UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE No. _______________________

ARTURO MORALES and all others

similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b),

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

SUNRISE MEATS, INC., a Florida Profit 

Corporation; and LEONEL ALFONSO,

individually,

Defendants.

______________________________________/

COMPLAINT

(OPT-IN PURSUANT TO 29 U.S.C. § 216(B))

Plaintiff, Arturo Morales (“Named Plaintiff” or “Plaintiff”), on behalf of himself and all 

others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), hereby files this Complaint against Defendants,

Sunrise Meats, Inc. (“Sunrise Meats”), and Leonel Alfonso (“Alfonso”) (collectively referred to 

as “Defendants”), and alleges:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Named Plaintiff has initiated the instant action to redress violations by Defendants

of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq. (“FLSA”). Named Plaintiff asserts that 

Defendants failed to pay Named Plaintiff and those similarly situated proper overtime 

compensation in violation of the FLSA.

2. Plaintiff further asserts that he was terminated in violation of Florida’s private

sector Whistleblower Act, Fla. Stat. § 448.101 et seq. (“FWA”).

3. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by:

Case 0:20-cv-61017-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 1 of 12
2

a) 28 U.S.C. § 1331;

b) 28 U.S.C. § 1367; and

c) 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), which allows for a claim regarding violations of the 

FLSA to be brought in any court of competent jurisdiction.

4. This Court has original jurisdiction over claims arising under the FLSA and 

supplemental jurisdiction over Named Plaintiff’s claim under the FWA as the claim under the 

FWA derives from a common nucleus of operative facts as those under the FLSA.

5. Venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida because:

a) Named Plaintiff and those similarly situated are/were employed in the 

Southern District of Florida by Defendants, who at all relevant times conducted, and continue to 

conduct, business in Broward County; and

b) The acts that give rise to the claims by Named Plaintiff and those similarly 

situated occurred in the Southern District of Florida and because Defendants keep/kept an office 

for the transaction of their customary business in this district.

PARTIES

6. Named Plaintiff resides within the Southern District of Florida.

7. Sunrise Meats is a business entity which, at all relevant times, conducts/conducted 

substantial and continuous business in this judicial district, and is subject to the laws of the State 

of Florida and the United States.

8. Alfonso is, and was, an owner and operator of Sunrise Meats, and conducted 

business in Broward County, Florida during the relevant period.

9. Sunrise Meats operates as a convenience store and butcher shop.

10. At all relevant times, Defendants acted through their officers, agents, servants, and 

Case 0:20-cv-61017-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 2 of 12
3

employees, each of whom acted within the scope of their employment with Defendants.

11. Named Plaintiff began working for Defendants in June of 2007 and remained 

employed until his unlawful termination on April 6, 2020.

12. Plaintiff performed primarily non-exempt work for Defendants as a butcher 

including, taking and preparing customers’ orders for meat, poultry, and seafood, restocking the 

open freezers for meat, seafood, and frozen vegetables throughout the store, and also helped to 

unload delivery trucks to restock the walk-in cooler at Defendants’ grocery store and butcher shop

located at 1601 W. Sunrise Blvd., Fort Lauderdale, FL 33311.

13. Defendants were Named Plaintiff’s employer, joint employer, or co-employer 

during the relevant period for purposes of the FLSA as the term is defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203.

14. During the relevant period, Sunrise Meats is/was an enterprise engaged in 

commerce as defined in 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(r) and 203(s).

15. Named Plaintiff and those similarly situated are/were employed by Defendants

performing similar functions at all relevant times. 

16. Named Plaintiff is an “employee” pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(1) of the FLSA, 

and is an employee of Defendants.

17. In addition to Named Plaintiff, there are other individuals who are either currently 

employed by Defendants or were formerly employed by Defendants and who are/were subject to 

Defendants’ unlawful pay practices and policies. 

18. During the relevant period, Sunrise Meats engaged in interstate commerce and 

has/had annual gross revenue in excess of $500,000.

19. During the relevant period, Defendants employed two or more employees that 

customarily and regularly sold and/or marketed and/or distributed its services and/or goods and/or 

Case 0:20-cv-61017-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 3 of 12
4

services to customers throughout the United States and also provided its services for goods sold 

and transported across state lines of numerous other states.

20. During the relevant period, Defendants obtain/obtained and solicit/solicited funds 

from non-Florida sources, accept/accepted funds from non-Florida sources, use/used telephonic 

transmissions going over state lines to do business, transmit/transmitted funds outside the State of 

Florida, and otherwise regularly engage/engaged in interstate commerce.

21. During the relevant period, Defendants use/used goods that move/moved in 

interstate commerce, such as materials and food sold to Defendants’ customers at Defendants’ 

grocery store and butcher shop.

22. During the relevant period, Defendants accept/accepted checks, wire transfers, and 

other forms of payments that are/were made or processed outside the State of Florida.

23. During the relevant period, Defendants failed to comply with the FLSA in that 

Named Plaintiff and those similarly situated perform/performed services for Defendants and 

are/were not paid overtime wages at the rate of time and one-half for all hours worked in excess 

of 40 hours in each workweek.

24. Also, during the relevant period, Sunrise Meats was an “employer” as that term is 

defined under the FWA.

25. During the relevant period, Named Plaintiff was an “employee” as that term is 

defined under the FWA, as he performed services for, and was under the control and direction of, 

Defendants, and was provided wages and other remuneration by Defendants.

FLSA COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS

26. In addition to bringing this action individually, Named Plaintiff brings this action 

for violations of the FLSA as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), on behalf of 

Case 0:20-cv-61017-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 4 of 12
5

employees who perform(ed) similar functions for Defendants, are/were subject(ed) to Defendants’

unlawful pay practices and policies, and who work(ed) for Defendants at any point in the three 

years preceding the date the instant action was filed (the members of this putative class are referred 

to as “Collective Plaintiffs”).

27. Named Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in the Southern 

District of Florida at some point in the three years preceding the date the instant action was filed.

28. Named Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs are similarly situated, have substantially 

similar job duties, have substantially similar pay provisions, and are all subject to Defendants’

unlawful policies and practices as discussed herein.

29. There are numerous similarly situated current and former employees of Defendants

who worked overtime hours during the relevant period without receiving overtime compensation, 

and who would benefit from the issuance of a Court Supervised Notice of the instant lawsuit and 

the opportunity to join in the present lawsuit.

30. Similarly situated current and former employees are known to Defendants, are 

readily identifiable by Defendants, and can be located through Defendants’ records.

31. Therefore, Named Plaintiff should be permitted to bring this action as a collective 

action for and on behalf of himself and those similarly situated employees, pursuant to the “optin” provisions of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

STATEMENT OF FACTS

32. Named Plaintiff began working for Defendants at their grocery store and butcher 

shop in June of 2007 and remained employed until Defendants terminated his employment on 

April 6, 2020.

33. Named Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs are current and/or former employees of 

Case 0:20-cv-61017-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 5 of 12
6

Defendants who, within the three-year statute of limitations, have been or are presently employed 

by Defendants and perform(ed) similarly functions.

34. Named Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs regularly work/worked in excess of 40

hours per workweek.

35. Although Named Plaintiff’s hours varied, he generally worked 60 to 67 hours per 

workweek. 

36. Upon information and belief, Collective Plaintiffs also work/worked approximately 

the same number of hours per workweek.

37. Throughout Named Plaintiff’s employment, Defendants had knowledge of Named

Plaintiff’s overtime hours, but purposefully failed to provide him complete and adequate overtime 

pay in violation of the FLSA.

38. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ pattern and practice of depriving 

overtime compensation extended to other individuals at Sunrise Meats, including other similarly

situated employees who work/worked overtime hours without being appropriately compensated.

39. Defendants are/were required to keep accurate time records for all hours worked by 

Named Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs. Upon information and belief, Defendants fail/failed to 

keep the required records.

40. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs based on the actual 

number of hours worked and at the proper rate.

41. Defendants’ FLSA violations are/were willful and intentional.

42. Named Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other similarly-situated employees, 

consents to the filing of this action and has retained the undersigned legal counsel to prosecute this 

action on his behalf and has agreed to pay a reasonable fee for legal services.

Case 0:20-cv-61017-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 6 of 12
7

43. On or about April 6, 2020, Plaintiff complained about and/or objected to an actual

violation of law, or what he reasonably believed to be a violation of law, and was terminated as a 

direct result of same, which constitutes a violation of the FWA.

44. Specifically, Plaintiff complained about and/or objected to Defendants’ failure to 

comply with safety guidelines in light of the COVID-19 pandemic by allowing an excessive 

number of customers in the store. 

45. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (“OSHA”) General Duty 

Clause requires an employer to provide its employees with a safe workplace free of recognizable 

hazards. This includes providing employees with a safe work environment by complying with the 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) guidelines, which include social distancing. 

See 29 U.S.C. § 654(5)(a)(1).

46. Plaintiff’s complaints about and/or objections to the unsafe work practices in 

violation of OSHA regulations constitute protected activity pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 448.102(3).

47. As soon as Plaintiff complained about Sunrise Meats’ failure to provide a safe work 

environment for its employees, Defendant Alonso immediately instructed Plaintiff to go home, 

effectively terminating his employment. 

COUNT I

OVERTIME VIOLATIONS AGAINST SUNRISE MEATS UNDER THE FLSA AS TO 

NAMED PLAINTIFF AND COLLECTIVE PLAINTIFFS

48. Named Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs re-adopt each and every factual allegation 

as stated in paragraphs 1 through 42 above as though fully recited herein.

49. Named Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs are entitled to be paid time and one-half 

for all hours worked in excess of 40 in each workweek.

50. Named Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs regularly work/worked in excess of 40 

Case 0:20-cv-61017-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 7 of 12
8

hours each workweek; however, Sunrise Meats failed to pay the overtime wage required by the 

FLSA. 

51. The FLSA requires that Sunrise Meats pay the Named Plaintiff and Collective 

Plaintiffs time and one-half their hourly wage for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per 

workweek.

52. At all relevant times, Sunrise Meats failed to comply with 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 – 219 

and 29 C.F.R. §§ 516 et seq. in that Named Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs perform/performed 

services and work/worked for Sunrise Meats in excess of 40 hours per workweek, but no provision 

was made by Sunrise Meats to properly pay them at the rate of time and one-half for all hours 

worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.

53. Sunrise Meats knows/knew or shows/showed reckless disregard for the provisions 

of the FLSA concerning the payment of overtime wages and owe Named Plaintiff and Collective 

Plaintiffs overtime wages. 

54. As such, Named Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs are entitled to recover liquidated

damages under the FLSA as a result of Sunrise Meats’ intentional and willful violations for up to 

the three-year statute of limitations afforded by the FLSA.

WHEREFORE, Named Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs respectfully pray for the 

following relief against Sunrise Meats:

A. Adjudge and decree that Sunrise Meats violated the FLSA and did so willfully, 

intentionally, and with reckless disregard;

B. Award Named Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs actual damages for unpaid 

overtime compensation; 

C. Award Named Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs liquidated damages;

Case 0:20-cv-61017-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 8 of 12
9

D. Award Named Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs the costs of this action, together 

with reasonable attorneys’ fees; 

E. Award Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs all recoverable interest;

F. Grant Named Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs such additional relief as the Court 

deems just and proper under the circumstances.

COUNT II

OVERTIME VIOLATIONS AGAINST ALFONSO UNDER THE FLSA AS TO 

NAMED PLAINTIFF AND COLLECTIVE PLAINTIFFS

55. Named Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs re-adopt each and every factual allegation 

as stated in paragraphs 1 through 42 above as though fully recited herein.

56. During the relevant period, Alfonso was an Executive Officer and owner of the 

corporate Defendant, Sunrise Meats.

57. During the relevant period, Alfonso operated, oversaw, and controlled the day-today activities of Sunrise Meats, had supervisory authority over Named Plaintiff and Collective 

Plaintiffs, had knowledge of the hours worked by Named Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs, and 

was partially or totally responsible for paying Named Plaintiff’s and Collective Plaintiffs’ wages 

for the hours he/they worked.

58. Alfonso was Named Plaintiff’s and Collective Plaintiffs’ employer, joint employer, 

or co-employer during the relevant period for purposes of the FLSA, as the term employer is 

defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203.

59. During his/their employment with Defendants, Named Plaintiff and Collective 

Plaintiffs’ work/worked overtime hours for which he/they is/are/were not compensated at a rate of 

time-and-a-half his/their regularly rate of pay as required by the FLSA.

Case 0:20-cv-61017-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 9 of 12
10

60. Named Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs’ are owed unpaid overtime compensation 

pursuant to the FLSA for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

61. Alfonso is also jointly and severally liable for double the overtime amounts owed 

as liquidated damages under the FLSA as a result of intentional and willful violations of the FLSA.

WHEREFORE, Named Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs respectfully pray for the 

following relief against Alfonso:

A. Adjudge and decree that Alfonso violated the FLSA and did so willfully, 

intentionally, and with reckless disregard;

B. Award Named Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs actual damages for unpaid 

overtime compensation; 

C. Award Named Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs liquidated damages;

D. Award Named Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs the costs of this action, together 

with reasonable attorneys’ fees; 

E. Award Named Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs all recoverable interest;

F. Grant Named Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs such additional relief as the Court 

deems just and proper under the circumstances.

COUNT III

RETALIATION UNDER THE FWA AGAINST SUNRISE MEATS

62. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1 

through 47 above as though fully recited herein.

63. Sunrise Meats violated the FWA which provides, in pertinent part, that “[a]n 

employer may not take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee because the employee 

has . . . [o]bjected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, or practice of the employer 

which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation.” Fla. Stat. § 448.102(3).

Case 0:20-cv-61017-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 10 of 12
11

64. Sunrise Meats’ termination of Plaintiff’s nearly 13-year employment was a direct 

result of his complaints about, or objections to, Sunrise Meats’ activities, policies or practices 

which were in violation of laws, rules or regulations, such as OSHA’s General Duty Clause. See 

29 U.S.C. § 654(5)(a)(1).

65. As a direct and proximate result of Sunrise Meats’ intentional conduct, Plaintiff 

suffered serious economic losses as well as mental pain and suffering, anxiety, distress, and other 

mental conditions.

66. Any alleged justification by Sunrise Meats for terminating Plaintiff’s employment 

is a mere pretext for the actual reason, which was Plaintiff’s complaints about, or objections to, 

the aforementioned activities, policies, and/or practices of Sunrise Meats which were violations of

laws, rules, and/or regulations.

67. Sunrise Meats’ actions were malicious and recklessly indifferent to Plaintiff’s 

rights under the FWA.

68. The aforementioned actions of Sunrise Meats were done wantonly, willfully, 

maliciously, and with reckless disregard for the consequences of its actions.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:

A. Grant an injunction enjoining Sunrise Meats and its officers, owners, managers, 

successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in 

any employment practice which violates the FWA;

B. Award Plaintiff back pay;

C. Require Sunrise Meats to reinstate Plaintiff to the same position at the same rate of 

pay and with the same benefits that Plaintiff would have had had Plaintiff not been retaliated 

against by Sunrise Meats, or in lieu of reinstatement, award front pay;

Case 0:20-cv-61017-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 11 of 12
12

D. Award Plaintiff compensatory damages;

E. Award any other compensation allowed by law, including attorneys’ fees, costs, 

and expenses pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 448.104; and

F. Award all other relief the Court deems just and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Named Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial of all issues so triable.

Dated: May 22, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

BT LAW GROUP, PLLC

3050 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 205

Miami, Florida 33137

Tel: (305) 507-8506

By: s/ Anisley Tarragona

ANISLEY TARRAGONA, ESQ.

Florida Bar No. 51626

anisley@btattorneys.com

JASON D. BERKOWITZ, ESQ.

Florida Bar No. 0055414

jason@btattorneys.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 0:20-cv-61017-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 12 of 12