover, initially the Moses Defendants implemented a 5-week holdback
period in which the Company would retain a technician's pay for 5 weeks before the
technician would be paid. Under this model, 5 weeks of a technician's pay would be held
by the Company until the technician's employment ended. Within the relevant time
period, the Moses Defendants changed to a 2-week holdback period, meaning 3-weeks'
pay was no longer being held back by the Company. Rather than paying the employees
the 3-weeks' pay, Moses kept all the money, pocketing thousands of dollars of Plaintiffs'
and putative class members' money.
42. Despite exercising extensive control over Plaintiffs and the other
technicians work, DirecTV and the Moses Defendants classified Plaintiffs and the other
technicians as independent contractors. Plaintiffs regularly worked over 40 hours per
week but were not paid overtime. Moreover, because of charge backs and the Moses
Page 11of37
Case 4:17-cv-00772-SWW Document 1 Filed 11/21/17 Page 11 of 40
Defendants' practice of fraudulently stealing their wages, Plaintiffs were also paid less
than the minimum wage for all their hours worked.
IV. COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS
43. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs as if they were
fully set forth herein.
44. Plaintiffs bring their FLSA collective action claims on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 207 and 216(b), specifically, as
follows:
All satellite installation technicians who installed DirecTV services for the Moses Defendants within the past three years.
45. Plaintiffs reserve the right to modify or amend the proposed class definition
subject to additional information gained through further investigation and discovery.
46. There are numerous similarly situated satellite installation technicians who
worked for the Moses Defendants who would benefit from the issuance of Court-
supervised notice of the instant lawsuit and the opportunity to join in the present lawsuit.
Similarly situated employees are known to Defendants and readily identifiable through
payroll records Defendants are required to keep by law. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-4-217; 29
U.S.C. § 211(c).
47. There are questions of law and fact common to Plaintiffs and others
similarly situated, which predominate over any questions affecting individual members
only. These factual and legal questions include:
Page 12 of 37
Case 4:17-cv-00772-SWW Document 1 Filed 11/21/17 Page 12 of 40
a. Which individuals and entities are considered "employers" of
Plaintiffs and putative class members under the FLSA;
b. Whether Plaintiffs or putative class members are bona fide
independent contractors;
c. Whether Defendants satisfied their obligation to pay Plaintiffs and
others similarly situated the minimum wage and overtime payments required by
the FLSA;
d. Whether Defendants' actions were willful;
e. Whether Defendants complied with their recordkeeping obligations
under the FLSA;
f. Whether Plaintiffs and putative class members are entitled to
liquidated damages;
g. Whether Plaintiffs and putative class members are entitled to
attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses.
48. Defendants acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to
Plaintiffs and others similarly situated.
49. Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the claims of the FLSA Class in that Plaintiffs
and others similarly situated were denied overtime and minimum wage because of
Defendants' policies and practice. This is the predominant issue that pertains to the
claims of Plaintiffs and the members of the FLSA class.
50. Plaintiffs' FLSA damages, and those of all putative collective action
members, should be able to be calculated mechanically based on records Defendants are
Page 13 of 37
Case 4:17-cv-00772-SWW Document 1 Filed 11/21/17 Page 13 of 40
required to keep. 29 C.F.R. § 513.28. If Defendants failed to keep records as required by
law, Plaintiffs and class members will be entitled to damages based on the best available
evidence, even if it is only estimates. See Anderson v. Mt. Clemens, 328 U.S. 680, 687 (1946).
Defendants cannot benefit from their failure, if any, to maintain records required by law.
51. The collective action mechanism is superior to other available methods for
a fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.
52. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the FLSA Class,
as their interests are in complete alignment with others similarly situated, i.e., to prove
and then eradicate Defendants' illegal misclassification of satellite installation technicians
as independent contractors and to recover wages lost because of Defendants' misconduct.
53. Plaintiffs' counsel is experienced with class/ collective litigation, has
previously served as class counsel in FLSA litigation, and will adequately protect the
interests of Plaintiffs and others similarly situated.
54. Plaintiffs and the proposed FLSA Class they seek to represent have
suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable damage from the illegal policy, practice,
and custom regarding Defendants' pay practices.
55. Defendants have engaged in a continuing violation of the FLSA.
56. Plaintiffs and all other similarly-situated servers were denied overtime and
minimum wage because of Defendants' illegal practices. These violations were intended
by Defendants and were willfully done.
Page 14 of 37
Case 4:17-cv-00772-SWW Document 1 Filed 11/21/17 Page 14 of 40
V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS - AMW A CLASS
57. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs as if they were
fully set forth herein.
58. Plaintiffs bring this action for violation of the AMW A as a class action under
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek to represent a
class of:
All satellite installation technicians who worked for the Moses Defendants within the past three years at its offices in Arkansas.
59. Plaintiffs reserve the right to modify or amend the proposed class definition
subject to additional information gained through further investigation and discovery.
60. Members of the putative class are so numerous that joinder of all such
members is impracticable. The exact size of the class is unknown, but it is believed to
exceed 100 individuals. Defendants should have records of the names and addresses of
the putative class members, as they are required by law to keep such records. Ark. Code
Ann.§ 11-4-217; 29 U.S.C. § 211(c).
61. There are common questions of law and fact applicable to the putative class
with respect to liability, relief, and anticipated affirmative defenses, which predominate
over any questions affecting individual members only. These factual and legal questions
include:
a. Which individuals and entities are considered "employers" of
Plaintiffs and putative class members under the AMW A;
Page 15 of 37
Case 4:17-cv-00772-SWW Document 1 Filed 11/21/17 Page 15 of 40
b. Whether Plaintiffs or putative class members are bona fide
independent contractors;
c. Whether Defendants satisfied their obligation to pay Plaintiffs and
others similarly situated the minimum wage and overtime payments required by
theAMWA;
d. Whether Defendants' actions were willful;
e. Whether Defendants complied with their recordkeeping obligations
under the AMW A;
f. Whether Plaintiffs and putative class members are entitled to
liquidated damages;
g. Whether Plaintiffs and putative class members are entitled to
attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses.
62. Defendants acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to
Plaintiffs and others similarly situated.
63. Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the putative class. Like all other putative
class members, Plaintiffs were subject to Defendants' common practice of not paying
minimum wage or overtime to which the employees were entitled under Arkansas law.
This is the predominant issue that pertains to the claims of Plaintiffs and the members of
the AMW A class.
64. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the putative class.
They have no conflicts with putative class members and have suffered the same injury as
members of the putative class. Plaintiffs' counsel possesses the requisite resources and
Page 16 of 37
Case 4:17-cv-00772-SWW Document 1 Filed 11/21/17 Page 16 of 40
experience in class action litigation to adequately represent Plaintiffs and putative class
members in prosecuting the claims here.
65. The questions of law and fact common to Plaintiffs and members of the
putative class predominate over any question affecting only individual class members,
and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
adjudication of this controversy.
VI. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS - MMWL CLASS
66. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs as if they were
fully set forth herein.
67. Plaintiffs bring this action for violation of the MMWL as a class action under
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek to represent a
class of:
All satellite installation technicians who worked for the Moses Defendants within the past three years at its offices in Missouri.
68. Plaintiffs reserve the right to modify or amend the proposed class definition
subject to additional information gained through further investigation and discovery.
69. Members of the putative class are so numerous that joinder of all such
members is impracticable. The exact size of the class is unknown, but it is believed to
exceed 100 individuals. Defendants should have records of the names and addresses of
the putative class members, as they are required by law to keep such records. Mo. Rev.
Stat. § 290.520; 29 U.S.C. § 211(c).
Page 17 of 37
Case 4:17-cv-00772-SWW Document 1 Filed 11/21/17 Page 17 of 40
70. There are common questions of law and fact applicable to the putative class
with respect to liability, relief, and anticipated affirmative defenses, which predominate
over any questions affecting individual members only. These factual and legal questions
include:
a. Which individuals and entities are considered "employers" of
Plaintiffs and putative class members under the MMWL;
b. Whether Plaintiffs or putative class members are bona fide
independent contractors;
c. Whether Defendants satisfied their obligation to pay Plaintiffs and
others similarly situated the minimum wage and overtime payments required by
theMMWL;
d. Whether Defendants' actions were willful;
e. Whether Defendants complied with their recordkeeping obligations
under the MMWL;
f. Whether Plaintiffs and putative class members are entitled to
liquidated damages;
g. Whether Plaintiffs and putative class members are entitled to
attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses.
71. Defendants acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to
Plaintiffs and others similarly situated.
72. Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the putative class. Like all other putative
class members, Plaintiffs were subject to Defendants' common practice of not paying
Page 18 of 37
Case 4:17-cv-00772-SWW Document 1 Filed 11/21/17 Page 18 of 40
minimum wage or overtime to which the employees were entitled under Missouri law.
This is the predominant issue that pertains to the claims of Plaintiffs and the members of
the MMWL class.
73. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the putative class.
They have no conflicts with putative class members and have suffered the same injury as
members of the putative class. Plaintiffs' counsel possesses the requisite resources and
experience in class action litigation to adequately represent Plaintiffs and putative class
members in prosecuting the claims here.
7 4. The questions of law and fact common to Plaintiffs and members of the
putative class predominate over any question affecting only individual class members,
and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
adjudication of this controversy.
VII. CLAIM I:
FLSA: FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGE
(PLAINTIFFS INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED)
75. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs as if they were
fully set forth herein.
76. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated have been
entitled to the rights, protections, and benefits provided under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§
201, et seq.
77. At all relevant times, DirecTV has been, and continues to be, an fl employer"
engaged in interstate fl commerce" and/ or in the production of fl goods" for fl commerce,"
within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203. At all relevant times, DirecTV has
Page 19 of 37
Case 4:17-cv-00772-SWW Document 1 Filed 11/21/17 Page 19 of 40
employed and/ or continues to employ /1 employee[s]," including Plaintiffs and each of
the prospective FLSA Collective Action Plaintiffs, who have been and/ or continue to be
engaged in interstate /1 commerce" and/ or in the production of /1 goods" for /1 commerce,"
within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203. At all relevant times, DirecTV has had
gross operating revenues exceeding $500,000.00.
78. At all relevant times, David Moses, both individually and as the sole
proprietor and/ or member of the Moses Defendants have been, and continue to be, an
11 employer" engaged in interstate /1 commerce" and/ or in the production of /1 goods" for
11 commerce," within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203. At all relevant times, the
Moses Defendants have employed and/ or continue to employ 11 employee[s]," including
Plaintiffs and each of the prospective FLSA Collective Action Plaintiffs, who have been
and/ or continue to be engaged in interstate /1 commerce" and/ or in the production of
11 goods" for /1 commerce," within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203. At all relevant
times, the Moses Defendants have had gross operating revenues exceeding $500,000.00.
79. At all relevant times, Defendants jointly controlled and directed the work
of Plaintiffs and the putative class members. As a result, Defendants are joint employers
of Plaintiffs and putative class members and Defendants are each directly liable for the
violations of the FLSA.
80. The FLSA requires Defendants, as covered employers, to compensate all
non-exempt employees for all hours worked at a rate not less than the minimum wage
set forth in 29 U.S.C. § 206. The minimum wage applicable to Plaintiffs and others
similarly situated is $7.25 per hour.
Page 20 of 37
Case 4:17-cv-00772-SWW Document 1 Filed 11/21/17 Page 20 of 40
81. Plaintiffs and others similarly situated are entitled to compensation for all
hours worked at a rate not less than those set out above.
82. At all relevant times, Defendants, pursuant to their policies and practices,
failed and refused to compensate Plaintiff and others similarly situated for work
performed at the minimum wage required by the FLSA.
83. Defendants violated and continue to violate the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.,
including 29 U.S.C. § 206(a)(l), by failing to pay Plaintiffs and others similarly situated
for all hours worked at the minimum wage rates prescribed therein. These violations of
the FLSA were knowing and willful within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.
84. Defendants have neither acted in good faith nor with reasonable grounds
to believe their actions and omissions were not a violation of the FLSA. As a result,
Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated employees are entitled to recover an award of
liquidated damages in an amount equal to the amount of unpaid wages as described by
Section 16(b) of the FLSA, codified at 29 U.S.C. § 215(b). Alternatively, should the Court
find Defendants acted in good faith in failing to pay its employees minimum wage,
Plaintiffs and all similarly-situated employees are entitled to an award of prejudgment
interest at the applicable legal rate.
85. Because of Defendants' violations of law, Plaintiffs and others similarly
situated are entitled to recover from Defendants attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and
court costs, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and such other legal and equitable relief as the
Court deems just and proper.
Page 21of37
Case 4:17-cv-00772-SWW Document 1 Filed 11/21/17 Page 21 of 40
VIII. CLAIM II: FLSA: FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME
(PLAINTIFFS INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED)
86. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs as if they were
fully set forth herein.
87. Section 207(a)(l) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(l), requires employers to
pay non-exempt employees one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all time
worked over forty hours per workweek.
88. Plaintiffs and those similarly situated were not exempt from the overtime
provisions of the FLSA.
89. Plaintiffs and those similarly-situated employees regularly worked in
excess of forty hours per workweek without overtime compensation from Defendants.
90. Defendants violated and continue to violate the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.,
including 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(l) by failing to pay FLSA Collective Action Plaintiffs
overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of forty each week.
91. When calculating Plaintiffs' and the putative class members' regular rate of
pay, all allowable remuneration, including all chargebacks and the monies stolen by
David Moses, must be included in the calculation.
92. Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiffs and others similarly
situated were entitled to overtime pay and knowingly and willfully violated the FLSA by
failing to pay Plaintiffs and others similarly situated overtime compensation, therefore
these violations of the FLSA were knowing and willful within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §
201 et seq.
Page 22 of 37
Case 4:17-cv-00772-SWW Document 1 Filed 11/21/17 Page 22 of 40
93. Defendants have neither acted in good faith nor with reasonable grounds
to believe their actions and omissions were not a violation of the FLSA. As a result,
Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated employees are entitled to recover an award of
liquidated damages in an amount equal to the amount of unpaid wages as described by
Section 16(b) of the FLSA, codified at 29 U.S.C. § 215(b). Alternatively, should the Court
find Defendants acted in good faith in failing to pay its employees their overtime wages,
Plaintiffs and all similarly-situated employees are entitled to an award of prejudgment
interest at the applicable legal rate.
94. Because of Defendants' violations of law, FLSA Collective Action Plaintiffs
are entitled to recover from Defendant attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and court costs,
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and such other legal and equitable relief as the Court
deems just and proper.
IX. CLAIM Ill:
AMW A: FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGE
(PLAINTIFFS INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED)
95. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs as if they were
fully set forth herein.
96. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs and putative class members were
"employees" as that term is defined by the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. Ark. Code
Ann.§ 11-4-203(3).
97. At all relevant times, David Moses, both individually and as the sole
proprietor and/ or member of the Moses Defendants, was Plaintiffs' and putative class
members' "employer" as defined by Ark. Code Ann. § 11-4-203(4). Moses and his
Page 23 of 37
Case 4:17-cv-00772-SWW Document 1 Filed 11/21/17 Page 23 of 40
business interests had 4 or more employees, and it suffered and permitted Plaintiffs and
putative class members to work as satellite installation technicians for his business
enterprises. Plaintiffs and putative class members were economically dependent on the
Moses Defendants, who controlled and supervised their work and employment
conditions. As a result, the Moses Defendants are jointly and severally liable for Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act violations committed against Plaintiffs and putative class members.
98. At all relevant times, DirecTV, LLC was also Plaintiffs' and putative class
members' "employer" as defined by Ark. Code Ann. § 11-4-203(4). DirecTV, LLC had 4
or more employees, and it suffered and permitted Plaintiffs and putative class members
to work as satellite installation technicians for its business enterprise. Plaintiffs and
putative class members were economically dependent on DirecTV, LLC, who controlled
and supervised their work and employment conditions. As a result, DirecTV, LLC is
jointly and severally liable for Arkansas Minimum Wage Act violations committed
against Plaintiffs and putative class members.
99. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-4-210(a) provides that "beginning October 1, 2006,
every employer shall pay each of his or her employees wages at the rate of not less than
six dollars and twenty-five cents ($6.25) per hour except as otherwise provided in this
subchapter. Beginning January 1, 2015, every employer shall pay his or her employees
wages at the rate of not less than seven dollars and fifty cents ($7.50) per hour, beginning
January 1, 2016, the rate of not less than eight dollars ($8.00) per hour, and beginning
January 1, 2017, the rate of not less than eight dollars and fifty cents ($8.50) per hour,
except as otherwise provided in this subchapter." Ark. Code Ann.§ 11-4-210(a)(l)-(2).
Page24 of 37
Case 4:17-cv-00772-SWW Document 1 Filed 11/21/17 Page 24 of 40
100. At all relevant times, Defendants, failed and refused to compensate
Plaintiffs and putative class members for work performed at the rates required by Ark.
Code Ann. § 11-4-210. Although Plaintiffs and putative class members worked for
Defendants installing and repairing satellite services, they were not paid at least the
minimum wage and were not paid overtime when working more than 40 hours per week.
Plaintiffs and putative class members did not fit under any exemption to the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act's minimum wage and maximum hours provisions, and it is
Defendants' burden to prove any such claimed exemptions.
101. Plaintiffs and putative class members are entitled to minimum wage for
working for Defendants installing and repairing satellite services.
102. Upon information and belief, Defendants failed to make, keep, and
preserve records with respect to each of its employees sufficient to determine their wages,
hours, and other conditions and practices of employment, in violation of Ark. Code Ann.
§ 11-4-217. As a result, Plaintiffs and putative class members are entitled to damages
based on a just and reasonable inference of the unpaid hours worked. Marine Servs.
Unlimited v. Rakes, 323 Ark. 757, 767, 918 S.W.2d 132, 137 (1996) (citing Anderson v. Mt.
Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 688 (1946)).
103. Defendants' violations entitle Plaintiffs and putative class members to
liquidated damages pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-4-218(a)(2) in an amount equal to
their unpaid overtime wages.
Page 25 of 37
Case 4:17-cv-00772-SWW Document 1 Filed 11/21/17 Page 25 of 40
104. Plaintiffs and putative class members are entitled to an award of attorneys'
fees, costs, and expenses in bringing their Arkansas Minimum Wage Act claims pursuant
to Ark. Code Ann.§ 11-4-218(a)(1)(B)(ii).
X.CLAIMIV:
AMW A: FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME
(PLAINTIFFS INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED)
105. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs as if they were
fully set forth herein.
106. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs and putative class members were
"employees" as that term is defined by the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. Ark. Code
Ann.§ 11-4-203(3).
107. At all relevant times, David Moses, both individually and as the sole
proprietor and/ or member of the Moses Defendants, was Plaintiffs' and putative class
members' "employer" as defined by Ark. Code Ann. § 11-4-203(4). Moses and his
business interests had 4 or more employees, and it suffered and permitted Plaintiffs and
putative class members to work as satellite installation technicians for his business
enterprises. Plaintiffs and putative class members were economically dependent on the
Moses Defendants, who controlled and supervised their work and employment
conditions. As a result, the Moses Defendants are jointly and severally liable for Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act violations committed against Plaintiffs and putative class members.
108. At all relevant times, DirecTV, LLC was also Plaintiffs' and putative class
members' "employer" as defined by Ark. Code Ann.§ 11-4-203(4). DirecTV, LLC had 4
or more employees, and it suffered and permitted Plaintiffs and putative class members
Page 26 of 37
Case 4:17-cv-00772-SWW Document 1 Filed 11/21/17 Page 26 of 40
to work as satellite installation technicians for its business enterprise. Plaintiffs and
putative class members were economically dependent on DirecTV, LLC, who controlled
and supervised their work and employment conditions. As a result, DirecTV, LLC is
jointly and severally liable for Arkansas Minimum Wage Act violations committed
against Plaintiffs and putative class members.
109. Ark. Code Ann.§ 11-4-211(a) provides that "no employer shall employ any
of his or her employees for a work week longer than forty (40) hours unless the employee
receives compensation for his or her employment in excess of the hours above specified
at a rate not less than one and one-half (1 V2) times the regular rate of pay at which he or
she is employed."
110. When calculating Plaintiffs' and the putative class members' regular rate of
pay, all allowable remuneration, including all chargebacks and the monies stolen by
David Moses, must be included in the calculation.
111. At all relevant times, Defendants failed and refused to compensate
Plaintiffs and the putative class members for work performed at the rate required by Ark.
Code Ann.§ 11-4-211. Although Plaintiffs and the putative class members worked more
than 40 hours nearly every week, they were never paid overtime compensation. Plaintiffs
and the putative class members did not fit under any exemption to the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act's minimum wage and maximum hours provisions, and it is
Defendants' burden to prove any such claimed exemptions.
Page27 of 37
Case 4:17-cv-00772-SWW Document 1 Filed 11/21/17 Page 27 of 40
112. Plaintiffs and the putative class members are entitled to overtime
compensation for the time period where they worked as satellite installation technicians
because they were required to work more than 40 hours per week.
113. Upon information and belief, Defendants failed to make, keep, and
preserve records with respect to each of its employees sufficient to determine their wages,
hours, and other conditions and practices of employment, in violation of Ark. Code Ann.
§ 11-4-217. As a result, Plaintiffs and the putative class members are entitled to damages
based on a just and reasonable inference of the unpaid hours worked. Marine Seros.
Unlimited v. Rakes, 323 Ark. 757, 767, 918 S.W.2d 132, 137 (1996) (citing Anderson v. Mt.
Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 688 (1946)).
114. Defendants' violations entitle Plaintiffs and the putative class members to
liquidated damages pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.§ 11-4-218(a)(2) in an amount equal to
their unpaid overtime wages.
115. Plaintiffs and the putative class members are entitled to an award of
attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses in bringing their Arkansas Minimum Wage Act
claims pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.§ 11-4-218(a)(l)(B)(ii).
Xl.CLAIMV:
MMWL: FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGE
(PLAINTIFFS INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED)
116. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs as if they were
fully set forth herein.
Page 28 of 37
Case 4:17-cv-00772-SWW Document 1 Filed 11/21/17 Page 28 of 40
117. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs and putative class members were
"employees" as that term is defined by the Missouri Minimum Wage Law. Mo. Rev. Stat.
§ 290.500(3).
118. At all relevant times, David Moses, both individually and as the sole
proprietor and/ or member of the Moses Defendants, was Plaintiffs' and putative class
members' "employer" as defined by Mo. Rev. Stat. § 290.500(4). Upon information and
belief, Moses and his business interests had more than $500,000 in annual gross sales, and
it suffered and permitted Plaintiffs and putative class members to work as satellite
installation technicians for his business enterprises. Plaintiffs and putative class members
were economically dependent on the Moses Defendants, who controlled and supervised
their work and employment conditions. As a result, the Moses Defendants are jointly and
severally liable for the Missouri Minimum Wage Law violations committed against
Plaintiffs and putative class members.
119. At all relevant times, DirecTV, LLC was also Plaintiffs' and putative class
members' "employer" as defined by Mo. Rev. Stat. § 290.500(4). Upon information and
belief, DirecTV, LLC had more than $500,000 in annual gross sales, and it suffered and
permitted Plaintiffs and putative class members to work as satellite installation
technicians for its business enterprise. Plaintiffs and putative class members were
economically dependent on DirecTV, LLC, who controlled and supervised their work
and employment conditions. As a result, DirecTV, LLC is jointly and severally liable for
the Missouri Minimum Wage Law violations committed against Plaintiffs and putative
class members.
Page 29 of 37
Case 4:17-cv-00772-SWW Document 1 Filed 11/21/17 Page 29 of 40
120. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 290.502 provides that, effective January 1, 2007, the
minimum wage is $6.50 per hour, and the minimum wage shall be increased or decreased
on the first day of the year by the increase or decrease in the cost of living. In 2013, the
minimum wage was $7.35 per hour. In 2014, the minimum wage was $7.50 per hour. In
2015, the minimum wage was $7.65 per hour. In 2016, the minimum wage was $7.65 per
hour. In 2017, the minimum wage is $7.70 per hour.
121. At all relevant times, Defendants, failed and refused to compensate
Plaintiffs and putative class members for work performed at the rates required by Mo.
Rev. Stat. § 290.502. Although Plaintiffs and putative class members worked for
Defendants installing and repairing satellite services, they were not paid at least the
minimum wage and were not paid overtime when working more than 40 hours per week.
Plaintiffs and putative class members did not fit under any exemption to the Missouri
Minimum Wage Law's minimum wage and maximum hours provisions, and it is
Defendants' burden to prove any such claimed exemptions.
122. Plaintiffs and putative class members are entitled to minimum wage for
working for Defendants installing and repairing satellite services.
123. Upon information and belief, Defendants failed to make, keep, and
preserve records with respect to each of its employees sufficient to determine their wages,
hours, and other conditions and practices of employment, in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. §
290.520. As a result, Plaintiffs and putative class members are entitled to damages based
on a just and reasonable inference of the unpaid hours worked.
Page 30 of 37
Case 4:17-cv-00772-SWW Document 1 Filed 11/21/17 Page 30 of 40
124. Defendants' violations entitle Plaintiffs and putative class members to
liquidated damages pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. § 290.527 in an amount equal to their
unpaid overtime wages.
125. Plaintiffs and putative class members are entitled to an award of attorneys'
fees, costs, and expenses in bringing their Missouri Minimum Wage Law claims pursuant
to Mo. Rev. Stat. § 290.527.
XII. CLAIM VI:
MMWL: FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME
(PLAINTIFFS INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED)
126. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs as if they were
fully set forth herein.
127. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs and putative class members were
"employees" as that term is defined by the Missouri Minimum Wage Law. Mo. Rev. Stat.
§ 290.500(3).
128. At all relevant times, David Moses, both individually and as the sole
proprietor and/ or member of the Moses Defendants, was Plaintiffs' and putative class
members' "employer" as defined by Mo. Rev. Stat.§ 290.500(4). Upon information and
belief, Moses and his business interests had more than $500,000 in annual gross sales, and
it suffered and permitted Plaintiffs and putative class members to work as satellite
installation technicians for his business enterprises. Plaintiffs and putative class members
were economically dependent on the Moses Defendants, who controlled and supervised
their work and employment conditions. As a result, the Moses Defendants are jointly and
Page 31of37
Case 4:17-cv-00772-SWW Document 1 Filed 11/21/17 Page 31 of 40
severally liable for the Missouri Minimum Wage Law violations committed against
Plaintiffs and putative class members.
129. At all relevant times, DirecTV, LLC was also Plaintiffs' and putative class
members' "employer" as defined by Mo. Rev. Stat.§ 290.500(4). Upon information and
belief, DirecTV, LLC had more than $500,000 in annual gross sales, and it suffered and
permitted Plaintiffs and putative class members to work as satellite installation
technicians for its business enterprise. Plaintiffs and putative class members were
economically dependent on DirecTV, LLC, who controlled and supervised their work
and employment conditions. As a result, DirecTV, LLC is jointly and severally liable for
the Missouri Minimum Wage Law violations committed against Plaintiffs and putative
class members.
130. Mo. Rev. Stat.§ 290.505 provides that "no employer shall employ any of his
employees for a workweek longer than forty hours unless such employee receives
compensation for his employment in excess of the hours above specified at a rate not less
than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed."
131. When calculating Plaintiffs' and the putative class members' regular rate of
pay, all allowable remuneration, including all chargebacks and the monies stolen by
David Moses, must be included in the calculation.
132. At all relevant times, Defendants failed and refused to compensate
Plaintiffs and the putative class members for work performed at the rate required by Mo.
Rev. Stat. § 290.505. Although Plaintiffs and the putative class members worked more
than 40 hours nearly every week, they were never paid overtime compensation. Plaintiffs
Page 32 of 37
Case 4:17-cv-00772-SWW Document 1 Filed 11/21/17 Page 32 of 40
and the putative class members did not fit under any exemption to the Missouri
Minimum Wage Law's minimum wage and maximum hours provisions, and it is
Defendants' burden to prove any such claimed exemptions.
133. Plaintiffs and the putative class members are entitled to overtime
compensation for the time period where they worked as satellite installation technicians
because they were required to work more than 40 hours per week.
134. Upon information and belief, Defendants failed to make, keep, and
preserve records with respect to each of its employees sufficient to determine their wages,
hours, and other conditions and practices of employment, in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. §
290.520. As a result, Plaintiffs and the putative class members are entitled to damages
based on a just and reasonable inference of the unpaid hours worked.
135. Defendants' violations entitle Plaintiffs and the putative class members to
liquidated damages pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. § 290.527 in an amount equal to their
unpaid overtime wages.
136. Plaintiffs and the putative class members are entitled to an award of
attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses in bringing their Missouri Minimum Wage Law
claims pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. § 290.527.
XIII. CLAIM VII:
CONVERSION
(PLAINTIFFS INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED AGAINST THE MOSES DEFENDANTS ONLY)
137. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs as if they were
fully set forth herein.
Page 33 of 37
Case 4:17-cv-00772-SWW Document 1 Filed 11/21/17 Page 33 of 40
--138. ..Plaintiffs and the putative class members are entitled to payment of their
wages owed. Plaintiffs performed services for the Moses Defendants and were entitled
to compensation for those services.
139. Instead of paying Plaintiffs and the putative class members for their labor,
the Moses Defendants regularly stole money from them. The Moses Defendants would
fraudulently assert charge backs against Plaintiffs and the putative class members. For
example, if DirecTV charged back $25.00 because a customer experienced an installation
problem, the Moses Defendants would charge the Plaintiffs and putative class members
$50.00, or some other, higher amount than what DirecTV charged.
140. Moreover, initially the Moses Defendants implemented a 5-week holdback
period in which the Company would retain a technician's pay for 5 weeks before the
technician would be paid. Under this model, 5 weeks of a technician's pay would be held
by the Company until the technician's employment ended. Within the relevant time
period, the Moses Defendants changed to a 2-week holdback period, meaning 3-weeks'
pay was no longer being held back by the Company. Rather than paying the employees
the 3-weeks' pay, Moses kept all of the money, pocketing thousands of dollars of
Plaintiffs' and putative class members' money.
141. As a result, the Moses Defendants intentionally took or exercised dominion
or control over Plaintiffs' and the putative class members' property in violation of their
rights.
142. Plaintiffs and the putative class members regularly complained to David
Moses and other management of the Moses Defendants about not receiving the pay to
Page 34 of 37
Case 4:17-cv-00772-SWW Document 1 Filed 11/21/17 Page 34 of 40
which they were entitled. Their complaints were met with lies, delay, and empty
promises.
143. The Moses Defendants acted with malice or in reckless disregard of the
consequences of retaining Plaintiffs' and the putative class members' wages.
144. Plaintiffs and the putative class members are entitled to the wages
wrongfully converted by the Moses Defendants, interest, and punitive damages.
XIV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the classes of similarly
situated individuals they seek to represent, respectfully request this Court:
a. Enter an order certifying Plaintiffs' claims brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act for treatment as a collective action;
b. Enter an order certifying Plaintiffs' claims brought under the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act for treatment as a class action;
c. Enter an order certifying Plaintiffs' claims brought under the Missouri
Minimum Wage Law for treatment as a class action;
d. Designate Plaintiffs as Class Representatives;
e. Appoint Holleman & Associates, P.A. as class counsel;
f. Enter a declaratory judgment that the practices complained of herein are
unlawful under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, and
Missouri Minimum Wage Law;
g. Enter a permanent injunction restraining and preventing Defendants from
withholding the compensation that is due to their employees, from retaliating against
Page 35 of 37
Case 4:17-cv-00772-SWW Document 1 Filed 11/21/17 Page 35 of 40
any of them for taking part in this action, and from further violating their rights under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, and Missouri Minimum
Wage Law;
h. Enter an Order for complete and accurate accounting of all the
compensation to which Plaintiffs and all other similarly-situated employees are entitled;
i. Award Plaintiffs and all putative class members compensatory damages in
an amount equal to the unpaid back wages at the applicable minimum wage and
overtime rates from three (3) years prior to this lawsuit through the date of trial;
j. Award Plaintiffs and all putative class members liquidated damages in an
amount equal to their compensatory damages;
k. Award Plaintiffs and all putative class members punitive damages;
I. Award Plaintiffs and all putative class members all recoverable costs,
expenses, and attorneys' fees incurred in prosecuting this action and all claims, together
with all applicable interest; and
m. Grant Plaintiffs and all putative class members all such further relief as the
Court deems just and appropriate.
XV. JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs demand a jury trial on all issues so triable.
Page 36 of 37
Case 4:17-cv-00772-SWW Document 1 Filed 11/21/17 Page 36 of 40
. ,,
HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1008 West Second Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Tel. 501.975.5040 Fax 501. 975.5043
R~lly Su::?'=:. / / ~-~ ~
John Holleihan, ABN 91056 [email protected] Timothy A. Steadman, ABN 2009113 [email protected] Jerry Garner, ABN 2014134 [email protected]
Page 37 of 37
Case 4:17-cv-00772-SWW Document 1 Filed 11/21/17 Page 37 of 40
SKY CONNECT, ENDEAVOR COMMUNICATIONS, MOSES HOLDINGS, LLC, MOSES PROPERTIES, LLC, MOSES CAPITAL GROUP, LLC, and DAVID MOSES
CONSEN'i TO JOIN COLLECTIVE ACTION
I consent to join the action as a Plaintiff against the above-referenced Defendants or any
, )ther hdividual or entity who may be liable as an employer under the Fair Labor
Sta •·1d.ards Act. If this case does not proceed collectively, I also consent to join any subsequent
action to assert the same or similar claims. I consent to becoming a party Plaintiff to this lawsuit,
to be represented by HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A. and to be bound by any settlement of
thiA action or adjudication of the court.
Consenled to on this _ __.__ Oc 1-, 2017
EXHIBIT
I A
Case 4:17-cv-00772-SWW Document 1 Filed 11/21/17 Page 38 of 40
l . 1
I l . . I I : ~· CLEAR SATELLITE, INC., SKY CONNEC ENDE VOR COMMUNICATIONS,
MOSES·HOLDINGS, LLC, MOSES PROPER .IES, LLC, MOSES CAPITAL GROUP, LLC, and DAVID MOSES
CONSENT TO JOIN COLILECTIVE ACTION
I consent to join the action as a Plaintiff against the above~referenced Defendants or I
I . any ;other individual or entity who may be liable as an employer under the Fair Labor
Sta~dards Act. If this case does not procee~ collectively, I also consent to join any ' ,'
subd~quent action to assert the same or similar cla\\ris. I consent to becor:ning a party Plaintiff ! ·,
to thts lawsuit. to be represented by HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIAtEs, PA and to be bound by any
settl~ment of this action or adjudication of the court.
Con$ented to on this Htr: day of ex;t-6 bP v ' 2017
Ii
PrintNam~ !C.h&a //VlOJcl{
'1YJ.m~ , Sign?tureb'i(/ ___ _
Jo/1ttm_ Date . /
; ~
I!
EXHIBIT
I B
Case 4:17-cv-00772-SWW Document 1 Filed 11/21/17 Page 39 of 40
SKY CONNECT, ENDEAVOR.COMMUNICATIONS. DAVID MOSES, MOSES HOLDINGS, LLC, MOSES PROPER.TIES, LLC and MOSES CAPITAL GROUP, LLC
CONSENT TO JOIN COTJLECTIVE ACTION
I coru;;Emt to join the action a5 a Plaintiff against the above-referenced Defendants or any
other individual or entity who may be liable a.s an employer. under the Fair Labor
Standards Act If this case does not proceed collectively, I also consent to join any subsequent
action to assert the same or similar claims. 1 consent to becoming a party Plaintiff to this lawsuit,
to be represented by HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A. and to be bound by any settlement of
this action or adjudication of the court.
Consented to on this 13-f"h day of n/JWM bf,(' . 2017
fVI u, IMc f 11« I I
~~"}di Si a.ture
LJ I 13/r1 Date
I• '
EXHIBIT
I c
Case 4:17-cv-00772-SWW Document 1 Filed 11/21/17 Page 40 of 40
I
I
JS 44 (Rev. 06/17) CIVIL COVER SHEET tj-: 11<!.. V ~ZJ,-$4.1 ~ The 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 as provided 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 the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS David Pointer, Michael Monday, and Michael Hall
DEFENDANTS DirecTV, LLC, David Moses, Moses Capital Group, LLC, and Moses Holdings, LLC
(b) County of Residence ofFirst Listed Plaintiff Lonoke County (ABl_ __ . (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
County of Residence ofFirst Listed Defendant Los Angeles County (C~l_ (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
( C) Attorneys (Fimt Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
Holleman & Associates, P.A, 1008 West Second Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201; 501-975-5040
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
Attorneys ({(Known)
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Placean "X"inOneBoxOnlyJ III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an "X" in One Box/or Plaintiff
01 U.S. Government ~3 Federal Question
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party)
0 2 U.S. Government 04 Diversity Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item Ill)
IV. NATURE OF SUIT - - - ·--- ---- -- - --- ,- ----- - -- --- - --- - _._ - ... ,,, CONTRACT TORTS ,,.,, ... ·<.
0 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 0 120 Marine LJ 310 Airplane 0 365 Personal Injury -0 130 Miller Act CJ 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 0 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 0 367 Health Care/ 0 150 Recovery of Overpayment :J 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury D 151 Medicare Act '1 330 Federal Employers' Product Liability 0 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 0 368 Asbestos Personal
Student Loans D 340 Marine Injury Product (Excludes Veterans) D 345 Marine Product Liability
0 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY of Veteran's Benefits D 350 Motor Vehicle 0 370 Other Fraud
0 160 Stockholders' Suits 0 355 Motor Vehicle 0 371 Truth in Lending 0 190 Other Contract Product Liability 0 380 Other Personal 0 195 Contract Product Liability CJ 360 Other Personal Property Damage 0 196 Franchise Injury 0 385 Property Damage
0 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Medical Malpractice
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 0 210 Land Condemnation D 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: ii ·220 Foreclosure CJ 441 Voting 0 463 Alien Detainee 0 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 0 442 Employment 0 510 Motions to Vacate 0 240 Torts to Land 0 443 Housing/ Sentence 0 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 0 530 General 0 290 All Other Real Property 0 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 0 535 Death Penalty
Employment Other: D 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 0 540 Mandamus & Other
Other D 550 Civil Rights D 448 Education D 555 Prison Condition
D 560 Civil Detainee -Conditions of Confinement
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box/or Defendant) PTF DEF PTF DEF
Citizen of This State 0 I 0 l Incorporated or Principal Place 0 4 0 4
Citizen of Another State
Citizen or Subject of a Forehm Count
FORFEITURE/PENAL TY
0 625 Drug Related Seizure of Property 21USC881
0 690 Other
l.ABOR ~ 710 Fair Labor Standards
Act 0 720 Labor/Management
Relations D 740 Railway Labor Act 0 75 l Family and Medical
Leave Act 0 790 Other Labor Litigation
D 791 Employee Retirement Income Security Act
·IMMIGRATION
of Business In This State
0 2 0 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 0 5 0 5 of Business In Another State
0 3 0 3 Foreign Nation 0 6 0 6
Click here for: N ------ fSuitCode D BANKRUPTCY OTHERSTATll'fES
0 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 0 375 False Claims Act 0 423 Withdrawal 0 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
28 use 151 3729(a)) 0 400 State Reapportionment
PROPERTY RfGlITS 0 410 Antitrust 0 820 Copyrights 0 430 Banks and Banking D 830 Patent 0 450 Commerce 0 835 Patent - Abbreviated 0 460 Deportation
New Drug Application 0 470 Racketeer Influenced and 0 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
SO"IAL . 0 480 Consumer Credit 0 861 HIA (1395ff) 0 490 Cable/Sat TV D 862 Black Lung (923) 0 850 Securities/Commodities/ 0 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange n 864 SSID Title XVI CJ 890 Other Statutory Actions 0 865 RSI (405(g)) 0 891 Agricultural Acts
0 893 Environmental Matters 0 895 Freedom oflnfonnation
FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act CJ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff CJ 896 Arbitration
or Defendant) 0 899 Administrative Procedure 0 871 IRS-Third Party Act/Review or Appeal of
26 USC 7609 Agency Decision 0 950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes 0 462 Naturalization Application 0 465 Other Immigration
Actions
I
V. ORIGIN (Placean "X"inOneBoxOn/y)
Jl( I Original 0 2 Removed from Proceeding State Court
0 3 Remanded from Appellate Court
0 4 Reinstated or Reopened
0 5 Transferred from Another District (specify)
0 6 Multidistrict Litigation -Transfer
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
0 8 Multidistrict Litigation -
Direct File
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION i-=l 2=-=9c..::U::..:·.:::.S:..::.C:..:... .. .:c20::..;1c..::e::..:t...::;s=.:eq,__ ___________________________ _ Bnef descnphon of cause:
VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY
DATE
11/21/2017 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Claim for statutorv minimum waae and overtime violations; claim for converted waaes i5i CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: ~Yes ONo
(See instructions): JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
'RECEIPT# AMOUNT APPL YING IFP JUDGE MAG.JUDGE
Case 4:17-cv-00772-SWW Document 1-1 Filed 11/21/17 Page 1 of 1
ClassAction.orgThis complaint is part of ClassAction.org's searchable class action lawsuit database and can be found in this post: DirecTV Satellite Technicians File Multi-Count Wage and Hour Lawsuit [UPDATE]