1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.:

MANUEL CABALLERO-TABLADA

on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,

 Plaintiff,

v.

HOMELAND HEALTH SOLUTIONS., INC.

d/b/a CARECROSS MEDICAL CENTER, 

a Florida Profit Corporation, BETSY MORENO, 

Individually and JOSE E. HERNANDEZ, individually

 Defendants

________________________________/

COMPLAINT

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

 COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, MANUEL CABALLERO-TABLADA, (hereinafter referred 

to as “Plaintiff”), on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, by and through the

undersigned counsel, files this Complaint against Defendants HOMELAND HEALTH 

SOLUTIONS INC d/b/a CARECROSS MEDICAL CENTER, a Florida Profit Corporation, 

(hereinafter referred to as “CARECROSS MEDICAL CENTER”) BETSY MORENO (hereinafter 

referred to as “MORENO”) and JOSE E. HERNANDEZ, (hereinafter referred to as 

“HERNANDEZ”) collectively (“DEFENDANTS”) and states as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is an action by the Plaintiff for damages exceeding $30,000 excluding attorneys’ fees or 

costs for unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards 

Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 (“FLSA”).

Case 1:20-cv-22288-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2020 Page 1 of 15
2

2. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 

and 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

3. Venue is proper for the United States Court for the Southern District of Florida because Plaintiff was 

employed in the Southern District of Florida by Defendants, which at all material times conducted, 

and continues to conduct, business in the Southern District of Florida, and because the acts that give 

rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred within the Southern District of Florida and because Defendants are

subject to personal jurisdiction there.

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff was at all times relevant to this action, a resident Miami Dade County Florida, within 

the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. 

5. During all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff was employed by Defendants. Plaintiff 

was therefore an employee as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(e). 

6. Defendant CARECROSS MEDICAL CENTER is a corporation organized and existing under 

and by virtue of the laws of Florida and registered to do business within Florida. Defendant 

has its principal place of business in Homestead, Florida. Defendant has, at all times material 

hereto, conducted substantial and continuous business within the Southern District of Florida, and 

is subject to the laws of the United States and the State of Florida. 

7. CARECROSS MEDICAL CENTER is an “employer” as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d) and 

(s)(1), in that it has employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for 

commerce or that has employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials 

that have been moved in or produced for commerce by any person. 

8. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant CARECROSS MEDICAL CENTER has 

had two (2) or more employees who have regularly sold, handled, or otherwise worked on 

Case 1:20-cv-22288-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2020 Page 2 of 15
3

goods and/or materials that have been moved in or produced for commerce which as employees 

subject to the provisions of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207. 

9. CARECROSS MEDICAL CENTER upon knowledge and belief, has gross revenue which 

exceeds $500,000 for each of the past three (3) years and utilizes goods in the flow of 

commerce across state lines. 

10. Defendant, MORENO is a corporate officer of, and exercised operational control over the 

activities of, corporate Defendant, CARECROSS MEDICAL CENTER. 

11. Defendant MORENO acted directly in the interest of her company, CARECROSS MEDICAL 

CENTER, as the president. Upon all available information, MORENO controlled the manner 

in which Plaintiff performed his work. 

12. Defendant, HERNANDEZ is a corporate officer of, and exercised operational control over the 

activities of, corporate Defendant, CARECROSS MEDICAL CENTER. 

13. Defendant HERNANDEZ acted directly in the interest of her company, CARECROSS 

MEDICAL CENTER, as the vice-president. Upon all available information, HERNANDEZ 

created the method of pay. He also controlled the manner in which Plaintiff performed his 

work. 

14. Declaratory, injunctive, legal and equitable relief sought pursuant to the laws set forth above 

together with attorneys’ fees, costs and damages.

15. All conditions precedent for the filing of this action before this Court have been previously 

met, including the exhaustion of all pertinent administrative procedures and remedies. 

Case 1:20-cv-22288-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2020 Page 3 of 15
4

PLAINTIFF’S FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

16. Plaintiff is a non-exempt employee of Defendants and is subject to the payroll practices and 

procedures set forth hereinafter, and who worked in excess of forty (40) hours during one or 

more workweeks within three (3) years of the filing of this complaint.

17. At all times pertinent to this action, Defendants failed to comply with 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 – 219 

in that Plaintiff performed services for Defendants for which no provision was made to 

properly pay for those hours worked over forty (40) in a given workweek. 

18. When Plaintiff began working for the Defendants, Plaintiff and Defendant CARECROSS 

MEDICAL CENTER entered into an employment agreement. (hereinafter “Agreement”). A 

copy of the Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

19. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, Plaintiff would be compensated at $55.00 per hour for 

the first year and $60.00 per hour for the second year with a minimum of 40 hours per week 

guaranteed. 

20. Furthermore, pursuant to the Agreement, Plaintiff was to receive 5% of the net profits after the 

first year of employment. 

21. Pursuant to Section 2.2 of the Agreement, termination of the Agreement required the party 

wanting to terminate the Agreement to give the other party written notice at least thirty (30) 

calendar days prior. 

22. During the course of his employment, Plaintiff regularly worked between 50–60 hours per 

work week. Plaintiff would often work from home after office hours and on the weekends. 

23. Plaintiff was not paid at the proper overtime rate for hours worked in excess of forty (40) each 

week, as proscribed by the laws of the United States and the State of Florida.

Case 1:20-cv-22288-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2020 Page 4 of 15
5

24. Defendants knew that Plaintiff was working overtime, and that Federal law requires employees 

to be compensated at time and one-half per hour for overtime pay.

25. Defendants maintained complete control over the hours Plaintiff worked and the pay he was 

to receive. 

26. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned firm to prosecute this action on his behalf and has agreed 

to pay it a reasonable fee for its services.

27. Plaintiff is entitled to his reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs if he is the prevailing party in 

this action.

28. In February 2020, Plaintiff complained to HERNANDEZ regarding not being properly 

compensated for all hours worked. 

29. Furthermore, on many occasions, Plaintiff complained and requested that Defendants make 

proper deductions from his paycheck.

30. Upon information and belief, Defendants were engaged in a common scheme to not properly 

pay Plaintiff and to not properly pay Plaintiff’s payroll taxes. 

31. Shortly thereafter, Defendants began to reduce Plaintiff’s work hours without any prior 

notification.

32. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s access to the online system was restricted preventing Plaintiff from 

being able to perform his work during March 30, 2020 through April 2, 2020. 

33. Plaintiff made several complaints to HERNANDEZ and MORENO regarding the retaliatory 

actions taken against him after he expressed his complaints regarding improper pay. 

34. On or about April 3, 2020, Plaintiff was granted access and continued to perform his work 

remotely without issue. 

35. On or about April 28, 2020, without prior notice, Plaintiff was informed that he would no 

Case 1:20-cv-22288-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2020 Page 5 of 15
6

longer be working his regular schedule and instead would be on call only. 

36. On that same day, without prior notice, Defendants denied access to the online system to

Plaintiff. 

37. On or about May 1, 2020, Plaintiff received an email terminating his employment with 

Defendants effectively immediately. 

COUNT I

VIOLATION OF FLSA/OVERTIME against CARECROSS MEDICAL CENTER

38. Plaintiff re-adopt each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1 through 37 of this 

complaint as if set out in full herein.

39. Since the commencement of Plaintiff's employment, CARECROSS MEDICAL CENTER has 

willfully violated the provisions of § 7 of the Act [29 U.S.C. § 207] by employing employees 

engaged in commerce for workweeks longer than forty (40) hours without compensating her 

for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours at a rate not less than one and one half times 

her regular rate. 

40. Specifically, Plaintiff worked between 50-60 hours during each work week in which he was 

employed but he was not compensated at time and a half for the hours worked over forty (40) 

hours. 

41. 29 U.S.C. § 207 (a)(1) states, “No employer shall employ any of his employees... for a work 

week longer than 40 hours unless such employee receives compensation for his employment 

in excess of the hours above-specified at a rate not less than one and a half times the regular 

rate at which he is employed.”

42. CARECROSS MEDICAL CENTER is and was, during all times hereafter mentioned, an 

enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce as defined in §§ 

3 (r) and 3(s) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(r) and 203(s). CARECROSS MEDICAL 

Case 1:20-cv-22288-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2020 Page 6 of 15
7

CENTER’s business activities involve those to which the Fair Labor Standards Act applies. 

The Plaintiff’s work for CARECROSS MEDICAL CENTER likewise affects interstate 

commerce.

43. Plaintiff was not exempted from the overtime provision of the Act pursuant to the provisions 

of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 213(a), in that she was neither bona fide executive, administrative, or 

professional employees. 

44. CARECROSS MEDICAL CENTER has knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff at time 

and one half of his regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per week 

between the relevant time period. 

45. By reason of the said intentional, willful and unlawful acts of CARECROSS MEDICAL 

CENTER, Plaintiff has suffered damages plus incurring costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.

46. Plaintiff seeks to recover for unpaid wages accumulated from the date of hire.

47. CARECROSS MEDICAL CENTER never posted any notice, as required by the Fair Labor 

Standards Act and Federal Law, to inform employees of their federal rights to overtime and 

minimum wage payments.

48. As a result of CARECROSS MEDICAL CENTER’s willful violations of the Act, Plaintiff is 

entitled to liquidated damages. 

49. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned counsel to represent him in this action, and pursuant to 

29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Plaintiff is entitled to recover all reasonable attorneys' fees and costs 

incurred in this action from CARECROSS MEDICAL CENTER. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for the following relief against Defendant

CARECROSS MEDICAL CENTER:

Case 1:20-cv-22288-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2020 Page 7 of 15
8

A. Adjudge and decree that Defendant has violated the FLSA and has done so willfully, 

intentionally and with reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights;

B. Award Plaintiff actual damages in the amount shown to be due for unpaid minimum 

wage and overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty (40) weekly, with 

interest; and

C. Award Plaintiff an equal amount in double damages/liquidated damages; and

D. Award Plaintiff the costs of this action, together with a reasonable attorneys' fees; and

E. Grant Plaintiff such additional relief as the Court deems just and proper under the 

circumstances.

COUNT II

VIOLATION OF FLSA/OVERTIME against MORENO

50. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1 through 37 of 

this complaint as if set out in full herein.

51. At the times mentioned, Defendant MORENO was, and is now, a corporate officer of corporate 

Defendant, CARECROSS MEDICAL CENTER.

52. Defendant MORENO was an employer of Plaintiff within the meaning of Section 3(d) of the 

“Fair Labor Standards Act” [29 U.S.C. § 203(d)], in that MORENO acted directly in the 

interests of Defendant CARECROSS MEDICAL CENTER in relation its employees including 

Plaintiff. 

53. Defendant MORENO had operational control of the business and is thus jointly liable for 

Plaintiff’s damages.

54. Defendant MORENO willfully and intentionally refused to properly pay Plaintiff wages as 

required by the law of the United States as set forth above and remains owing Plaintiff these 

wages since the commencement of Plaintiff’s employment with MORENO as set forth above. 

Case 1:20-cv-22288-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2020 Page 8 of 15
9

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for the following relief against Defendant MORENO: 

A. Adjudge and decree that Defendant has violated the FLSA and has done so willfully, 

intentionally and with reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights;

B. Award Plaintiff actual damages in the amount shown to be due for unpaid overtime 

compensation for hours worked in excess of forty (40) weekly, with interest; and

C. Award Plaintiff an equal amount in double damages/liquidated damages; and

D. Award Plaintiff the costs of this action, together with a reasonable attorneys' fees; and

E. Grant Plaintiff such additional relief as the Court deems just and proper under the 

circumstances.

COUNT III

VIOLATION OF FLSA/OVERTIME against HERNANDEZ

55. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1 through 37 of 

this complaint as if set out in full herein.

56. At the times mentioned, Defendant HERNANDEZ was, and is now, a corporate officer of 

corporate Defendant, CARECROSS MEDICAL CENTER.

57. Defendant HERNANDEZ was an employer of Plaintiff within the meaning of Section 3(d) of 

the “Fair Labor Standards Act” [29 U.S.C. § 203(d)], in that MORENO acted directly in the 

interests of Defendant CARECROSS MEDICAL CENTER in relation its employees including 

Plaintiff. 

58. Defendant HERNANDEZ had operational control of the business and is thus jointly liable for 

Plaintiff’s damages.

59. Defendant HERNANDEZ willfully and intentionally refused to properly pay Plaintiff wages 

as required by the law of the United States as set forth above and remains owing Plaintiff these 

Case 1:20-cv-22288-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2020 Page 9 of 15
10

wages since the commencement of Plaintiff’s employment with HERNANDEZ as set forth 

above. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for the following relief against Defendant 

HERNANDEZ: 

A. Adjudge and decree that Defendant has violated the FLSA and has done so willfully, 

intentionally and with reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights;

B. Award Plaintiff actual damages in the amount shown to be due for unpaid overtime 

compensation for hours worked in excess of forty (40) weekly, with interest; and

C. Award Plaintiff an equal amount in double damages/liquidated damages; and

D. Award Plaintiff the costs of this action, together with a reasonable attorneys' fees; and

E. Grant Plaintiff such additional relief as the Court deems just and proper under the 

circumstances.

COUNT IV

Breach of Agreement against CARECROSS MEDICAL CENTER

60. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1 through 37 of 

this complaint as if set out in full herein.

61. Defendant breached its agreement with Plaintiff by failing to pay Plaintiff the 5% of the net 

profits for each year of his employment as stated in Section 2.2 of Exhibit A of the Agreement. 

62. Specifically, Plaintiff received a payment in July 25, 2019 in the amount of $2,000 which 

constituted bonus and another in January 17, 2020 in the amount of $1,120.25.

63. However, upon information and belief, Defendant’s net profit for 2019 and 2020 exceeded the 

amounts represented by Defendant. 

64. Moreover, Defendant breached the Agreement by drastically reducing Plaintiff’s hours below 

the guaranteed 40 hours starting on March 16, 2020. 

Case 1:20-cv-22288-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2020 Page 10 of 15
11

65. Defendant materially breached the Agreement by failing to pay the 5% of the net profits and 

by violating reducing Plaintiff’s hours in violation of Section 2.1 of Exhibit A.

66. Furthermore, Defendant breached the Termination Clause of the Agreement. 

67. Specifically, Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff with the thirty (30) day written notice prior 

to terminating Plaintiff’s employment. 

68. Furthermore, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s breach of the agreement, 

Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer damages.

69. Pursuant to Section 5.3 of the Agreement, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of his attorney’s fees 

and costs in connection with this action to enforce the Agreement. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks damages from Defendant for breach of agreement, Reasonable 

fees and costs associated with this litigation pursuant to the terms of the agreement and any other 

relief this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT V

FLSA RETALIATION against CARECROSS MEDICAL CENTER

70. Plaintiff re-adopt each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1 through 37 of this 

complaint as if set out in full herein.

71. 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3) of the FLSA states that it is a violation to “discharge or in any other 

manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or 

instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this Act, or has testified 

or is about to testify in any such proceeding, or has served or is about to serve on an industry 

committee.”

72. CARECROSS MEDICAL CENTER conduct as set forth above constitutes a violation of the 

FLSA’s anti-retaliation provisions.

Case 1:20-cv-22288-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2020 Page 11 of 15
12

73. The motivating factor that caused Plaintiff’s termination as described above was Plaintiff’s 

complaint for payment of his earned wages. 

74. Defendant’s conduct was in direct violation of the FLSA, and, as a direct result, Plaintiff has

been damaged.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully pray for the following relief against Defendant

CARECROSS MEDICAL CENTER: 

A. Adjudge and decree that Defendant has violated the FLSA and has done so willfully, 

intentionally and with reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights;

B. Enter judgment against the Defendant for all back wages from the date of discharge to the 

present date and an equal amount of back wages as liquidated damages, and;

C. Enter judgment against the Defendant for all front wages until Plaintiff becomes 65 years 

of age; and

D. Enter an award against Defendant and award Plaintiff compensatory damages for mental 

anguish, personal suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life;

E. Award Plaintiff the costs of this action, together with reasonable attorneys' fees; and

F. Grant Plaintiff such additional relief as the Court deems just and proper under the 

circumstances.

COUNT VI

FLSA RETALIATION against HERNANDEZ

75. Plaintiff re-adopt each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1 through 37 of this 

complaint as if set out in full herein.

76. 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3) of the FLSA states that it is a violation to “discharge or in any other 

manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or 

instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this Act, or has testified 

Case 1:20-cv-22288-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2020 Page 12 of 15
13

or is about to testify in any such proceeding, or has served or is about to serve on an industry 

committee.”

77. HERNANDEZ’ conduct as set forth above constitutes a violation of the FLSA’s antiretaliation provisions.

78. The motivating factor that caused Plaintiff’s termination as described above was Plaintiff’s 

complaint for payment of his earned wages. 

79. HERNANDEZ’ conduct was in direct violation of the FLSA, and, as a direct result, Plaintiff 

has been damaged.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully pray for the following relief against Defendant

HERNANDEZ: 

A. Adjudge and decree that Defendant has violated the FLSA and has done so 

willfully, intentionally and with reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights;

B. Enter judgment against the Defendant for all back wages from the date of 

discharge to the present date and an equal amount of back wages as liquidated 

damages, and;

C. Enter judgment against the Defendant for all front wages until Plaintiff becomes 

65 years of age; and

D. Enter an award against Defendant and award Plaintiff compensatory damages for 

mental anguish, personal suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life;

E. Award Plaintiff the costs of this action, together with reasonable attorneys' fees; 

and

F. Grant Plaintiff such additional relief as the Court deems just and proper under the 

circumstances.

Case 1:20-cv-22288-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2020 Page 13 of 15
14

COUNT VII

FLSA RETALIATION against MORENO

80. Plaintiff re-adopt each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1 through 37 of this 

complaint as if set out in full herein.

81. 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3) of the FLSA states that it is a violation to “discharge or in any other 

manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or 

instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this Act, or has testified 

or is about to testify in any such proceeding, or has served or is about to serve on an industry 

committee.”

82. MORENO’s conduct as set forth above constitutes a violation of the FLSA’s anti-retaliation 

provisions.

83. The motivating factor that caused Plaintiff’s termination as described above was Plaintiff’s 

complaint for payment of his earned wages. 

84. MORENO’s conduct was in direct violation of the FLSA, and, as a direct result, Plaintiff has 

been damaged.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully pray for the following relief against Defendant MORENO: 

A. Adjudge and decree that Defendant has violated the FLSA and has done so willfully, 

intentionally and with reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights;

B. Enter judgment against the Defendant for all back wages from the date of discharge to the 

present date and an equal amount of back wages as liquidated damages, and;

C. Enter judgment against the Defendant for all front wages until Plaintiff becomes 65 years 

of age; and

D. Enter an award against Defendant and award Plaintiff compensatory damages for mental 

anguish, personal suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life;

Case 1:20-cv-22288-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2020 Page 14 of 15
15

E. Award Plaintiff the costs of this action, together with reasonable attorneys' fees; and

F. Grant Plaintiff such additional relief as the Court deems just and proper under the 

circumstances.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands trial by jury of all issues triable as of right by jury.

Dated June 2, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

PEREGONZA LAW GROUP, PLLC

1414 NW 107th Ave, 

Suite 302

Doral, FL 33172

Tel. (786) 650-0202

Fax. (786) 650-0200

By: /s/Nathaly Saavedra

Nathaly Saavedra, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No. 118315

Email: nathaly@peregonza.com

By: /s/Juan J. Perez

Juan J. Perez, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No. 115784

Email: juan@peregonza.com

Case 1:20-cv-22288-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2020 Page 15 of 15