UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 

 

RACHAEL WATSON, 

 Plaintiff, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

v. 

 

PROMENADE GRILL AND WINGS, LLC, a 

Florida limited liability company d/b/a HURRICANE 

GRILL & WINGS; and, JEFFREY ARRIGONI, 

 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 

Plaintiff, RACHAEL WATSON (“WATSON”) by and through undersigned counsel, 

sues the Defendants, PROMENADE GRILL AND WINGS, LLC, a Florida limited liability 

company d/b/a HURRICANE GRILL & WINGS (hereinafter, “PROMENADE”); and JEFFREY 

ARRIGONI (hereinafter, “ARRIGONI”). and states as follows: 

INTRODUCTION 

1. This is an action to recover unpaid overtime and minimum wage compensation under the 

Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et. seq, (hereinafter “FLSA”); and, minimum 

wages under the Florida Minimum Wage Amendment, Article X, §24 of the Florida Constitution and 

Fla. Stat. §448.110. 

JURISDICTION 

2. This Court has jurisdiction over this controversy pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b) and 28 

U.S.C. §1331. At all times pertinent to this Complaint, the corporate Defendants, PROMENADE 

was an enterprise engaged in interstate commerce. At all times pertinent to this Complaint, 

Case 2:20-cv-14162-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 1 of 8
Defendants regularly owned and operated businesses 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). 

3. Defendants operated restaurants. Plaintiff’s work involved handling on a regular and 

recurrent basis “goods” or “materials,” as defined by the FLSA, which were used commercially in 

Defendants’ businesses, and moved in interstate commerce. This included food and drinks that 

were originally manufactured outside the State of Florida. 

4. During the relevant time period, Defendants employed the Plaintiff, who was “engaged 

in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce,” or “had employees handling, selling or 

otherwise working on goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for commerce by 

any person,” as defined in 29 U.S.C. §203(s)(1)(A)(i). 

5. During the period of the Plaintiff’s employment, the Defendants had an annual gross 

volume of sales made or business done of not less than $500,000.00 in accordance with 

§203(s)(1)(A)(ii). 

6. The Defendants are subject to the jurisdiction of this Court because they engage in 

substantial and not isolated activity within the Southern District of Florida. 

7. The Defendants are also subject to the jurisdiction of this Court because they operate, 

conduct, engage in, and/or carry on business in the Southern of Florida. 

VENUE 

8. The venue of this Court over this controversy is based upon the following: 

a. The unlawful employment practices alleged below occurred and/or were 

 committed in the Southern District of Florida 

and, 

Case 2:20-cv-14162-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 2 of 8
b. Defendants were and continue to be corporations and an individual doing 

business within this judicial district. 

PARTIES 

9. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, WATSON was a resident of Port St. Lucie, St. 

Lucie County, Florida, and was an “employee” of the Defendants within the meaning of the FLSA. 

10. At all times material hereto, the Defendants were conducting their businesses in Port St. 

Lucie, St. Lucie County, Florida. 

11. At all times material hereto, Defendants were the employers of Plaintiff, WATSON. 

12. At all times material hereto, Defendants were and continue to be “employer[s]” within 

the meaning of the FLSA, the Florida Minimum Wage Amendment, Article X, §24 of the Florida 

Constitution. 

13. At all times material hereto, Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff, 

WATSON her earned wages in conformance with the FLSA. 

14. Defendants committed a willful, malicious and unlawful violation of the FLSA and, 

therefore, are liable for monetary damages. 

15. At all times material hereto, corporate Defendants, PROMENADE was an “enterprise 

engaged in commerce” within the meaning of the FLSA. 

16. At all times material hereto, the work performed by Plaintiff was directly essential to the 

businesses performed by Defendants. 

17. Plaintiff has fulfilled all conditions precedent to the institution of this action and/or such 

conditions have been waived. 

Case 2:20-cv-14162-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 3 of 8
STATEMENT OF FACTS 

18. On or about May 10, 2019, the Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a waitress, 

bartender, cleaner and manager at the Defendants’ restaurant. Her employment ended on about 

November 7, 2019. 

19. The Defendants paid Plaintiff either $5.44 per hour or $25 per shift, respectively. 

20. During Plaintiff, WATSON’s employment, Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff at or 

above the minimum wage for all hours worked. 

21. In addition, Plaintiff, WATSON worked in excess of forty hours per week, but was not 

paid at the rate of time-and-one-half her regular rate of pay. 

22. Defendants knowingly, willfully and maliciously operated their businesses with a policy 

of not paying minimum and overtime wages, respectively, for each and every hour worked by 

Plaintiff in conformance with the applicable law. 

23. Defendant, ARRIGONI was a supervisor and or manager/owner who was involved in 

the day-to-day operations of the Defendant company and/or was directly responsible for the 

supervision of Plaintiff. Therefore, he is personally liable for the violations set forth in this 

Complaint. 

24. Defendant, ARRIGONI was directly involved in decisions affecting employee 

compensation and/or hours worked by Plaintiff. 

25. Plaintiff has retained Bober & Bober, P.A. to represent her in this litigation and has 

agreed to pay the firm a reasonable fee for its services. 

Case 2:20-cv-14162-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 4 of 8
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: 

COUNT I 

VIOLATION OF 29 U.S.C. § 207 (UNPAID OVERTIME) 

26. Plaintiff, WATSON realleges Paragraphs 1 through 25 as if fully stated herein. 

27. Since Plaintiff’s date of hire with Defendants, in addition to Plaintiff’s normal regular 

work week, the Plaintiff worked additional hours in excess of forty (40) per week for which she was 

not compensated at the statutory rate of time and one-half. 

28. Plaintiff was entitled to be paid at the rate of time and one-half for her hours worked in 

excess of the maximum hours provided for in the FLSA. 

29. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff overtime compensation in the lawful amount for hours 

worked by Plaintiff in excess of the maximum hours provided for in the FLSA. 

30. Records, if any, concerning the number of hours worked by Plaintiff and the actual 

compensation paid to Plaintiff are in the possession and custody of the Defendants. Plaintiff intends 

to obtain these records by appropriate discovery proceedings to be taken promptly in this case and, 

if necessary, she will then seek leave of Court to amend her Complaint for Damages to set forth the 

precise amount due her. 

31. Defendants knew of and/or showed a willful disregard for the provisions of the FLSA as 

evidenced by their failure to compensate Plaintiff at the statutory rate of time and one-half for the 

hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week when it knew or should have known such was 

due. Defendants failed to properly disclose or apprise Plaintiff of her rights under the FLSA. 

32. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ willful disregard of the FLSA, Plaintiff 

is entitled to liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA. 

Case 2:20-cv-14162-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 5 of 8
33. Due to the intentional, willful and unlawful acts of Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered 

damages in the amount not presently ascertainable of unpaid overtime wages, plus an equal amount 

as liquidated damages her reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). 

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that judgment be entered in her favor 

against the Defendants: 

a. Declaring that the Defendants have violated the maximum hour provisions of 29 

U.S.C. § 207; 

 b. Awarding Plaintiff overtime compensation in the amount calculated; 

 c. Awarding Plaintiff liquidated damages in the amount calculated; 

 d. Awarding Plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees and costs and expenses of this 

 litigation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); 

 e. Awarding Plaintiff post-judgment interest; and 

f. Ordering any other and further relief this Court deems to be just. 

COUNT II 

VIOLATION OF 29 U.S.C. § 206 (UNPAID MINIMUM WAGES) 

34. Plaintiff realleges Paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 

35. Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants was to consist of a normal workweek for which 

she was to be compensated at or above the FLSA minimum wage. 

36. 29 U.S.C. § 206 and requires that any employee covered by the FLSA be paid their 

minimum wages. 

37. Plaintiff was paid below the applicable minimum wage for her work hours 

38. The Defendants acted willfully and maliciously in failing to pay proper minimum wages 

to the Plaintiff. 

Case 2:20-cv-14162-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 6 of 8
39. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ willful violation of the FLSA, Plaintiff is 

entitled to liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests: 

 a. judgment in her favor for all unpaid minimum wages due or payable; 

b. liquidated damages; 

 c. attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to the FLSA; 

 d. post-judgment interest; and 

 e. all other and further relief this Court deems to be just and proper. 

COUNT III 

VIOLATION OF ARTICLE X, § 24, FLORIDA CONSTITUTION 

40. Plaintiff, WATSON realleges Paragraphs 1 through 25 as if fully stated herein. 

41. Pursuant to Article X, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution, Defendants were required 

to pay Plaintiff at least the applicable Florida minimum wage. 

42. During Plaintiff’s employment, Defendants paid her less than the statutory minimum 

wage for all of her work hours. 

43. The Defendants acted willfully and maliciously in paying Plaintiff below the minimum 

wage. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that judgment be entered in her favor 

against the Defendants: 

a. Declaring that Defendants violated Article X of the Florida Constitution, insofar 

as failing to pay Plaintiff at or above the minimum wage; 

b. Awarding Plaintiff all back wages due and owing; 

c. Awarding Plaintiff liquidated damages in the amount equal to her back wages; 

Case 2:20-cv-14162-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 7 of 8
 d. Awarding Plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees and costs and expenses of this 

 litigation pursuant to Article X, Sec. 24, Fla. Const.; 

 e. Awarding Plaintiff prejudgment and post-judgment interest; 

f. Finding that Defendants willfully violated Article X Fla. Const., and ordering 

Defendants to pay a $1,000.00 fine to the State of Florida for each such willful 

violation; 

g. Declaratory relief pursuant to the Florida Constitution and Florida Statutes finding 

that employees, including Plaintiff, who worked for the Defendants within the last 

five years were not paid minimum wage for all hours worked as required; and 

 h. Awarding such other and further relief this Court deems to be just and proper. 

JURY DEMAND 

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

Dated: May 22, 2020. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 

 BOBER & BOBER, P.A. 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 2699 Stirling Road, Suite A-304 

 Hollywood, FL 33312 

 Phone: (954) 922-2298 

 Fax: (954) 922-5455 

 

 By: .s/. Peter Bober_________ 

 PETER BOBER 

 peter@boberlaw.com 

 SAMARA BOBER 

 samara@boberlaw.com 

 

Case 2:20-cv-14162-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 8 of 8