WWW.SAENZANDERSON.COM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

Case No. __________________

MANUEL SIMON, and other similarly 

situated individuals,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

SELENIS TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a 

Selenis Construction, CERRONI 

ENGINEERING LLC d/b/a Selenis 

Construction, UWE CERRON, and 

VALERIO CERRON,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

COMPLAINT

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

Plaintiff MANUEL SIMON (“Plaintiff”), by and through the undersigned counsel, sues

defendants SELENIS TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a Selenis Construction, CERRONI 

ENGINEERING LLC d/b/a Selenis Construction, UWE CERRON, and VALERIO CERRON 

(collectively, “Defendants”) and alleges:

JURISDICTION

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

laws of the United States and unpaid wages under Florida Common Law. This Court has 

jurisdiction pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201-219 (Section 216 for 

jurisdictional placement) (“the FLSA”) and supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC §1367.

Case 1:20-cv-21901-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2020 Page 1 of 12
WWW.SAENZANDERSON.COM

2

2. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim because the facts 

regarding Plaintiff’s state law claim are so related to the Federal claims that they form part of the 

same case or controversy.

VENUE

3. Plaintiff is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida, within the jurisdiction of 

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

4. Defendants SELENIS TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a Selenis Construction and

CERRONI ENGINEERING LLC d/b/a Selenis Construction (collectively, the “Corporate 

Defendants”) are Florida companies having their main place of business in Miami-Dade County, 

Florida, where Plaintiff worked for Defendants, and at all times material hereto were and are 

engaged in interstate commerce. 

5. Defendants UWE CERRON, and VALERIO CERRON (collectively, the 

“Individual Defendants”) were, and are now, the owners, directors, and/or high-ranking officers 

of the Corporate Defendants.

6. The Corporate Defendants share common ownership, common management, 

centralized control of labor relations, and common offices and interrelated operations. The 

Corporate Defendants are an integrated enterprise under the FLSA. Alternatively, each company 

is an enterprise under the FLSA, or each company is an agent of the other.

7. The Corporate Defendants share employees or interchange employees; work in 

the direct interest of one another; and their employees are in the common control of both 

Case 1:20-cv-21901-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2020 Page 2 of 12
WWW.SAENZANDERSON.COM

3

companies. The Corporate Defendants are joint employers. Alternatively, each company is an 

enterprise under the FLSA.

8. Each Corporate Defendant is sued individually, as a joint enterprise, as joint 

employers, and as agent of each other.

COUNT I: VIOLATIONS BY THE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS

(UNPAID OVERTIME WAGES UNDER THE FLSA)

9. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-8

above as if set out in full herein. 

10. This action is brought by Plaintiff, to recover from the Corporate Defendants

unpaid overtime compensation, as well as an additional amount as liquidated damages, costs, and 

reasonable attorney’s fees under the provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and also under the 

provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 207. 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.”

11. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by Title 28 U.S.C. § 1337 and by Title 29 

U.S.C. § 216(b). The Corporate Defendants are and, at all times pertinent to this complaint, were 

engaged in interstate commerce. At all times pertinent to this complaint, the Corporate 

Defendants operated as organizations which sell and/or market their services and/or goods to 

customers from throughout the United States and from outside of the United States, and also 

provide their services for goods sold and transported from across state lines of other states, and 

Case 1:20-cv-21901-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2020 Page 3 of 12
WWW.SAENZANDERSON.COM

4

the Corporate Defendants obtain and solicit funds from non-Florida sources, accept funds from 

non-Florida sources, use telephonic transmissions going over state lines to do their business, 

transmit funds outside the State of Florida, and otherwise regularly engage in interstate 

commerce, particularly with respect to their employees and customers. Upon information and 

belief, the annual gross revenue of the Corporate Defendants was at all times material hereto in 

excess of $500,000.00 per annum, and/or Plaintiff, by virtue of working in interstate commerce, 

otherwise satisfies the FLSA’s requirements.

12. By reason of the foregoing, the Corporate Defendants are and were, during all 

times hereafter mentioned, enterprises engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for 

commerce as defined in §§ 3(r) and 3(s) of the FLSA and/or Plaintiff, and those similarly 

situated, were engaged in interstate commerce for the Corporate Defendants. The Corporate 

Defendants’ business activities involve those to which the FLSA applies. The Corporate 

Defendants, through their business activities, affect interstate commerce. Plaintiff’s work for The 

Corporate Defendants likewise affects interstate commerce. Plaintiff was employed by the 

Corporate Defendants as a construction worker for the Corporate Defendants’ business.

13. While employed by the Corporate Defendants, Plaintiff worked approximately an 

average of 90 hours per week without being compensated at the rate of not less than one- and 

one-half times the regular rate at which he was employed.

14. Plaintiff worked for the Corporate Defendants from approximately July of 2019 

through December 15, 2019. In total, Plaintiff worked approximately 23 compensable weeks 

Case 1:20-cv-21901-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2020 Page 4 of 12
WWW.SAENZANDERSON.COM

5

under the FLSA, or 23 compensable weeks if we count 3 years preceding the date of the filing of 

the instant action.

15. The Corporate Defendants paid Plaintiff on average approximately $20.55 per 

hour. 

16. However, the Corporate Defendants did not properly compensate Plaintiff for 

hours that Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 per week.

17. Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages accumulated from the date of 

hire and/or from 3 (three) years preceding the date of the filing of this Complaint.

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

the time of the filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff’s good faith estimate of unpaid overtime wages 

is as follows:

a. Actual Damages: $11,816.25

i. Calculation: $20.55 (hourly pay) x .5 (overtime rate) x 50 (approximate 

number of weekly overtime hours) x 23 (compensable weeks) = $11,816.25

b. Liquidated Damages: $11,816.25

c. Total Damages: $23,632.50, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit.

19. At all times material hereto, the Corporate Defendants failed to comply with Title 

29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 and 29 C.F.R. § 516.2 and § 516.4 et seq. in that Plaintiff and those 

similarly situated performed services and worked in excess of the maximum hours provided by 

the FLSA but no provision was made by the Corporate Defendants to properly pay him at the 

Case 1:20-cv-21901-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2020 Page 5 of 12
WWW.SAENZANDERSON.COM

6

rate of time and one half for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek as provided in 

the FLSA.

20. The additional persons who may become plaintiffs in this action are weekly-paid 

employees and/or former employees of the Corporate Defendants who are and who were subject 

to the unlawful payroll practices and procedures of the Corporate Defendants and were not 

properly paid overtime for hours worked in excess of forty per week. 

21. The Corporate Defendants knew and/or showed reckless disregard of the 

provisions of the FLSA concerning the payment of overtime wages as required by the FLSA and 

remains owing Plaintiff these overtime wages since the commencement of Plaintiff’s 

employment with the Corporate Defendants as set forth above, and Plaintiff is entitled to recover 

double damages. The Corporate Defendants never posted any notice, as required by the FLSA, to 

inform employees of their federal rights to overtime wage payments.

22. The Corporate Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff 

overtime wages as required by the laws of the United States as set forth above and remains 

owing Plaintiff these overtime wages since the commencement of Plaintiff’s employment with 

the Corporate Defendants as set forth above.

23. The Corporate Defendants willfully and intentionally failed to keep records of all 

hours worked by Plaintiff and of all payments made to Plaintiff pursuant to the FLSA and the 

Code of Federal Regulations.

24. The Corporate Defendants failed to post notice of employees’ rights to minimum 

and overtime wages.

Case 1:20-cv-21901-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2020 Page 6 of 12
WWW.SAENZANDERSON.COM

7

25. The Corporate Defendants devised a scheme to avoid FLSA liability by paying 

Plaintiff and those similarly situated through third parties even though the Plaintiff and those 

similarly situated worked directly under the control and directives of the Defendants. This 

shows Corporate Defendants knowingly violated the FLSA. 

26. Corporate Defendants misclassified Plaintiff and those similarly situated 

individuals as “independent contractors” in a clear attempt to circumvent FLSA law. This is also 

proof that the Corporate Defendants knowingly violated the FLSA.

27. 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 request that this Honorable Court: 

A. Enter judgment for Plaintiff and others similarly situated and against the Corporate 

Defendants on the basis of the Corporate Defendants’ willful violations of the Fair 

Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. and other Federal Regulations;

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

compensation for hours worked in excess of forty weekly;

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

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. 

JURY DEMAND

Case 1:20-cv-21901-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2020 Page 7 of 12
WWW.SAENZANDERSON.COM

8

Plaintiff and those similarly situated demand trial by jury of all issues so triable as of 

right.

COUNT II: VIOLATIONS BY THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS

(UNPAID OVERTIME WAGES UNDER THE FLSA)

28. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-27

above as if set out in full herein.

29. At the times mentioned, the Individual Defendants were, and are now, the owners, 

directors, and/or high-ranking officers of the Corporate Defendants. The Individual Defendants

were employers of Plaintiff and others similarly situated within the meaning of Section 3(d) of 

the FLSA [29 U.S.C. § 203(d)], in that the Individual Defendants acted directly or indirectly in 

the interests of Corporate Defendants in relation to the employees of Corporate Defendants, 

including Plaintiff and others similarly situated. The Individual Defendants had operational 

control of Corporate Defendants, were involved in the day-to-day functions of Corporate 

Defendants, provided Plaintiff with his work schedule, and are jointly liable for Plaintiff’s 

damages.

30. The Individual Defendants are, and were at all times, relevant persons in control 

of Corporate Defendants’ financial affairs and can cause Corporate Defendants to compensate 

(or not to compensate) their employees in accordance with the FLSA.

31. The Individual Defendants willfully and intentionally caused Plaintiff not to 

receive overtime compensation as required by the laws of the United States as set forth above 

Case 1:20-cv-21901-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2020 Page 8 of 12
WWW.SAENZANDERSON.COM

9

and remains owing Plaintiff overtime wages since the commencement of Plaintiff’s employment 

with the Corporate Defendants as set forth above.

32. 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 request that this Honorable Court: 

A. Enter judgment for Plaintiff and others similarly situated and against the Individual 

Defendants on the basis of the Individual Defendants’ willful violations of the Fair 

Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. and other Federal Regulations;

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

compensation for hours worked in excess of forty weekly;

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

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. 

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff and those similarly situated demand trial by jury of all issues so triable as of 

right.

COUNT III: UNPAID WAGES UNDER FLORIDA COMMON LAW

AND SECTION 448.08, FLORIDA STATUTES

33. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-8 

above as if set out in full herein.

Case 1:20-cv-21901-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2020 Page 9 of 12
WWW.SAENZANDERSON.COM

10

34. The Corporate Defendants employed Plaintiff from approximately July 2019

through December 15, 2019 (approximately 23 weeks). Plaintiff, at all times relevant, was an 

employee of the Corporate Defendants.

35. Corporate Defendants misclassified Plaintiff as an independent contractor.

36. The Corporate Defendants employed Plaintiff as a construction worker and agreed 

to pay him for his hours worked at a rate of $20.55 per hour or $1,850 per week.

37. Corporate Defendants paid Plaintiff the agreed upon amount for approximately 5 

weeks only. Thereafter, they paid Plaintiff only $400-$500 per week with a promise that the 

Corporate Defendants would later pay the difference.

38. Corporate Defendants never paid the difference and for the last 2 weeks of 

Plaintiff’s employment, Corporate Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at all.

39. All the hours worked by Plaintiff for the benefit of the Corporate Defendant were

worked within the State of Florida.

40. The Corporate Defendants owe Plaintiff unpaid wages in the amount of at least

$25,300.

41. As a result, Plaintiff has been damaged.

42. The Corporate Defendants owe Plaintiff his wages earned under Florida common

law and attorneys’ fees and costs incurred pursuing this action under Florida Statutes, Section 

448.08, should the Plaintiff prevail on this claim.

43. Plaintiff has retained undersigned counsel to represent him in this matter and has

agreed to pay said firm a reasonable attorney’s fee for its services.

Case 1:20-cv-21901-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2020 Page 10 of 12
WWW.SAENZANDERSON.COM

11

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court grant the following relief:

A. An award to Plaintiff and against the Corporate Defendants for actual damages in the 

amount shown to be due for unpaid wages, with interest;

` B. Costs of this action, together with reasonable attorneys’ fees;

C. Such other and further relief as this Court deems equitable and just.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

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

COUNT IV: BREACH OF CONTRACT

44. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-8 

above as if set out in full herein.

45. The Corporate Defendants and Plaintiff entered into a verbal contract whereby 

Plaintiff was to perform construction work for the Corporate Defendants and the Corporate 

Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiff $1,850 per week or $20.55 per hour for his work.

46. Corporate Defendants benefited from Plaintiff’s work for approximately 23 

weeks, from approximately July 2019 through December 15, 2019.

47. Plaintiff fully performed under the contract.

48. Corporate Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff the amount they promised and agreed 

to pay Plaintiff under the contract.

49. As a result, Plaintiff has been damaged in the amount of approximately $23,500.

Case 1:20-cv-21901-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2020 Page 11 of 12
WWW.SAENZANDERSON.COM

12

50. Plaintiff has retained undersigned counsel to represent him in this matter and has

agreed to pay said firm a reasonable attorney’s fee for its services.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

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

Dated: May 6, 2020.

Respectfully submitted,

By: R. Martin Saenz

R. Martin Saenz, Esquire

 Fla. Bar No.: 0640166 

 Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com

SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800

Aventura, Florida 33180

Telephone: (305) 503-5131

Facsimile: (305) 652-5859

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 1:20-cv-21901-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2020 Page 12 of 12