7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450, Miami, Florida 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:20-CV-22535

YOLANDA CRUZ,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MHB CONSULTANTS, INC.,

AMADA TRO,

ELOISA ARANDIA, and

GEMA QUINTERO,

Defendants.

______________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Yolanda Cruz, sues Defendants, MHB Consultants, Inc., Amada Tro, Eloisa 

Arandia, and Gema Quintero, based on the following good cause:

Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue

1. Plaintiff, Yolanda Cruz, was and is a sui juris resident of Miami-Dade County, 

Florida, at all times material. 

2. Ms. Villavicencio was an employee of Defendants, as the term “employee” is 

defined by 29 U.S.C. §203(e).

3. Ms. Villavicencio was a non-exempt employee of Defendants.

4. Ms. Villavicencio consents to participate in this lawsuit. 

5. Defendant, MHB Consultants, Inc., is a sui juris Florida for-profit 

corporation with its principal place of business and registered agent in this District and it 

conducts its for-profit business in Miami-Dade County. 

Case 1:20-cv-22535-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 1 of 12
7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450, Miami, Florida 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

2

6. Defendant, Amada Tro, was and is an owner / officer / director of the 

corporate Defendant for the relevant time period. She ran its day-to-day operations, made 

financial decisions for the corporate Defendant, had supervisory authority over Plaintiff, and was 

partially, ultimately, and/or totally responsible for paying Plaintiff’s wages.

7. Defendant, Eloisa Aranca, was and is an owner / officer / director of the 

corporate Defendant for the relevant time period. She also ran its day-to-day operations, made 

financial decisions for the corporate Defendant, had supervisory authority over Plaintiff, and was 

partially, ultimately, and/or totally responsible for paying Plaintiff’s wages.

8. Defendant, Gema Quintero, was and is an owner / officer / director of the 

corporate Defendant for the relevant time period. She also ran its day-to-day operations, made 

financial decisions for the corporate Defendant, had supervisory authority over Plaintiff, and was 

partially, ultimately, and/or totally responsible for paying Plaintiff’s wages.

9. Defendants were Plaintiff’s direct employers, joint employers and co-employers, as 

that term “employer” is defined by 29 U.S.C. §203 (d). 

10. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 29 

U.S.C. § 216(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and supplemental/pendent jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s

related state law claim(s). 

11. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(ii) because Defendants transact 

business in this District, because the corporate Defendant maintains its principal place of business 

in this District, and because most if not all of the operational decisions were made in this District, 

while Plaintiff worked in Miami-Dade County, where payment was to be received.

12. Any/all conditions precedent to filing this lawsuit occurred and/or was satisfied 

by Plaintiff.

Case 1:20-cv-22535-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 2 of 12
7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450, Miami, Florida 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

3

13. Plaintiff retained the undersigned counsel and agreed to pay a reasonable fee for 

all services rendered.

COUNT I – FLSA MINIMUM WAGE VIOLATION(S)

Plaintiff, Yolanda Cruz, reincorporates and re-alleges all preceding paragraphs as though 

set forth fully herein and further alleges as follows:

14. Defendants have been at all times material engaged in interstate commerce in the 

course of their provision of comprehensive behavioral intervention services which, traditionally, 

cannot be performed without using goods, materials, supplies, and equipment that have all 

moved through interstate commerce. 

15. Defendants also communicate with their workers and with others by regularly and 

routinely using telephones and transmitting information through email and the Internet, and 

which transmissions regularly and routinely traveled outside of the State of Florida.

16. Defendants maintain a website at www.mhbconsultantsgroup.com, which they use 

for promotional and informational purposes, and which they use as a portal for processing 

information.

17. Furthermore, Defendants engage in interstate commerce in the course of their 

submission of billings and receipt of payment involving out-of-state medical / healthcare payors 

and/or the United States government. 

18. Defendants’ individual and/or combined corporate annual gross revenues derived 

from this interstate commerce are believed to be in excess of $500,000.00 for the relevant time 

period and/or exceeded $125,000.00 for each relevant fiscal quarter. 

19. In particular, Defendants own and operate an agency that provides behavioral 

therapy to clients using computers, software, phones, computer networking equipment, toner, 

Case 1:20-cv-22535-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 3 of 12
7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450, Miami, Florida 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

4

printers, pens, paper, supplies, furniture, phone systems, and other materials and supplies that 

were previously placed in the stream of commerce from outside of the State of Florida before 

being received in this District to engage in interstate commerce

20. In particular, Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a Registered Behavior 

Technician (“RBT”) from approximately October 2017 through March 31, 2019.

21. The Behavior Analyst Certification Board (“BACB”) defines an RBT as “a 

paraprofessional who practices under the close, ongoing supervision of a BCBA, BCaBA, or FLCBA.”

22. Defendants paid for and/or employed the supervisor (as identified above) who 

established the plan of care for each patient visited by Plaintiff, including the number of hours 

and frequency of therapy that each child was to receive from Plaintiff.

23. In order for Defendants to be paid for the time expended by Plaintiff, Defendants 

needed to submit their provider number along with Plaintiff’s provider number, since Plaintiff’s 

provider number could not be submitted alone to receive payment.

24. Defendants controlled all job-related activities of Plaintiff.

25. Defendants coordinated all job-related activities of Plaintiff.

26. Defendants provided Plaintiff with the forms to utilize in her work.

27. Defendants supervised Plaintiff in her work.

28. Defendants failed and refused to pay Plaintiff even a minimum wage of $7.25 per 

hour for each of the hours that she worked by failing to timely pay her for the hours that she 

worked for Defendants during her last month of employment with Defendants.

Case 1:20-cv-22535-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 4 of 12
7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450, Miami, Florida 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

5

29. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations of the FLSA, as set 

forth above, Plaintiff is entitled to payment of the applicable minimum wage for all unpaid hours 

worked.

30. Defendants either knew from prior experience or recklessly failed to investigate 

whether their failure to pay Plaintiff the applicable a minimum wage for each of the hours 

worked during the relevant time period violated the FLSA and then failed to timely correct their 

violation.

WHEREFORE Plaintiff, Yolanda Cruz, demands the entry of a judgment in her favor 

and against Defendants, MHB Consultants, Inc., Amada Tro, Eloisa Arandia, and Gema 

Quintero, jointly and severally, after trial by jury and as follows:

a. That Plaintiff recover compensatory minimum wage damages and an 

equal amount of liquidated damages as provided under the law and in 29 

U.S.C. § 216(b) – or interest on the unpaid wages if no liquidated damages 

are awarded;

b. That Plaintiff recover pre-judgment interest on all unpaid minimum wages 

if the Court does not award liquidated damages;

c. That Plaintiff recover an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and 

expenses pursuant to the FLSA;

d. That Plaintiff recover all interest allowed by law;

e. That Defendants be Ordered to make Plaintiff whole by providing 

appropriate minimum wage pay and other benefits wrongly denied in an 

amount to be shown at trial and other affirmative relief; 

Case 1:20-cv-22535-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 5 of 12
7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450, Miami, Florida 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

6

f. That the Court declare Defendants to be in willful violation of the 

overtime provisions of the FLSA; and 

g. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

COUNT II – FLSA OVERTIME VIOLATION(S)

Plaintiff, Yolanda Cruz, reincorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 13 as though 

set forth fully herein and further alleges as follows:

31. Defendants have been at all times material engaged in interstate commerce in the 

course of their provision of comprehensive behavioral intervention services which, traditionally, 

cannot be performed without using goods, materials, supplies, and equipment that have all 

moved through interstate commerce. 

32. Defendants also communicate with their workers and with others by regularly and 

routinely using telephones and transmitting information through email and the Internet, and 

which transmissions regularly and routinely traveled outside of the State of Florida.

33. Defendants maintain a website at www.mhbconsultantsgroup.com, which they use 

for promotional and informational purposes, and which they use as a portal for processing 

information.

34. Furthermore, Defendants engage in interstate commerce in the course of their 

submission of billings and receipt of payment involving out-of-state medical / healthcare payors 

and/or the United States government. 

35. Defendants’ individual and/or combined corporate annual gross revenues derived 

from this interstate commerce are believed to be in excess of $500,000.00 for the relevant time 

period and/or exceeded $125,000.00 for each relevant fiscal quarter.

Case 1:20-cv-22535-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 6 of 12
7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450, Miami, Florida 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

7

36. In particular, Defendants own and operate an agency that provides behavioral 

therapy to clients using computers, software, phones, computer networking equipment, toner, 

printers, pens, paper, supplies, furniture, phone systems, and other materials and supplies that 

were previously placed in the stream of commerce from outside of the State of Florida before 

being received in this District to engage in interstate commerce

37. In particular, Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a Registered Behavior 

Technician (“RBT”) from approximately October 2017 through March 31, 2019.

38. The Behavior Analyst Certification Board (“BACB”) defines an RBT as “a 

paraprofessional who practices under the close, ongoing supervision of a BCBA, BCaBA, or FLCBA.”

39. Defendants paid for and/or employed the supervisor (as identified above) who 

established the plan of care for each patient visited by Plaintiff, including the number of hours 

and frequency of therapy that each child was to receive from Plaintiff.

40. In order for Defendants to be paid for the time expended by Plaintiff, Defendants 

needed to submit their provider number along with Plaintiff’s provider number, since Plaintiff’s 

provider number could not be submitted alone to receive payment.

41. Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiff at a rate of $25/hour for each hour worked.

42. Defendants controlled all job-related activities of Plaintiff.

43. Defendants coordinated all job-related activities of Plaintiff.

44. Defendants provided Plaintiff with the forms to utilize in her work.

45. Defendants supervised Plaintiff in her work.

46. Plaintiff regularly and routinely worked more than 40 hours in a workweek for 

Defendants.

Case 1:20-cv-22535-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 7 of 12
7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450, Miami, Florida 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

8

47. Defendants did not pay Plaintiff for the time she expended traveling between 

appointments/clients.

48. Defendants did not pay Plaintiff for the time she was required to complete her 

notes for the sessions she had with each client.

49. Defendants did not pay Plaintiff for time expended on their behalf other than 

when Plaintiff was physically with the client.

50. Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff overtime wages of at 

least one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for all hours that she worked beyond 40 in a 

workweek.

51. Defendants either recklessly failed to investigate whether their failure to pay 

Plaintiff overtime wages of at least one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for all hours 

that she worked beyond 40 in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, they 

intentionally misled Plaintiff to believe that Defendants were not required to pay her overtime

wages for all hours worked beyond 40 in a workweek, and/or Defendants concocted a scheme 

pursuant to which they deprived Plaintiff of the overtime wage pay she earned.

52. Plaintiff is entitled to a backpay award of overtime wages of one and one-half 

times her regular rate of pay for all hours that she worked beyond 40 in a workweek, plus an 

equal amount as a penalty/liquidated damages, plus all attorneys’ fees and costs.

WHEREFORE Plaintiff, Yolanda Cruz, demands the entry of a judgment in her favor 

and against Defendants, MHB Consultants, Inc., Amada Tro, Eloisa Arandia, and Gema 

Quintero, jointly and severally, after trial by jury and as follows:

a. That Plaintiff recover compensatory overtime wage damages and an equal 

amount of liquidated damages as provided under the law and in 29 U.S.C. 

Case 1:20-cv-22535-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 8 of 12
7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450, Miami, Florida 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

9

§ 216(b) – or interest on the unpaid wages if no liquidated damages are 

awarded;

b. That Plaintiff recover pre-judgment interest on all unpaid overtime wages 

if the Court does not award liquidated damages;

c. That Plaintiff recover an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and 

expenses pursuant to the FLSA;

d. That Plaintiff recover all interest allowed by law;

e. That Defendants be Ordered to make Plaintiff whole by providing 

appropriate overtime pay and other benefits wrongly denied in an amount 

to be shown at trial and other affirmative relief; 

f. That the Court declare Defendants to be in willful violation of the 

overtime provisions of the FLSA; and 

g. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

COUNT III – BREACH OF CONTRACT

Plaintiff, Yolanda Cruz, reincorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 13 as though 

set forth fully herein and further alleges as follows:

53. Through this claim, Plaintiff seeks recover of the “pure gap time” wages that she 

worked and earned, but did not receive.1 See e.g., Jernigan v. 1st Stop Recovery, Inc., 2017 WL 

3682332 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 25, 2017) (citing Davis v. Abington Memorial Hosp., 765 F.3d 236, 244 (3d 

Cir. 2014); Botting v. Goldstein, 2015 WL 10324134 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 21, 2015); Lundy v. Catholic 

1 Thrower v. Peach County, Georgia, Bd. of Educ., 2010 WL 4536997, at *4 (M.D. Ga. Nov. 2, 2010) (“In 

the wage and hour world, this time between scheduled hours and overtime hours is known as ‘pure gap 

time’.”)

Case 1:20-cv-22535-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 9 of 12
7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450, Miami, Florida 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

10

Health Sys. of Long Island, Inc., 711 F. 3d 106 (2d Cir. 2013); and Monahan v. Cty. Of Chesterfield, Va., 

95 F.3d 1263, 1280 (4th Cir. 1996).)

54. Plaintiff and Defendants agreed that in exchange for Plaintiff expending time and 

effort on their behalf, they would compensate her at a rate of $25.00 for each hour that she 

worked for them.

55. Plaintiff performed under the parties’ contract/agreement by performing work for 

Defendants as aforesaid.

56. Defendants, however, failed and refused to perform its obligation to timely pay 

Plaintiff at the rate of $25.00 for each of work that she worked for Defendants during the last 

three months of her employment, thereby breaching the oral contract/agreement they had.

57. Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of Defendants’ failure to pay her for the 

work she performed during the last three months of her employment in a timely manner.

WHEREFORE Plaintiff, Yolanda Cruz, demands the entry of a judgment in her favor 

and against Defendants, MHB Consultants, Inc., Amada Tro, Eloisa Arandia, and Gema 

Quintero, jointly and severally, after trial by jury, for all breach of contract damages suffered, 

plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in this matter 

pursuant to Fla. Stat. §448.08, and to award such other and further relief as this Court deems just 

and proper.

COUNT IV – UNJUST ENRICHMENT

Plaintiff, Yolanda Cruz, reincorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 13 as though 

set forth fully herein and further alleges as follows:

Case 1:20-cv-22535-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 10 of 12
7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450, Miami, Florida 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

11

58. Through this claim, Plaintiff seeks recover of the “pure gap time” wages that she 

worked and earned, but did not receive.2 See e.g., Jernigan v. 1st Stop Recovery, Inc., 2017 WL 

3682332 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 25, 2017) (citing Davis v. Abington Memorial Hosp., 765 F.3d 236, 244 (3d 

Cir. 2014); Botting v. Goldstein, 2015 WL 10324134 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 21, 2015); Lundy v. Catholic 

Health Sys. of Long Island, Inc., 711 F. 3d 106 (2d Cir. 2013); and Monahan v. Cty. Of Chesterfield, Va., 

95 F.3d 1263, 1280 (4th Cir. 1996).)

59. Plaintiff provided labor and services for Defendants, and they received and 

accepted the benefits of the labor and services supplied by him. 

60. Plaintiff expected to be paid a reasonable value for the labor and services he 

provided to Defendants.

61. Plaintiff provided services on behalf of Defendants for their business, as requested, 

they submitted time expended by Plaintiff in order to be paid, and they received and accepted 

the benefits of the work, efforts, and labor that Plaintiff provided.

62. Defendants were unjustly enriched in that they failed and refused to make 

payment to Plaintiff for the benefits she conferred upon them during the last three months of her 

employment.

WHEREFORE Plaintiff, Yolanda Cruz, demands the entry of a judgment in her favor 

and against Defendants, MHB Consultants, Inc., Amada Tro, Eloisa Arandia, and Gema 

Quintero, jointly and severally, after trial by jury, for all damages suffered, plus pre-judgment 

and post-judgment interest, costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in this matter pursuant to Fla. Stat. 

§448.08, and to award such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

2 Thrower v. Peach County, Georgia, Bd. of Educ., 2010 WL 4536997, at *4 (M.D. Ga. Nov. 2, 2010) (“In 

the wage and hour world, this time between scheduled hours and overtime hours is known as ‘pure gap 

time’.”)

Case 1:20-cv-22535-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 11 of 12
7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450, Miami, Florida 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

12

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, Yolanda Cruz, demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable.

Respectfully submitted this 19th day of June 2020,

s/Brian H. Pollock, Esq.

Brian H. Pollock, Esq. (174742)

brian@fairlawattorney.com

FAIRLAW FIRM

7300 N. Kendall Drive

Suite 450

Miami, FL 33156

Tel: 305.230.4884

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 1:20-cv-22535-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 12 of 12