UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 

AUGUSTO EDUARDO LOAIZA 

LEMUS and all others similarly situated 

Under 29 U.S.C 216(b),

 Plaintiff,

vs.

PROJECTOTRES, LLC, a Florida 

Limited Liability Company, and 

JORGE CHALL PEREZ, individually,

 Defendants.

___________________________________/

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW Plaintiff, AUGUSTO EDUARDO LOAIZA LEMUS, by and through his

undersigned attorneys, and hereby sue Defendants, PROJECTOTRES, LLC, a Florida Liability 

Company, and JORGE CHALL PEREZ, individually, and as grounds alleges:

JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS

1. This is an action to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages, interests, costs 

and attorney’s fees for willful violations of overtime wages under the laws of the United States, 

the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§201-219) (“the FLSA”).

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

Honorable Court.

3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 because this 

action involves the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§201, et seq., a federal statute. 

4. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(c) and (d). 

Case 1:20-cv-22308-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 1 of 5
2 of 5

5. Defendant PROJECTOTRES, LLC is a Florida Limited Liability Company which 

regularly conducted business within the Southern District of Florida.

6. PROJECTOTRES, LLC is and, at all times pertinent to this Complaint an enterprise 

engaged in commerce, as it had two or more employees on a regular and consistent basis handle 

goods and/or materials that had moved in interstate commerce. Specifically, Plaintiff and one 

other employee of PROJECTOTRES, LLC would routinely handle construction equipment, tools, 

and materials on a regular and consistent basis. These construction equipment, tools, and materials

handled or used by Plaintiff, as well as other employees of PROJECTOTRES, LLC, had travelled 

in interstate commerce. Furthermore, PROJECTOTRES, LLC, by and through their employees, 

obtains and solicits funds from non-Florida sources, accepts funds from non-Florida sources, uses 

telephonic transmissions going over state lines to do its business and transmits funds outside the 

State of Florida.

7. Upon information and belief, the annual gross revenue of PROJECTOTRES, LLC 

was at all times material hereto in excess of $500,000.00 per annum gross for the year 2018 and 

2019.

8. By reason of the foregoing, PROJECTOTRES, LLC 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) and/or Plaintiff 

is within interstate commerce.

9. The individual Defendant, PEREZ, is an “employer,” as defined in 29 U.S.C. § 

203(d), as he had operational control over the Defendant corporation and is directly involved in 

decisions affecting employee compensation and hours worked by employees such as Plaintiff. 

Defendant PEREZ controlled the purse strings for the corporate Defendant. Defendant PEREZ

Case 1:20-cv-22308-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 2 of 5
3 of 5

hired and fired employees, determined the rate of compensation and was responsible for ensuring 

that employees were paid the wages required by the FLSA. 

COUNT I: OVERTIME WAGES 

10. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers paragraphs 1 through 9 as fully set forth herein.

11. Plaintiff is employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt electrician.

12. Plaintiff was employed from on or about December 4, 2018 through on or about 

May 28, 2019.

13. Plaintiff was paid a rate of $14.00 per hour during the first biweekly period of his 

employment. 

14. Plaintiff received a raise to $15.00 per hour during the second biweekly period of 

his employment.

15. Plaintiff received a raise to $16.00 per hour the third biweekly period of his 

employment.

16. Plaintiff received a raise to $17.00 per hour the fourth biweekly period of his 

employment.

17. Plaintiff received a raise to $18.00 per hour commencing with the fifth biweekly 

period of his employment. 

18. During the period of on or about December 4, 2018 through on or about May 28, 

2019, Plaintiff worked approximately 56 hours per week during the same period. 

19. Plaintiff was not paid overtime wages for approximately 16 overtime hours per 

week during the aforementioned period. Accordingly, Plaintiff is owed these hours at a rate of 

halftime, or half the regular wage that Plaintiff. 

Case 1:20-cv-22308-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 3 of 5
4 of 5

20. Plaintiff was re-employed from on or about July 8, 2019 through on or about August 

17, 2019.

21. Plaintiff worked approximately 72 hours during the week of on or about July 28, 

2019. Plaintiff was paid 40 hours during the said week. Plaintiff is owed 32 overtime hours at a 

rate of time-and-one half the regular rate for this week. 

22. Plaintiff worked approximately 52 hours during the week of on or about August 4, 

2019. Plaintiff was paid 40 hours during the said week. Plaintiff is owed 12 overtime hours at a 

rate of time-and-one half the regular rate for this week. 

23. The FLSA requires that employees be paid overtime hours worked in excess of 

forty (40) hours weekly at a rate of time-and-one-half the regular rate. At all times material hereto, 

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

the FLSA but no provision was made by the Defendants to properly pay him at the rate of time 

and one-half for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per workweek as provided in the FLSA.

24. Defendants knew and/or showed reckless disregard of the provisions of the FLSA 

concerning the payment of overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. 

Defendants were aware of Plaintiff’s work schedule and further aware that Plaintiff was working 

more than 40 hours per week. Defendants were aware of Plaintiff’s pay records and the rate that 

they were being paid for their hours. Despite Defendants’ having knowledge of Plaintiff’s hours 

and their failure to pay overtime wages, Defendants did not change its pay practices and continued 

to fail to pay Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, the overtime wages that were due. Thus, 

Defendants continue to willfully violate the FLSA.

Case 1:20-cv-22308-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 4 of 5
5 of 5

25. Plaintiff has retained the law offices of the undersigned attorneys to represent him

in this action and is entitled to award of reasonable attorney’s fees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff request compensatory and liquidated damages, and reasonable 

attorney’s fees and costs from Defendants, jointly and severally, pursuant to the Fair Labor 

Standards Act as cited above, to be proven at the time of trial for overtime owing from Plaintiff’s

entire employment period with Defendants, or as much as allowed by the Fair Labor Standards 

Act, whichever is greater, along with court costs. In the event that Plaintiff does not recover 

liquidated damages, then Plaintiff will seek an award of prejudgment interest for the unpaid 

overtime, and any and all other relief which this Court deems reasonable under the circumstances.

JURY DEMAND

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

Dated: June 3, 2020

Law Office of Daniel T. Feld, P.A.

Co-Counsel for Plaintiff

2847 Hollywood Blvd.

Hollywood, Florida 33020

Tel: (954) 361-8383

Email: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com

/s Daniel T. Feld

Daniel T. Feld, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 37013

Mamane Law LLC

Co-counsel for Plaintiff

10800 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 650 

Miami, Florida 33161

Telephone (305) 773 - 6661

E-mail: mamane@gmail.com

s/ Isaac Mamane

Isaac Mamane, Esq.

 Florida Bar No. 44561

Case 1:20-cv-22308-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 5 of 5