Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 06/29/12 Page 1 of 10 PageID 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
BILLY SCHUMANN, an individual, and DUSTIN
ABRAHAM, an individual, ON BEHALF OF
THEMSELVES AND OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED,
Plaintiffs,
vs. CASE NO.:
2DI2JUN29 Pf-1 l=ZO
COLLECTIVE ACTION
COLLIER ANESTHESIA, P.A., a Florida
corporation, WOLFORD COLLEGE, LLC, a
Florida limited liability company, THOMAS L.
COOK, an individual, and LYNDA M.
WATERHOUSE, an individual,
Defendants.
_____________________________ ./
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs, Billy Schumann ("Schumann"), and Dustin Abraham ("Abraham")
(collectively ''Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, hereby sue
Defendants, Collier Anesthesia, P.A. ("Collier Anesthesia"), Wolford College, LLC
("'Wolford"), Thomas L. Cook ("Cook"), and Lynda M. Waterhouse ("Waterhouse")
(collectively "Defendants"), and allege as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. This is an action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act of 1938, as
amended, 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq. C'FLSA") to recover unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid
minimum wage compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs owed to
Plaintiffs and others similarly situated.
Page I of 10
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 06/29/12 Page 2 of 10 PageID 2
2. Defendants had a policy and practice of not compensating employees for hours
worked at a rate at least commensurate with the federal minimum wage, and requiring or
permitting employees to work in excess of forty ( 40) hours in each workweek without paying
them time and one half overtime compensation as required by the FLSA.
3. Pursuant to the FLSA, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, seek overtime compensation, minimum wage compensation, liquidated damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs from Defendants.
4. Subsequent to the filing of this action, Plaintiffs will request this Court to
authorize concurrent notice to all employees similarly situated to Plaintiffs who are or were
employed by Defendants, informing them of the pendency of this action and their right to opt
into this lawsuit pursuant to 29 U .S.C. 216(b ).
JURISTDICTION AND VENUE
5. This Court has jurisdiction over this claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 216 and 28
u.s.c. 1331.
6. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 133l(b), as the events or
omissions giving rise to the claims alleged herein occurred in the Middle District of Florida, Fort
Myers Division.
PARTIES
7. At all times pertinent, Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in the Middle District of
Florida, Fort Myers Division.
8. Defendant Collier Anesthesia was and is a Florida Profit Corporation conducting
business in the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, and subject to the requirements
ofthe FLSA.
Page 2 of 10
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 06/29/12 Page 3 of 10 PageID 3
9. Defendant Wolford was and is a Florida Limited Liability Company conducting
business in the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division and subject to the requirements of
the FLSA.
I 0. Defendant Collier Anesthesia and Defendant Wolford have interrelation of
operations; centralized control of labor relations; common management; and common ownership
or financial control. As such, for FLSA purposes, Defendant Collier Anesthesia and Defendant
Wolford represent a single, integrated enterprise.
I I. Defendant Cook was and is an individual who operated Defendant Collier
Anesthesia and Defendant Wolford, and who regularly exercised the authority to: (a) hire and
fire employees; (b) determine the work schedules for employees; and (c) control finances and
operations. By virtue of having regularly exercised that authority on behalf of Defendant Collier
Anesthesia/Defendant Wolford and over Plaintiffs, Defendant Cook is an employer as defined by
29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.
I 2. Defendant Waterhouse was and is an individual who operated Defendant Collier
Anesthesia and Defendant Wolford, and who regularly exercised the authority to: (a) hire and
fire employees; (b) determine the work schedules for employees; and (c) control finances and
operations. By virtue of having regularly exercised that authority on behalf of Defendant Collier
Anesthesia/Defendant Wolford and over Plaintiffs, Defendant Waterhouse is an employer as
defined by 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.
13. At all times material, Plaintiffs were employees of Defendants pursuant to 29
U.S.C. 203(e)(l); Defendants were the employer of Plaintiffs within the meaning of 29 U.S.C.
203(a) and (d); and Defendants employed Plaintiffs within the meaning of29 U.S.C. 203(g).
Page 3 of 10
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 06/29/12 Page 4 of 10 PageID 4
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
14. Plaintiffs and others similarly situated worked for Defendants at Defendant
Collier Anesthesia. Defendant Collier Anesthesia employed Plaintiffs and others similarly
situated as interns. As interns, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated worked for Defendants at
Defendant Collier Anesthesia performing the work of nurse anesthetists.
15. Defendants provided no monetary compensation to Plaintiffs and others similarly
situated for the work performed.
16. At all times pertinent, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were/are registered
nurses.
17. Nurses service the medical profession.
18. At all times pertinent, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated did not and do not
have a valid license or certificate to practice medicine.
19. At all times pertinent, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated did not and do not
have the requisite academic degree for the general practice of medicine. Plaintiffs and others
similarly situated also did not and do not have the requisite degree to work as nurse anesthetists.
20. As interns working for Defendants, Plaintiffs were serving the medical profession.
21. Nurse anesthetists service the medical profession.
22. Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were not licensed and practicing in the field
of medical science and healing, or any of the medical specialties practiced by physicians or
practitioners.
23. In the course of their work, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were directly
engaged in the operations of Defendant Collier Anesthesia, and were scheduled for work based
on the staffing needs of Defendant Collier Anesthesia.
Page 4 of 10
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 06/29/12 Page 5 of 10 PageID 5
24. In the course of their work, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated performed
productive work for Defendant Collier Anesthesia.
25. In the course of their work, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated performed the
routine work of Defendant Collier Anesthesia on a regular and recurring basis.
26. Defendant Collier Anesthesia is dependent upon the work of interns, like
Plaintiffs and others similarly situated for its normal daily operations.
27. Plaintiffs and others similarly situated worked for Defendants for Defendants'
benefit.
28. Defendants employed interns like Plaintiffs and others similarly situated as
substitutes for regular workers, and/or to augment its existing workforce during specific time
periods.
29. If Defendant Collier Anesthesia did not use interns like Plaintiff and others
similarly situated, Defendants would need to hire additional employees to perform the work of
the interns.
30. In working for Defendants, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated received the
same level of supervision as Defendant Collier Anesthesia's regular workforce.
31. Defendants derived an immediate advantage from the work of Plaintiffs and
others similarly situated for Collier Anesthesia.
32. Plaintiffs and others similarly situated performed duties as employees of
Defendants such that they did not satisfy the requirements for any of the exemptions set forth in
the FLSA.
Page 5 of 10
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 06/29/12 Page 6 of 10 PageID 6
33. As Plaintiffs and others similarly situated did not receive compensation for their
hours worked, their manner of compensation did not, and does not, satisfy the salary basis test
necessary for any exemptions of the FLSA to apply.
34. Plaintiffs and others similarly situated are not exempt from the FLSA's salary-
basis test.
35. Plaintiffs and others similarly situated regularly worked over forty (40) hours in a
workweek while employed by Defendants.
36. Despite working more than forty (40) hours in a workweek, Plaintiffs and others
similarly situated did not receive appropriate overtime compensation under the FLSA.
37. Plaintiffs and others similarly situated also did not receive compensation for hours
worked at a rate at least commensurate with the federal minimum wage. In fact, Plaintiffs and
others similarly situated received no payment whatsoever for hours worked.
38. Upon information and belief, there are numerous persons similarly situated to
Plaintiffs who are and were employed as interns by Defendant Collier Anesthesia who work in
excess of forty ( 40) hours in a workweek without receiving compensation for hours worked.
39. Upon information and belief, the records to the extent any exist, concerning the
number of hours worked and amounts to be paid to Plaintiffs and others similarly situated are in
the possession and custody of Defendants.
COUNT I
(MINIMUM WAGE- PLAINTIFFS)
40. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves, hereby incorporate by reference the allegations
contained within paragraphs I through 39 above.
41. Plaintiff Schumann worked as an intern for Defendants from approximately
February 2011 through May 2012.
Page 6 of 10
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 06/29/12 Page 7 of 10 PageID 7
42. Plaintiff Abraham worked as an intern for Defendants from approximately
October 20 II through January 2012.
43. Defendants' failure to compensate Plaintiffs at a rate at least commensurate with
the federal minimum wage constitutes a violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 206.
44. Defendants' violations of the FLSA were knowing and willful.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that this Court:
a. accept jurisdiction over this action;
b. award damages for the amount required to provide Plaintiffs minimum wage for
all hours worked and overtime compensation for all overtime hours worked;
c. award liquidated damages, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 215(b), in an amount equal to
the overtime compensation owed to Plaintiffs;
d. award post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 29
u.s.c. 216(b);
e. authorize the issuance of notice at the earliest possible time to all employees
similarly situated to Plaintiffs who were employed by Defendants during the
Liability Period; and
f. award all other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT II
(OVERTIME- PLAINTIFFS)
45. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves, hereby incorporate by reference the allegations
contained within paragraphs I through 39 above.
46. Plaintiff Schumann worked as an intern for Defendants from approximately
February 20 II through May 2012.
Page 7 of 10
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 06/29/12 Page 8 of 10 PageID 8
4 7. Plaintiff Abraham worked as an intern for Defendants from approximately
October 2011 through January 2012.
48. Defendants' failure to provide Plaintiffs overtime compensation at a rate not less
than one and one-half ( 1 and 1/2) times the regular rate for hours worked over forty ( 40) in a
workweek constitutes a violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 207.
49. Defendants' violations of the FLSA were knowing and willful.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that this Court:
a. accept jurisdiction over this action;
b. award damages for the amount of unpaid overtime compensation owed to
Plaintiffs;
c. award liquidated damages, pursuant to 29 U .S.C. 215(b ), in an amount equal to
the overtime compensation owed to Plaintiffs;
d. award post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 29
u.s.c. 216(b);
e. authorize the issuance of notice at the earliest possible time to all employees
similarly situated to Plaintiffs who were employed by Defendants during the
Liability Period; and
f. award all other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT III
(MINIMUM WAGE- OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED TO PLAINTIFFS)
50. Plaintiffs, on behalf others similarly situated, hereby incorporate by reference all
allegations contained in paragraphs I through 39 above as if fully restated herein.
Page 8 of10
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 06/29/12 Page 9 of 10 PageID 9
51. Defendants' failure to compensate employees similarly situated to Plaintiffs
commensurate with the federal minimum wage constitutes a violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C.
206.
52. Defendants' violations of the FLSA were knowing and willful.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, respectfully request on behalf of others similarly situated to
Plaintiffs that this Court:
a. accept jurisdiction over this action;
b. award damages for the amount required to provide them minimum wage
for all hours worked and overtime compensation for all overtime hours
worked;
c. award liquidated damages, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(b), in an amount
equal to the overtime compensation owed to them;
d. award post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(b); and
e. award all other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT IV
(OVERTIME- OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED TO PLAINTIFFS)
53. Plaintiffs, on behalf others similarly situated, hereby incorporate by reference all
allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 39 above as if fully restated herein.
54. Defendants' failure to provide to employees similarly situated to Plaintiffs
overtime compensation at a rate not less than one and one-half(l and 1/2) times their regular rate
for hours worked over forty (40) in a workweek constitutes a violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C.
207.
55. Defendants' violations of the FLSA were knowing and willful.
Page 9 of 10
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 06/29/12 Page 10 of 10 PageID 10
..
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, respectfully request on behalf of others similarly situated to
Plaintiffs that this Court:
a. accept jurisdiction over this action;
b. award damages for the amount of unpaid overtime compensation owed to
them;
c. award liquidated damages, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(b), in an amount
equal to the overtime compensation owed to them;
d. award post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(b); and
e. award all other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs do hereby demand a Jury Trial on all issues and claims so triable.
Bradley P. Rothman, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 0677345
WELDON & ROTHMAN, PL
7935 Airport-Pulling Road N., Suite 205
Naples, Florida 341 09
Tel: (239) 262-2141
Fax: (239) 262-2342
Email: brothman@weldonrothman.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Page 10 of 10
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-SPC Document 1-1 Filed 06/29/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID 11
CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil CO\'Crsheet and the infornution contained herein neither replace nor supplemmtthe filing and service of pleadngs or other papers as required by Jaw, except as pDvided
by local rules of coun. This form. approved by the Judicial Conference ofthe United States inSeptember 1974, is required for tne use of the Clerk of O:>un for the purpose of mitiating
the CIVIl docket sheet !SEE I.V:.TRUL 7IO.VS ON NE.\T I'AC iE 01-" TillS FOR.\()
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
Billy Schumann and Dustin Abraham, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff
tli.'iC 'f.PT IN/ IS. I'!JUWI/-"1-" c 'ASESJ
DEFENDANTS
Collier Anesthesia, PA, Wolford College, LLC, Thomas L. Cook, and
Lynda M. Waterhouse
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Co""lwli..,e._r ____ _
NOTE:
(IN /!.S. I'UIN71FF CAS/o:'i ONI.)J
IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES. USE TilE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Wm11 Namr. and l<&p/l!Jn Numherl
Bradley P. Kbthman, Esq., vveldon & Rothman, PL. 7935 Airport-Pulling
Attorneys (/f Kn""'"l
Road, Ste. 205, Naples, FL 34109, (239) 262-2141
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION !l'lacru" ".\'" mon,.HcuOnM Ill. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(I'Ic=an "X" mo,..&afi,Piamtlffi
:J 1 liS
l'laintiff
LJ 2 F.S. GO\cmmcnt
Defendant
:J 110 Insurance
u 120 Morine
0 130 Miller Act
:J 140 Negotiable Instrument
0 Rc:coety ofO.ctpa)mmt
& Enforcement of
0 151 Medic:lt'e Acr
a IS2 RctO\'el)' of Defaulted
Student Loans
(E\cl \'eter.ltls
IJ 153 Rc:co'el)' ofOcrpa)ment
of Veteran's Benefits
:J 160 Stockholders' Suits
:J 190 Other C ontnu:t
:J 195 Contr.ICt Product l.iability
0 196 Franchise
0 220 Foreclosure
0 230 Rent lease & EJcttment
0 UO Tons to Land
LJ 245 Tort Product Liobility
0 290 All Other Real Property
Cl( 3 Federal Question
(l f.S. (im,r:rnmc!nl Not a
LJ 4 Di,cnity
(lmltmte ( 'm:emhtp cif l'artte. i11llem 11/J
PERSO!'iAL INJlJR\'
31 0 Airplane
31 S Airplane Praduct
Liability
320 Assault. Libel &
Slander
CJ 330 Federal Employers'
Liability
LJ 340 !l.lorinc
CJ 345 Morine Prodtu:t
l.iabilit)'
rJ 350 Motor Vehicle
CJ 3SS !1.1otor Vehicle
Product l.iallility
360 Other l'ersonal
lnjlll)'
362 PersonallnjUI)'-
441 Voting
442 Employment
443 Housing!
Actonmtodatians
445 Amcr. wfOisabilitics
Employment
446 Amer. wiDisabilities
Other
448 Education
PERSOSAL INJlJR\'
("') 365 PersonallnjUI)'
Praduct Liability
0 367 llealth Carel
Pharmateutital
PersonallnJUI)'
l'roducr liability
CJ 368 Asbestos Personal
lnjUI)' Praduct
l.iability
PERSONAL PROPF.RT\'
CJ 370 Other Fraud
LJ 371 Truth in !.ending
LJ 380 Other Pcrwnal
l'ropcny DIUlUige
("') 38S l'ropcny Damage
Produ.:t Liability
Sentence
JlabNS Corpus:
CJ 530 General
a S3S Death Penalty
CJ 540 Mandamus & Other
CJ 550 Civil Rights
CJ SSS Prison Condition
0 560 Ciil Dclaincc -
Conditions of
Confinement
(Far DnW'!IIIJ' ('a ...... Only) and on .. lhu for lkfindantl
I'TF DEF PTF DEF
Citiun of This State CJ I CJ I Incorporated or Principal Place 0 4 CJ 4
of Bwincss In This Stale
Cittzcn of Another State
625Drutr Related Seizure
ofPropcny 21 USC 881
690 Other
710 Fair Labor Standards
Act
CJ 720 Labor/MI!Illl. Relations
CJ 7 40 Railway Labor Acr
CJ 7SI Family and Medical
Le.-e Act
CJ 790 Other l.abor l.itil!alion
CJ 791 Empl. Ret. Inc.
Scturity Act
CJ 463 Habeas CoiJlus
Alien Detruncc
t Prisoner Petition)
CJ 465 Other lnuniJ!mtion
Actions
CJ 2 CJ 2 lncorponued o111i Principal Place CJ s CJ 5
of Business In Another State
CJ 3 CJ 3 Fon:ign N01ion
CJ 422 Appeal28 USC ISS
0 423 Withdmwal
28 usc 157
0606
CJ 375 False Claims Act
LJ 400 State RcapponioMtent
LJ 410 Antitrust

o 43o o.ru.s and oant..ins

CJ 450 Cornrncn:e
CJ 460 Dcpon01ion
0 861111A(I39Sfl)
CJ 862 Black Lung (923
CJ 863 DIWCfOIWW (40S(g!l
CJ 864 SSID Tide XVI
CJ 86S RSI (40S(gll
(U.S.
or Defendant)
CJ 871 IRS-Third Pllrty
26 usc 7609
CJ 470 Racketeer Influenced and
Conupt Organimtions
LJ 480 Consumer Credit
CJ 490 Cable/Sat TV
CJ 8SO Sc:cmitiesiCommaditics/
Exchange
CJ 890 Other Statutory Acrions
CJ 891 Agricultural Acts
CJ 893 Enviroruncntall\.latters
CJ 89S Fn:edom of Information
Act
CJ 896 Arbiuution
CJ 899 Administralie Procedure
ActiRe\iew or Appeal of
Agency Dcci sion
CJ 9SO Constitutionality of
State Statutes
. ...,,.
-.;
V. ORIGIN
Onginal
Proceeding
11'10('('
011
".\'" "'Ondlcu OnM . Transferred from
CJ 2 Removed from CJ 3 Remanded from CJ 4 Retnstated or CJ 5 another district CJ 6
Litigatioa, --. State Coun Appellate Court Reopened .,., .
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (f)anotdtejurisdkdonalniiiMiesunlnsJhwsii)J ;
..
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause: ;p.g:_,
VII. REQUESTED IN
COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
IF ANY
DATE
FOR OFFICE USE O!'lil.\'
Overtime and minimum wa e violations
QIJ CJIECK IF TillS IS A Cl.ASS 1\CTION DEMANDS CIIECK YES deman in complaint
UNDER F.RCP 23 JURY DEMAND: IX Yes CJ No
(Stt
JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
SIGN,\TUREOF AlTllC
{))
RECEIPTU AMOUNT APPLYING IFI' JUDGE MAG. JUDGE
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
_______________________________

BILLY SCHUMANN, an individual and
DUSTIN ABRAHAM, an individual, ON
BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,

Plaintiffs,

v. CASE NO.: 2:12-cv-347-FtM-29SPC

COLLIER ANESTHESIA, P.A., a Florida
corporation, WOLFORD COLLEGE,
LLC, a Florida limited liability company,
THOMAS L. COOK, an individual and
LYNDA M. WATERHOUSE, an
individual,

Defendants.
_________________________________/

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
OF COLLIER ANESTHESIA, P.A.

Defendant, COLLIER ANESTHESIA, P.A. (Collier Anesthesia), by and through its
undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 8, Fed. R. Civ. P., files its Answer and Affirmative
Defenses as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. Admitted for jurisdictional purposes only.
2. Denied.
3. Admitted for jurisdictional purposes only, and denied that Plaintiffs have any
valid claim under FLSA.
4. Collier Anesthesia denies that there are any employees whatsoever who are
Plaintiffs or could be a Plaintiff; Collier Anesthesia denies that Plaintiffs have standing to assert
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-SPC Document 16 Filed 08/01/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID 52
2

such a claim or that a violation occurred, and denies that Plaintiffs or the alleged similarly
situated individuals were employed by Collier Anesthesia. Collier Anesthesia lacks knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of what these Plaintiffs plan to do, and,
therefore, denies same and denies and any all remaining allegations.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. Admitted for jurisdictional purposes only.
6. Admitted for venue purposes only.
PARTIES
7. Denied.
8. Admitted.
9. Collier Anesthesia lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of this allegation, and, therefore, denies same.
10. Denied.
11. Collier Anesthesia lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of this allegation, and, therefore, denies same.
12. Collier Anesthesia lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of this allegation, and, therefore, denies same.
13. Denied.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
14. Denied.
15. Denied.
16. Admitted that Plaintiffs were registered nurses during their tenure as students of
Wolford College. The remainder is denied.
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-SPC Document 16 Filed 08/01/12 Page 2 of 8 PageID 53
3

17. Collier Anesthesia lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of this allegation, and, therefore, denies same.
18. Admitted that Plaintiffs did not have a license or certificate to practice medicine
during their tenure as students of Wolford College. The remainder is denied.
19. Admitted that, during their tenure as students of Wolford College, Plaintiffs did
not have the requisite degree for the general practice of medicine or nurse anesthetists, but were,
in fact, attending Wolford College for the very purpose of obtaining a nurse anesthetist degree.
The remainder is denied.
20. Denied.
21. Collier Anesthesia lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of this allegation, and, therefore, denies same.
22. Collier Anesthesia lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of this allegation, and, therefore, denies same.
23. Denied.
24. Denied.
25. Denied.
26. Denied.
27. Denied.
28. Denied.
29. Denied.
30. Denied.
31. Denied.
32. Denied.
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-SPC Document 16 Filed 08/01/12 Page 3 of 8 PageID 54
4

33. Denied.
34. Denied.
35. Denied.
36. Denied.
37. Denied.
38. Denied.
39. Denied.
COUNT I MINIMUM WAGE PLAINTIFFS
40. Collier Anesthesia incorporates by reference its responses to paragraph 1 through
39 above as though set forth verbatim.
41. Denied.
42. Denied.
43. Denied.
44. Denied.
COUNT II OVERTIME PLAINTIFFS
45. Collier Anesthesia incorporates by reference its responses to paragraph 1 through
39 above as though set forth verbatim.
46. Denied.
47. Denied.
48. Denied.
49. Denied.

Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-SPC Document 16 Filed 08/01/12 Page 4 of 8 PageID 55
5

COUNT III MINIMUM WAGE OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED TO PLAINTIFFS
50. Collier Anesthesia incorporates by reference its responses to paragraph 1 through
39 above as though set forth verbatim.
51. Denied.
52. Denied.
COUNT IV OVERTIME OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED TO PLAINTIFFS
53. Collier Anesthesia incorporates by reference its responses to paragraph 1 through
39 above as though set forth verbatim.
54. Denied.
55. Denied.
Defendant, COLLIER ANESTHESIA, P.A., denies any and all remaining allegations in
the Complaint not specifically admitted and requests that this Court dismiss Plaintiffs lawsuit,
enter judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiffs and that Defendant recover costs,
including reasonable attorneys fees and such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. The Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted because it fails to show that Plaintiffs were employees of Collier Anesthesia
under the FLSA and also because Plaintiffs alleged that they performed the work of a nurse
anesthetist without the requisite degree, which is prohibited by law.
2. Plaintiffs claim that they performed the work of nurse anesthetists despite the fact
that Plaintiffs admit not having the requisite degree to work as nurse anesthetists, and; therefore,
Plaintiffs claim is legally barred and estopped.
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-SPC Document 16 Filed 08/01/12 Page 5 of 8 PageID 56
6

3. No employment relation has ever existed between Plaintiffs and Collier
Anesthesia such that Plaintiffs lack standing to sue Collier Anesthesia and are barred from
asserting any claim based upon an employment relation. Plaintiffs were students, receiving
clinical training for their own educational benefit as part of the curriculum for obtaining a
Masters Degree in Nurse Anesthesia from Wolford College. Plaintiffs receipt of clinical
training as students of Wolford College is not subject to the FLSA and, in any event, meets the
criteria developed by the Supreme Court in Walling v. Portland Terminal Co., 330 U.S. 148, 152
(1947), which the Wage and Hour Division has sought to summarize with the following six
factors: (1) the internship is similar to training that would be given in a vocational school or
academic educational environment; (2) the internship training is for the benefit of the intern; (3)
interns do not displace Collier Anesthesias regular employees, but work under close observation
of existing staff; (4) Collier Anesthesia derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the
interns, and, on occasion, Collier Anesthesias operations may actually be impeded; (5) the
interns are not necessarily entitled to a job with Collier Anesthesia at the conclusion of the
internship; and (6) Collier Anesthesia and the interns understand that the interns are not entitled
to wages for the time spent in the internship.
4. Given that Plaintiffs received clinical training from Collier Anesthesia during
their tenure as students of Wolford College which training was required for certification and/or
licensure to work as a nurse anesthetist, Plaintiffs received the primary benefit from their
relationship with Collier Anesthesia, and; therefore, Plaintiffs were not employees of Collier
Anesthesia. See Solis v. Laurelbrook Sanitarium & School, Inc., 642 F. 3d 518 (6th Cir. 2011).
5. Collier Anesthesia at all times acted in good faith and reasonably believed that no
employment relationship ever existed between Collier Anesthesia and Plaintiffs; Collier
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-SPC Document 16 Filed 08/01/12 Page 6 of 8 PageID 57
7

Anesthesia acted in good faith as a reasonably prudent entity would have acted under the
circumstances and with a belief of reasonable compliance with FLSA and is not subject to any
liability for alleged failure to pay wages. Collier Anesthesia did not intentionally or willfully
violate any law or regulation and, as such, any claims beyond the two-year statute of limitations
in 29 U.S.C. 255 or for liquidated or statutory damages should be dismissed.
6. Any claim not filed within the applicable period of limitations is barred.
7. Plaintiffs have filed this action against Collier Anesthesia in bad faith, with
malicious intent, and for an improper purpose.
8. Plaintiffs lack standing to raise the claims which they seek to bring as a collective
action and types of claims on which Plaintiffs seek to bring as a collective action are matters on
which individual issues predominate and are not appropriate for collective treatment. Further,
Plaintiffs claims are not similar, common, or typical, and there is no basis in law or fact for a
collective action.
9. Plaintiffs Complaint should be dismissed, in whole or part, because any alleged
noncompliance by Collier Anesthesia was excusable and justified and not willful or intentional;
in addition, de minimis matters are subject to dismissal.

Respectfully submitted,

GRANT, FRIDKIN, PEARSON, ATHAN
& CROWN, P.A.

BY: /s/ JEFFREY D. FRIDKIN
Jeffrey D. Fridkin
Florida Bar No. 0490245
jfridkin@gfpac.com
Rachael S. Loukonen
Florida Bar No. 0668435
rloukonen@gfpac.com
5551 Ridgewood Drive, Suite 501
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-SPC Document 16 Filed 08/01/12 Page 7 of 8 PageID 58
8

Naples, Florida 34108
(239) 514-1000
(239) 514-0377 (fax)

Attorneys for Defendant Collier Anesthesia, P.A.


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY certify that on August 1, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing with the
Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following:
Bradley P. Rothman, Esq.
brothman@weldonrothman.com
WEDON & ROTHMAN, PL
7935 Airport Pulling Road N., Ste. 205
Naples, FL 34109
Telephone: (239) 262-21541
Facsimile: (239) 262-2342
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Tammie L. Rattray, Esq.
trattray@fordharrison.com
FORD & HARRISON, LLP
101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Ste. 900
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 261-7828
Facsimile: (813) 261-7899
Attorneys for Defendants, Wolford, Cook and
Waterhouse





By: /s/ JEFFREY D. FRIDKIN




Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-SPC Document 16 Filed 08/01/12 Page 8 of 8 PageID 59
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-SPC Document 17 Filed 08/01/12 Page 1 of 14 PageID 60
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-SPC Document 17 Filed 08/01/12 Page 2 of 14 PageID 61
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-SPC Document 17 Filed 08/01/12 Page 3 of 14 PageID 62
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-SPC Document 17 Filed 08/01/12 Page 4 of 14 PageID 63
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-SPC Document 17 Filed 08/01/12 Page 5 of 14 PageID 64
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-SPC Document 17 Filed 08/01/12 Page 6 of 14 PageID 65
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-SPC Document 17 Filed 08/01/12 Page 7 of 14 PageID 66
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-SPC Document 17 Filed 08/01/12 Page 8 of 14 PageID 67
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-SPC Document 17 Filed 08/01/12 Page 9 of 14 PageID 68
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-SPC Document 17 Filed 08/01/12 Page 10 of 14 PageID 69
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-SPC Document 17 Filed 08/01/12 Page 11 of 14 PageID 70
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-SPC Document 17 Filed 08/01/12 Page 12 of 14 PageID 71
SIXTH DEFENSE
Plaintiffs' claims are estopped and barred by their agreement and representation
to not work as a nurse anesthetist by title or function during their educational program.
SEVENTH DEFENSE
Plaintiffs were expressly prohibited from working as nurse anesthetists by title
and function during their educational program.
EIGHTH DEFENSE
Defendants acted in full compliance and conformity with and in reliance on the
FLSA, and applicable laws, regulations, orders, approvals and interpretations and with
the enforcement policies and acted in good faith as a reasonably prudent entity/person
would have acted under the circumstances and with a belief of reasonable compliance
and of no violative actions and is not subject to any liability for alleged failure to pay
wages required by the FLSA.
NINTH DEFENSE
Defendants acted in good faith and had reasonable grounds for believing that its
acts were not violative of the law and did not intentionally or willfully violate any law or
regulation and any claims beyond the 2 year statute of limitations in 29 U.S.C. 255 or
for liquidated or statutory damages should be dismissed.
TENTH DEFENSE
The Complaint should be dismissed, in whole or in part, because any alleged non-
compliance by Defendants was excusable and justified and not willful or intentional; in
addition, de minimis matters are subject to dismissal.
ELEVENTH DEFENSE
Any claim not filed within the applicable period of limitations is barred.
12
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-SPC Document 17 Filed 08/01/12 Page 13 of 14 PageID 72
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-SPC Document 17 Filed 08/01/12 Page 14 of 14 PageID 73
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
BILLY SCHUMANN, DUSTIN ABRAHAM, on
behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs. Case No. 2:12-cv-347-FtM-29SPC
COLLIER ANESTHESIA, P.A., a Florida
corporation, WOLFORD COLLEGE, LLC, a
Florida limited liability company,
THOMAS L. COOK, an individual, LYNDA
M. WATERHOUSE, an individual,
Defendants.
___________________________________
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs Motion to
Conditionally Certify Collective Action, and to Facilitate Notice,
and for Limited Expedited Discovery (Doc. #28) filed on August 20,
2012. Defendants filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. #45) on
October 5, 2012. On October 22, 2012, plaintiffs filed a Reply
(Doc. #69). Subsequently, defendants filed a Sur-Reply (Doc. #70)
on October 29, 2012. Also before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion
to Toll the Statute of Limitations for All Current and Former
Employees (Doc. #34), to which defendants filed a Response (Doc.
#38).
I.
On June 29, 2012, plaintiffs Billy Schumann (Schumann) and
Dustin Abraham (Abraham) filed a Complaint (Doc. #1) against
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-SPC Document 91 Filed 02/21/13 Page 1 of 11 PageID 946
defendants Collier Anesthesia, P.A. (Collier), Wolford College, LLC
(Wolford), Thomas L. Cook (Cook), and Lynda M. Waterhouse
(Waterhouse), on their own behalf and on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals for minimum wage and overtime compensation
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In the
Complaint, plaintiffs allege that they were employed by Collier
within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 203(g) as interns who were
provided no monetary compensation; that they were registered nurses
that did not have a valid license or certificate to practice
medicine and did not have the requisite degree to work as nurse
anesthetists; that they were scheduled to work based on the
staffing needs of Collier and performed the routine work of Collier
on a regular and recurring basis; that Collier is dependant on the
work of interns for its normal daily operations and that Collier
derived immediate advantage from their work; that defendants
employed interns as substitutes for regular workers, and/or to
augment its existing workforce during specific time periods; that
if Collier did not use interns it would need to hire additional
employees; that they received the same level of supervision as
Colliers regular workforce; that they did not satisfy any of the
exemptions set forth in the FLSA; and that they worked more than
forty hours in a given week but were not paid time and one-half for
the hours in excess of forty. (Doc. #1.) The Complaint describes
the additional persons who may become plaintiffs as other current
-2-
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-SPC Document 91 Filed 02/21/13 Page 2 of 11 PageID 947
and former interns who were employed by Collier and worked in
excess of 40 hours in a given workweek without receiving
compensation for hours worked. (Id.) Plaintiffs now seek
conditional certification of a collective action, to facilitate
notice to potential plaintiffs, to require expedited responses to
discovery, and tolling the statute of limitations.
II.
An action to recover unpaid minimum wage compensation and
unpaid overtime compensation under the FLSA may be maintained
against any employer (including a public agency) in any Federal or
State court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more employees
for and on behalf of himself or themselves and other employees
similarly situated. 29 U.S.C. 216(b). Thus, to maintain a
collective action under the FLSA, plaintiffs must demonstrate that
they are similarly situated. Morgan v. Family Dollar Stores,
Inc., 551 F.3d 1233, 1258 (11th Cir. 2008)(citing Anderson v.
Cagle's, Inc., 488 F.3d 945, 952 (11th Cir. 2007)). The key to
starting the motors of a collective action is a showing that there
is a similarly situated group of employees. Morgan, 551 F.3d at
1259. Being similarly situated does not require an identical
situation, but at least similar circumstances with respect to their
job requirements and pay provisions. Morgan, 551 F.3d at 1259-60;
Hipp v. Liberty Natl Life Ins. Co., 252 F.3d 1208, 1217 (11th Cir.
2001). The Eleventh Circuit has adopted a two-tiered approach to
-3-
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-SPC Document 91 Filed 02/21/13 Page 3 of 11 PageID 948
certification, as described in Mooney v. Aramco Servs. Co., 54 F.3d
1207, 121314 (5th Cir. 1995):
The first determination is made at the
so-called notice stage. At the notice
stage, the district court makes a
decision-usually based only on the pleadings
and any affidavits which have been
submitted-whether notice of the action should
be given to potential class members.
Because the court has minimal evidence, this
determination is made using a fairly lenient
standard, and typically results in
conditional certification of a
representative class. If the district court
conditionally certifies the class, putative
class members are given notice and the
opportunity to opt-in. The action proceeds
as a representative action throughout
discovery.
The second determination is typically
precipitated by a motion for decertification
by the defendant usually filed after discovery
is largely complete and the matter is ready
for trial. . . .
Hipp, 252 F.3d at 1218. Plaintiff must show that there are other
employees who desire to opt-in and who are similarly situated
before giving notice. Dybach v. Fla. Dept of Corr., 942 F.2d
1562, 1567 (11th Cir. 1991). As noted, at the first stage, the
Court applies a fairly lenient standard, Anderson, 488 F.3d at
953, although there must be more than counsels unsupported
assertions, Morgan, 551 F.3d at 1261.
III.
In support of their motion, plaintiffs rely on the
declarations of Billy Schumann (Doc. #28-10), Dustin Abraham (Doc.
-4-
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-SPC Document 91 Filed 02/21/13 Page 4 of 11 PageID 949
#28-11), Lahoma Nachtrab (Doc. #28-12), Celine Vidaurri (Doc. #28-
13), and Denise Arminio (Doc. #28-14). In opposition, defendants
argue: (1) the declarations are cookie cutter and are
insufficient to provide a reasonable basis for a collective action;
(2) plaintiffs claims would require individualized inquiry; (3)
plaintiffs showing of potential opt-in plaintiffs is insufficient;
and (4) the proposed notice and consent form is objectionable.
(Docs. ## 45, 70.) Defendants also make a number of arguments
attacking the merits of the claim. (Id.) The Court will not
consider these arguments at this time. See, e.g., Fantauzzi v.
Agora Mktg. Solutions, Inc., No. 8:10-cv-513-T-26TGW, 2010 WL
2220246, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 2, 2010)(district courts generally
do not consider the merits on a motion for conditional
certification).
The Court concludes that plaintiffs have shown a reasonable
basis for their claim that there are other similarly situated
employees who wish to opt-in. The Court finds that the
declarations are sufficiently detailed to meet the fairly lenient
standard set by the Eleventh Circuit. The Court also finds that
1
plaintiffs have demonstrated that there are other similarly
In support of their argument, defendants cite to Tussing v.
1
Quality Resources, Inc., No. 8:09-cv-1833-T-26AEP, 2009 WL 4350253
(M.D. Fla. Nov. 25, 2009). Tussing is inapposite. There, the
plaintiffs filed six nearly identical affidavits from individuals
employed in five different positions in order to include all of
defendants employees in one collective action.
-5-
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-SPC Document 91 Filed 02/21/13 Page 5 of 11 PageID 950
situated interns for purposes of issuing notice. Additionally,
2
the Court is also satisfied that there are other interns or Student
Registered Nurse Anesthetists who wish to opt-in, since, to date,
14 individuals filed Consents to join as opt-in plaintiffs. (Docs.
## 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 19, 20, 23, 27, 36, 43.) Therefore,
the Court finds that certification is appropriate for notice
purposes.
Defendants also raise the following objections to plaintiffs
proposed Notice of Right to Join and Consent to Join forms: (1) the
Notice advises putative opt-ins multiple times of the contact
information for plaintiffs counsel and not defendants counsel;
(2) the Notice portrays the case as a free chance at gaining
money; (3) the Notice does not advise putative opt-ins that
certain conduct could be considered a misdemeanor or third degree
felony under Florida law; and (4) the Consent Form states that the
fees retained by plaintiffs attorneys will be the greater of the
Lodestar amount or 40% of the gross recovery. (Docs. ## 45, 45-
16.) The Court will revise the Consent to reflect that the FLSA
requires the Court to review the reasonableness of counsels legal
fees and the parties cannot contract in derogation of FLSAs
provisions. Silva v. Miller, 307 F. Appx 349 (11th Cir. 2009).
Defendants argument that individualized inquiry is required
2
is better suited at the decertification stage when additional
information is available regarding the characteristics of the opt-
in plaintiffs. See, e.g., Vondriska v. Premier Mortg. Funding,
Inc., 564 F. Supp. 2d 1330 (M.D. Fla. 2007).
-6-
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-SPC Document 91 Filed 02/21/13 Page 6 of 11 PageID 951
The Court has also considered the remaining objections and
concludes that no other changes are necessary.
3
IV.
Plaintiffs also seek to toll the statute of limitations up to
the date of the Courts ruling of Plaintiffs Opt-In Motion and, if
the Opt-In Motion is granted, until Defendants provide the
information necessary for Plaintiffs to send out the notice.
(Doc. #34, 12.) After plaintiffs filed their motion, the Court
issued a scheduling order (Doc. #35), which tolled the limitations
period for any person receiving notice from the date of [the
Scheduling] Order until the parties file a Case Management Order
lifting the stay on these proceedings. Under Title 29, United
States Code, Section 255, any cause of action for unpaid minimum
wage or overtime compensation under the FLSA,
(a) . . . may be commenced within two years
after the cause of action accrued, and every
such action shall be forever barred unless
commenced within two years after the cause of
action accrued, except that a cause of action
arising out of a willful violation may be
commenced within three years after the cause
of action accrued. . . .
29 U.S.C. 255. Under Title 29, United States Code, Section 256,
an action brought under the FLSA is:
In order to reflect the tolling of the statute of
3
limitations, the Court has also changed during the past three (3)
years to on or after August 2009" in the Who May Join the
Lawsuit section.
-7-
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-SPC Document 91 Filed 02/21/13 Page 7 of 11 PageID 952
commenced on the date when the complaint is
filed; except that in the case of a collective
or class action . . . it shall be considered
to be commenced in the case of any individual
claimant--
(a) on the date when the complaint
is filed, if he is specifically
named as a party plaintiff in the
complaint and his written consent to
become a party plaintiff is filed on
such date in the court in which the
action is brought; or
(b) if such written consent was not
so filed or if his name did not so
appear--on the subsequent date on
which such written consent is filed
in the court in which the action was
commenced.
29 U.S.C. 256. Congress expressed the concern that an opt-in
plaintiff should not be able to escape the statute of limitations
bearing on his cause of action by claiming that the limitations
period was tolled by the filing of the original complaint.
Grayson v. K-Mart Corp., 79 F.3d 1086, 1106 (11th Cir. 1996)(citing
93 Cong. Rec. 2,182 (1947)). Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate
that extraordinary circumstances warrant an additional tolling of
the statute of limitations. Therefore, to the extent plaintiffs
request an additional tolling of the statute of limitations, the
request will be denied.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. Plaintiffs Motion to Conditionally Certify Collective
Action, and to Facilitate Notice, and for Limited Expedited
-8-
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-SPC Document 91 Filed 02/21/13 Page 8 of 11 PageID 953
Discovery (Doc. #28) is GRANTED and a collective action is
conditionally certified as follows:
All current and former Student Registered
Nurse Anesthetists (SRNAs), who are, or were,
enrolled at Wolford College, LLC, and who
work, or worked, for Collier Anesthesia, P.A.,
without compensation on or after August 2009.
2. On or before March 19, 2013, defendants shall deliver to
plaintiffs counsel a list in the form of an Excel spreadsheet on
CD-ROM (or comparable media) containing the full names, and
addresses of the putative opt-in plaintiffs. Upon delivery of this
list, defendants shall promptly file a notice of compliance with
this part of the Courts Opinion and Order.
3. After plaintiffs counsel receives such information from
defendants, plaintiffs counsel is authorized to give notice to the
individuals in the conditionally certified collective action and
shall do so within a reasonable time, but no later than April 19,
2013. The form of Notice of Right to Join and the associated
form of Consent to Join for putative opt-in plaintiffs shall be
substantially in the forms attached as Exhibit A and Exhibit B,
respectively, to this Opinion and Order, shall be mailed via first
class U.S. Mail at the sole cost and expense of plaintiffs to all
individuals disclosed by defendants; shall be dated with the date
of mailing; and shall allow each individual up to ninety (90) days
(the Opt-In Period) from the date of mailing in which to return
a Consent to Join form to plaintiffs counsel. Upon mailing the
-9-
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-SPC Document 91 Filed 02/21/13 Page 9 of 11 PageID 954
Notice of Right to Join, plaintiffs counsel shall promptly file
a notice of compliance with this part of the Courts Opinion and
Order.
4. During the allowed period for response to this initial
mailing, should the initial Notice of Right to Join mailed to any
individual be returned as un-deliverable, the parties shall
promptly cooperate and exchange such additional information in
their custody or control, or in the custody or control of their
agents, as may reasonably be available to identify a better address
for each such individual, to assist in the search for better
addresses. To the extent that it is feasible, but in no event
later than the end of the allowed period for response to the
initial mailing, plaintiffs counsel shall, at the sole cost and
expense of plaintiffs, re-mail one time the Notice of Right to
Join to each such individual. For each re-mailed Notice of Right
to Join, it shall be in the form set forth above; shall be
re-dated with the date of re-mailing, and shall give the individual
up to the same deadline allowed for response to the initial mailing
to return a Consent to Join and no additional time.
5. Each Consent to Join returned to plaintiffs counsel
shall be deemed timely if post-marked, or delivered to a commercial
carrier who provides a receipt, within the allowed period.
6. Individuals who timely opt into this collective action
pursuant to this Courts supervised notice procedure shall be
-10-
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-SPC Document 91 Filed 02/21/13 Page 10 of 11 PageID 955
deemed joined as opt-in plaintiffs for all purposes under the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and under the orders of this Court
through trial and appeal, if any, subject to any motion for
decertification or representative discovery, and may be represented
at any settlement, mediation or trial by the named plaintiffs at
the time, pending further orders of the Court.
7. Plaintiffs Motion to Toll the Statute of Limitations for
All Current and Former Employees (Doc. #34) is DENIED.
8. In light of the deadlines above, the parties shall submit
an Amended Case Management Report within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of this
Opinion and Order suggesting new deadlines.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 21st day of
February, 2013.
Copies:
Counsel of record
-11-
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-SPC Document 91 Filed 02/21/13 Page 11 of 11 PageID 956
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-UAM Document 69-1 Filed 10/22/12 Page 1 of 13 PageID 685
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
BILLY SCHUMANN, and DUSTIN ABRAHAM,
ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
COLLIER ANESTHESIA, P.A., a Florida
corporation, WOLFORD COLLEGE, LLC, a
Florida limited liability company, THOMAS L.
COOK, an individual, and LYNDA M.
WATERHOUSE, an individual,
Defendants.
~ /
CASE NO.: 2:12-cv-347-FtM-29SPC
COLLECTIVE ACTION
AFFIDAVIT OF LESLIE HUSSEY, PhD. RN
Before me the undersigned authority, personally appeared Leslie Hussey, PhD, RN who
being duly sworn, deposes and states as follows:
I. My name is Leslie Hussey, and I am over the age of 18 years and otherwise
competent to testify as to the matters herein.
2. The facts in this Affidavit are based upon my personal knowledge.
3. I was employed by Wolford College, LLC ("Wolford") from June 30, 2003
through August 31, 2012 during which time my job title was Director of Academic Education,
Director of Program Development, and Associate Director of Doctoral Education, respectively.
My CV is attached as Exhibit "1," and incorporated herein.
4. As faculty at Wolford, I assisted in the design of Wolford's curriculum for nurse
anesthesia students and I have knowledge of how the curriculum is supposed to be implemented.
Page I of3
Exhibit A
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-UAM Document 69-1 Filed 10/22/12 Page 2 of 13 PageID 686
5. With respect to the clinical portion of Wolford's curriculum, the intent of the
program is to have students obtain their clinical experience during their last four semesters in the
program.
6. During the first three (3) semesters of clinical experience, the intent is for students
to have forty (40) hours of clinical experience based on five (5) graduate credits per semester at a
ratio of eight (8) clinical hours to one (I) hour of graduate credit. In other words, during the first
three (3) semesters of clinical experience, the students are supposed to receive five (5) credits per
semester for forty (40) hours of clinical work for each week of the semester.
7. During the last clinical course/semester, the intent is for students to have thirty-
two (32) hours of clinical experience based on four (4) graduate credits per semester at a ratio of
eight (8) clinical hours to one (I) hour of graduate credit. In other words, during the last clinical
course/semester the students are supposed to receive four (4) credits per semester for thirty-two
(32) hours of clinical work for each week of the semester. This is because during this semester
there is an additional didactic (non-clinical) three (3) credit hour course which students are
required to take.
8. Despite Wolford's curriculum, during the students' final semester of clinical
experience, Wolford did not honor the above ratio in the clinical assignments.
9. On multiple occasions, I discussed with Dr. John Nolan, the Dean of Wolford and
a Collier Anesthesia physician, the design of Wolford's curriculum and that students were only
supposed to have thirty-two (32) hours of clinical experience per week during their final
semester. His response to me was always that the students needed to be at ''work" because they
were seniors and because the students were needed in the clinical area.
I 0. Further, I participated in the exit interviews with all graduating classes from
Wolford from 2007 through the class of 2011B (which graduated in February 2012). Each year
Page2 of3
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-UAM Document 69-1 Filed 10/22/12 Page 3 of 13 PageID 687
multiple students would come to me to state that they were verbally abused by certain physicians
at Collier Anesthesia, and at times experienced inappropriate physical contact from the certain
physicians at Collier Anesthesia. I would report what I heard to Wolford's program director,
Dr. Lauren Corder. I do not know what she did with the information. I do know that verbal
abuse and inappropriate physical contact in any setting is not part of any acceptable academic
curriculum that I am aware of.
AFFIANT FURTHER SA YETII NAUGHT.
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF COLLIER
)
) SS:
)
The foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me this 19th da y of
October 2012, by Leslie Hussey who is personally known to me and who did take an oath.
NOTARY SEAL:
Page 3 of3
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-UAM Document 69-3 Filed 10/22/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID 699
From:
Date: Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 7:49PM
To: kortega@wolford.edu, lcorder@wolford.edu
I have: been on my heart rotation for several weeks now. I stayed late today because I was the call
persou. I have been putting in long hours, plus call shifts for the heart rotation,
at the main. I was call for so at 3
I was not able to complete my heart case.
Schumann 775
Exhibit C
Case 2:12-cv-00347-JES-UAM Document 69-2 Filed 10/22/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID 698
Meeting with
May 3, 2.012@
Wolford College: Conference Room with John MD & Brian Mears,
CRNA,ARNP
Issues:
e Ms. was assigned a library day for hrs. She signed
out at 1430, but wrote 1500 in the sign-out block.
Discussion:
Dr. Nolan; when you write something down make sure it is accurate. Think
as though you are always being watched. I am trying to give you friendly
advice. Signing out early shows a lack of professionalism and honesty. You
must communicate with your future employer. In the real world you need
to accurately communicate. Your word is your bond. Also, you are getting
ready to graduate and I understand you said call in a
shifts to travel out of town. J recomme
and do not call in. in on the last shi
allowing week.
Ms. :I didn't re!alize leaving early was a big deal. Regarding
calling in, I wanted off for anc,ther interview. The scheduler said that
probably will not happen since I have been off twice for two interviews.
Dr. Nolan: Always tell the truth.
Recommendations:
Tell the truth all the time.
Do not call in the last shift
Outcome:
Ms acknowledged and agreed with the recommendations
Exhibit