A dispute over overtime pay and employment classification has led to a federal lawsuit involving a former management employee and a real estate wholesaling company. The complaint was filed by Brandan Bednarz on March 11, 2026, in the United States Court for the Northern District of Texas against DACQ, Inc., which does business as Diamond Acquisitions, along with its co-owners Corey Dearmont and Patrick Anderson.
According to the filing, Bednarz served as Director of Sales at DACQ from October 2023 until November 5, 2025. He alleges that despite performing key management duties—including interviewing, hiring, training, and supervising sales staff—he was classified as an “independent contractor” rather than an employee. Bednarz claims he regularly worked more than 40 hours per week without receiving mandatory overtime pay required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The complaint outlines that DACQ operates in what is described as the “wholesaling” or “wholesale real estate” industry. The company connects real estate investors with owners of distressed properties but does not itself purchase these properties outright. Instead, it assigns purchase rights to investors during an option period in exchange for assignment fees. Most investors then renovate or lease out these properties.
Bednarz asserts that his role at DACQ was subject to extensive oversight and control by Dearmont and Anderson. He describes being required to work full-time from company offices in Dallas County, follow specific start times and dress codes—including a mandate for men to wear suits—and attend mandatory meetings. The complaint states that Bednarz often worked between 70 to 80 hours per week, including evenings, weekends, and holidays.
The document provides examples intended to show employer control inconsistent with independent contractor status: “Defendants exercised tight control over his employment,” it states. Specific incidents are cited where management directed Bednarz’s schedule or imposed workplace discipline policies. For instance, after planning a family trip in December 2023, Bednarz says he was told by Dearmont to cancel due to work demands; later policies allegedly threatened suspension or termination for arriving late.
Bednarz further claims he received compensation based on a percentage of assignment fees rather than salary or fee basis—20% if he sold an assignment contract himself and 10% of total assignment fee revenues generated by his team—with payments issued twice monthly after transactions closed. He did not submit invoices; instead DACQ provided him lists of eligible transactions for payment.
The complaint also details changes made to his compensation structure after May 1, 2024: “DACQ adjusted Bednarz’s compensation terms by reducing his pay by $1,000 per transaction.” In late October or early November 2025 he was told he would face a further pay cut unless he agreed in writing; when he refused this change by November 4th deadline his access to company systems was revoked and he was terminated the next day.
Legally, Bednarz argues that under the FLSA’s “economic reality” test—based on factors such as investment in equipment or facilities, opportunity for profit or loss, permanency of relationship, degree of control exercised by employer—he should be considered an employee entitled to overtime protections. The suit alleges no exemption applies that would justify nonpayment of overtime wages under federal law.
The complaint seeks several forms of relief: back wages owed for unpaid overtime; liquidated (double) damages equal to those wages; attorney fees; interest; costs associated with bringing the action; and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
Attorney Barry S. Hersh represents Brandan Bednarz in this matter. The case is identified as Civil Action No. 3:26-cv-00786-B.
Source: 326cv00786_Brandan_Bednarz_v_Dacq_Complaint_Northern_District_of_Texas.pdf
