Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 

 

JUAN A. CALDERON,

and other similarly situated individuals,

Plaintiff (s) 

v. 

 

STUART SUPREME, INC.,

EVENS SAINVIL,

and ANASTHASIE OSIRUS, individually,

Defendants,

___________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT

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

COMES NOW the Plaintiff JUAN A. CALDERON, and other similarly situated 

individuals, by and through the undersigned counsel, and hereby sues Defendants STUART 

SUPREME, INC., EVENS SAINVIL, and ANASTHASIE OSIRUS, individually and alleges: 

1. This is an action to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the laws of 

the United States. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 1337 and by 

Title 29 U.S.C. § 201-219, § 216(b), the Fair Labor Standards Act, “the Act”, (Section 216 

for jurisdictional placement).

2. Plaintiff JUAN A. CALDERON is a resident of Miami-Dade County, within the 

jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. Plaintiff is a covered employee for purposes of the 

Act.

3. Corporate Defendant STUART SUPREME, INC. (hereinafter STUART SUPREME, or 

Defendant) is a Florida Profit Corporation with a place of business within the jurisdiction 

Case 1:20-cv-22165-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 1 of 10
Page 2 of 10

of this Court. At all times material Defendant STUART SUPREME was and is engaged in 

interstate commerce.

4. The individual Defendants EVENS SAINVIL, and ANASTHASIE OSIRUS were and are 

owners/partners and directed operations of the Defendant Corporation STUART 

SUPREME. 

5. All the actions raised in this complaint took place in Miami-Dade County Florida, within 

the jurisdiction of this Court.

ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

6. This cause of action is brought by Plaintiff as a collective action to recover from the 

Defendants overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable

attorney’s fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 

201 et seq (the “FLA or the “ACT”) on behalf of Plaintiff, and all other current and former 

employees similarly situated to Plaintiff (“the asserted class”) and who worked in excess 

of forty (40) hours during one or more weeks on or after May 2017, (the “material time”) 

without being compensated overtime wages pursuant to the FLSA. 

7. Corporate Defendant STUART SUPREME is a retail business operating as Shell gas 

station, carwash, auto repair shop, and convenience store. This facility is located at 9841 

Kendall Drive, Miami, Florida 33173, where Plaintiff worked. 

8. Defendants STUART SUPREME, EVENS SAINVIL, and ANASTHASIE OSIRUS

employed Plaintiff JUAN A. CALDERON as a cashier and general store employee, from 

approximately September 29, 2016, to the present. Plaintiff is still employed by 

Defendants. To this date, Plaintiff has been employed for Defendants for 3 years plus 7 

Case 1:20-cv-22165-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 2 of 10
Page 3 of 10

months. However, for FLSA’s purposes Plaintiff’s relevant period of employment is 156

weeks.

9. Plaintiff was a full time, non-exempted, hourly employee. Within the relevant employment 

period, Plaintiff was paid at the regular rate of $9.00 an hour. Plaintiff’s overtime rate 

should be $13.50 an hour.

10. Plaintiff’s responsibilities included all the duties of a store attendant, including helping 

customers, cashier, receiving incoming shipments, stocking shelves, handling inventory, 

managing cash, cleaning bathrooms and floors, and all the work related to a gas 

station/convenience store operation.

11. During the relevant time of employment with Defendants, Plaintiff had an irregular 

schedule. But most of the time Plaintiff worked 5 days per week, Plaintiff had Mondays 

and Tuesdays off. Plaintiff worked on Wednesdays from 2:00 PM to 10:00 PM (8 hours);

on Thursdays, Fridays, and Saturdays, the Plaintiff worked from 2:00 PM to 6:00 AM (16 

hours each day). Every week Plaintiff completed 64 working hours.

12. Plaintiff was unable to take bonafide lunch periods.

13. Plaintiff was paid for 40 regular hours at his regular rate of $9.00 an hour. Every week 

Plaintiff worked a substantial number of hours in excess of 40, but he was not paid for his 

overtime hours as required by the FLSA. 

14. Plaintiff did not clock-in and out. Nevertheless, Defendants were able to track the hours 

worked by Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, because Plaintiff worked under 

the supervision of the owners of the business, and because he was under constant security 

cameras surveillance.

Case 1:20-cv-22165-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 3 of 10
Page 4 of 10

15. Therefore, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff for overtime hours at the rate of time 

and a half his regular rate, for every hour that he worked in excess of forty (40), in violation 

of Section 7 (a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 207(a)(1).

16. Plaintiff was paid bi-weekly with paystubs that did not show basic information such as the 

total number of days and hours worked. Plaintiff’s paystubs never reflected the real 

number of hours worked by Plaintiff. 

17. Plaintiff was never in agreement with the number of hours paid to him by the Defendants.

18. Plaintiff is not in possession of time and payment records, but he will provide a good faith 

of unpaid overtime based on the best of his recollections.

19. Plaintiff seeks to recover overtime pay for every hour more than 40 that he worked during 

his entire period of employment with Defendants, plus liquidated damages, and any other 

remedy allowable by law.

20. The additional persons who may become Plaintiffs in this action are employees and/or 

former employees of Defendants who are and who were subject to the unlawful payroll 

practices and procedures of Defendants and were not paid overtime hours at the rate of 

time and one half of their regular rate of pay for all overtime hours worked in excess of 

forty. 

COUNT I:

WAGE AND HOUR FEDERAL STATUTORY VIOLATION;

FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME, AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

21. Plaintiff re-adopts every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-20 above as if set out 

in full herein. 

22. This cause of action is brought by Plaintiff JUAN A. CALDERON as a collective action 

to recover from the Defendants overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs and 

Case 1:20-cv-22165-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 4 of 10
Page 5 of 10

reasonable attorney’s fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as 

amended, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq (the “FLA or the “ACT”), on behalf of Plaintiff and all 

other current and former employees similarly situated to Plaintiff (“the asserted class”) and 

who worked in excess of forty (40) hours during one or more weeks on or after May 2017, 

(the “material time”) without being compensated “at a rate not less than one and a half 

times the regular rate at which he is employed.” 

23. Defendant STUART SUPREME is engaged in interstate commerce as defined in §§ 3 (r) 

and 3(s) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 203(r) and 203(s)(1)(A). The Defendant is a retail business 

operating simultaneously as a gas station, carwash, auto repair shop, convenience store, 

and food and beverage business. Defendant uses the instrumentalities of interstate 

commerce. Defendant has more than two employees recurrently engaged in commerce or 

in the production of goods for commerce by regularly and recurrently using the

instrumentalities of interstate commerce to accept and solicit funds from non-Florida 

sources. Upon information and belief, the annual gross revenue of the 

Employer/Defendant was always in excess of $500,000 per annum. By reason of the 

foregoing, Defendant’s business activities involve those to which the Fair Labor Standards 

Act applies. Therefore, there is FLSA enterprise coverage.

24. Plaintiff and those similarly situated were employed by an enterprise engaged in interstate 

commerce. Plaintiff and those similarly situated through their daily activities were 

regularly engaged in interstate commerce by providing services and support to firms and 

individuals engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce. Additionally, 

Plaintiff routinely handled credit card transactions. Therefore, there is FLSA individual 

coverage.

Case 1:20-cv-22165-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 5 of 10
Page 6 of 10

25. Defendants STUART SUPREME, EVENS SAINVIL, and ANASTHASIE OSIRUS 

employed Plaintiff JUAN A. CALDERON as a cashier and general store employee, from 

approximately September 29, 2016, to the present. Plaintiff is still employed by 

Defendants. To this date, the Plaintiff has been employed by Defendants for 3 years plus 

7 months. However, for FLSA’s purposes Plaintiff’s relevant period of employment is 156 

weeks.

26. Plaintiff was a full time, non-exempted, hourly employee. Within the relevant employment 

period, Plaintiff was paid at the regular rate of $9.00 an hour. Plaintiff’s overtime rate 

should be $13.50 an hour. 

27. During the relevant time of employment with Defendants, Plaintiff had an irregular 

schedule. But most of the time Plaintiff worked 5 days per week, an average of 64 working 

hours. Plaintiff was unable to take bonafide lunch periods.

28. Plaintiff was paid for 40 regular hours at his regular rate of $9.00 an hour. Every week 

Plaintiff worked a substantial amount of overtime hours, but he was not paid for his 

overtime hours as required by the FLSA. 

29. Plaintiff did not clock-in and out. Nevertheless, Defendants were able to track the hours 

worked by Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, because Plaintiff worked under 

the supervision of the owners of the business, and because he was under constant security 

cameras surveillance.

30. Therefore, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff for overtime hours at the rate of time 

and a half his regular rate, for every hour that he worked in excess of forty (40), in violation 

of Section 7 (a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 207(a)(1).

Case 1:20-cv-22165-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 6 of 10
Page 7 of 10

31. Plaintiff was paid bi-weekly with paystubs that did not show basic information such as the 

total number of days and hours worked. Plaintiff’s paystubs never reflected the real 

number of hours worked by the Plaintiff. 

32. The records, if any, concerning the number of hours worked by Plaintiff and those similarly 

situated, and the compensation actually paid to such employees should be in the possession 

and custody of Defendants. However, the Defendants did not maintain time records of 

hours worked by Plaintiff and other employees.

33. Defendants violated the record-keeping requirements of FLSA, 29 CFR Part 516.

34. Upon information and belief, Defendants 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. Defendants violated the Posting requirements of 

29 U.S.C. § 516.4.

35. Prior to the completion of discovery and to the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge, at the time of 

the filing of this complaint, the Plaintiff’s good faith estimate of unpaid overtime hours are 

calculated as follows: 

*Please note that these amounts are based on a preliminary calculation and that these figures 

could be subject to modification as discovery could dictate.

a. Total amount of alleged half-time unpaid O/T wages:

Fifty Thousand Five Hundred Forty-Four Dollars and 00/100 ($50,544.00)

b. Calculation of such wages:

Total time of employment: 190 weeks

Total Number of relevant weeks: 156 weeks

Total of hours worked in a week: 64 hours

Total of overtime hours: 24 O/T hours weekly

Total number of unpaid O/T hours: 24 O/T hours weekly

Regular rate: $9.00 an hour x 1.5=$13.50

Case 1:20-cv-22165-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 7 of 10
Page 8 of 10

O/T rate $13.50 x24 O/T hours=$324.00 weekly x 156 weeks=$50,544.00

c. Nature of wages (e.g. overtime or straight time):

 This amount represents unpaid overtime wages.

36. At all times material, the Employers/Defendantsfailed to comply with Title 29 U.S.C. §207 

(a) (1), in that Plaintiff and those similarly-situated performed services and worked in 

excess of the maximum hours provided by the Act but no provision was made by the 

Defendants to properly pay Plaintiff at the rate of time and one half for all hours worked in 

excess of forty hours (40) per workweek as provided in said Act. 

37. Defendants knew and/or showed reckless disregard of the provisions of the Act concerning 

the payment of overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and remain

owing Plaintiff and those similarly-situated these overtime wages since the commencement 

of Plaintiff’s and those similarly-situated employee’s employment with Defendants as set 

forth above, and Plaintiff and those similarly-situated are entitled to recover double 

damages. 

38. At the times mentioned, individual Defendants EVENS SAINVIL, and ANASTHASIE 

OSIRUS were the owners and operators of STUART SUPREME. Defendants EVENS 

SAINVIL, and ANASTHASIE OSIRUS were the employers of Plaintiff and others 

similarly situated within the meaning of Section 3(d) of the “Fair Labor Standards Act” [29 

U.S.C. § 203(d)]. These individual Defendants acted directly in the interests of corporate

Defendant STUART SUPREME in relation to its employees, including Plaintiff and others 

similarly situated. Defendants EVENS SAINVIL, and ANASTHASIE OSIRUS had 

financial and operational control of the Corporation, they were responsible for Plaintiff and 

Case 1:20-cv-22165-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 8 of 10
Page 9 of 10

other similarly situated employees’ working conditions, and they are jointly and severally

liable for Plaintiff’s damages. 

39. Defendants STUART SUPREME, EVENS SAINVIL, and ANASTHASIE OSIRUSP 

willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff overtime wages as required by the law 

of the United States and remain owing Plaintiff these overtime wages since the 

commencement of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants. 

40. Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages accumulated during his relevant time of

employment with Defendants as allowable by law.

41. Plaintiff has retained the law offices of the undersigned attorney to represent him in this 

action and is obligated to pay a reasonable attorneys’ fee. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and those similarly situated respectfully requests that this Honorable 

Court: 

A. Enter judgment for Plaintiff JUAN A. CALDERON and other similarly situated

individuals and against the Defendants STUART SUPREME, EVENS SAINVIL, and 

ANASTHASIE OSIRUSP based on Defendants’ willful violations of the Fair Labor 

Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.; and

B. Award Plaintiff JUAN A. CALDERON actual damages in the amount shown to be due 

for unpaid overtime compensation for hours worked more than forty weekly, with 

interest; and

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

D. Award Plaintiff reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit; and 

E. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems equitable and just and/or 

Case 1:20-cv-22165-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 9 of 10
Page 10 of 10

available pursuant to Federal Law. 

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff JUAN A. CALDERON demands trial by jury of all issues triable as of right by a jury.

DATED: May 25, 2020 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 

 By: _/s/ Zandro E. Palma____

 ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.

 Florida Bar No.: 0024031

 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd.

 Suite 1500

 Miami, FL 33156

 Telephone: (305) 446-1500

 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502

 zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

 Attorney for Plaintiff

 

Case 1:20-cv-22165-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 10 of 10