Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO.: 

JUAN A. PRIETO,

and other similarly situated individuals,

Plaintiff (s)

v. 

BOWLING SUPERMARKET INC., and

NORBERTO BENITEZ-CALDERON

Defendants.

________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT

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

COMES NOW the Plaintiff JUAN A. PRIETO, by and through the undersigned counsel, 

and hereby sues Defendants BOWLING SUPERMARKET INC., and NORBERTO BENITEZCALDERON 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. PRIETO is a resident of Palm Beach County, within the jurisdiction of 

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

3. Corporate Defendant BOWLING SUPERMARKET INC. (hereinafter BOWLING 

SUPERMARKET, or Defendant) is a Florida corporation that has a place of business 

within the jurisdiction of this Court. At all times, Defendant was and is engaged in 

Case 9:20-cv-80830-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 1 of 9
Page 2 of 9

interstate commerce. The Defendant is the employer 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)].

4. The individual Defendant NORBERTO BENITEZ-CALDERON was and is now, the 

owner/officer and manager of Defendant Corporation BOWLING SUPERMARKET. 

Defendant NORBERTO BENITEZ- CALDERON is the employer 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)].

5. All the actions raised in this complaint took place in Palm Beach 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”) who worked in excess of 

forty (40) hours during one or more weeks on or after September 2018 (the “material time”) 

without being compensated overtime wages pursuant to the FLSA.

7. Corporate Defendant BOWLING SUPERMARKET is a Latin supermarket located at 1425 

South Main Street, Belle Glade Florida 33430, where Plaintiff worked. 

8. Defendant BOWLING SUPERMARKET employed Plaintiff JUAN A. PRIETO as a nonexempted, full-time, employee, from about September 22, 2018, through approximately

June 21, 2019, or 39 weeks. 

Case 9:20-cv-80830-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 2 of 9
Page 3 of 9

9. Plaintiff had multiple duties as a supermarket employee. Plaintiff’s last wage-rate was 

$10.00 an hour. Plaintiff’s overtime rate should be $15.00 an hour.

10. During his relevant employment period with the Defendants, the Plaintiff had a regular 

schedule. Plaintiff worked 6 days per week, he had Saturdays off, but he worked from 

Monday to Sunday, from 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM (11 hours daily). Plaintiff worked a 

minimum average of 55 hours weekly. Plaintiff has already deducted 6 hours of lunchtime 

per week.

11. Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours every week period, and he was paid for all hours at 

his regular rate. However, Plaintiff was not paid for overtime hours.

12. Plaintiff clocked in and out utilizing a computer and Defendants were in complete control 

of Plaintiff’s schedule, and they were able to keep track of the time worked by Plaintiff and 

other similarly situated individuals.

13. Therefore, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff for all his overtime hours at the rate 

of time and one-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).

14. Plaintiff was paid weekly with checks and paystubs that did not show the number of days 

and worked in every week period.

15. On multiple times, Plaintiff requested to be paid for overtime hours, but the Defendants

refused to pay overtime hours.

16. On or about Junio 21, 2019, Plaintiff resigned from his employment with Defendants. 

17. Plaintiff is not in possession of time and payment records, but he is going to provide a good 

faith estimate of unpaid overtime hours based on a workweek of 55 weekly average hours. 

Upon discovery, the Plaintiff is going to amend his Statement of Claim accordingly.

Case 9:20-cv-80830-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 3 of 9
Page 4 of 9

18. Plaintiff JUAN A. PRIETO seeks to recover half-time overtime wages for every hour in 

excess of 40 in a week period, for all the weeks that he worked for Defendants, liquidated 

damages, attorney fees, and any other relief as allowable by law.

COUNT I:

WAGE AND HOUR FEDERAL STATUTORY VIOLATION;

FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME; AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

19. Plaintiff JUAN A. PRIETO re-adopts every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-18

above as if set out in full herein. 

20. This action is brought by Plaintiff and those similarly-situated to recover from the 

Employers BOWLING SUPERMARKET 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 specifically 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 workweek 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 halftime the regular rate at which he is employed.”

21. At all times pertinent to this Complaint, Defendant BOWLING SUPERMARKET was

engaged in interstate commerce as defined in §§ 3 (r) and 3(s) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 

203(r) and 203(s). The Defendant is a retail business performing as s Latin Supermarket. 

At all times, the Employer/Defendant operates as an organization that sells and/or markets 

its services to customers from throughout the United States. At all times Defendant had 

more than two employees regularly engaged in interstate commerce The 

Employer/Defendant obtains and solicits funds from non-Florida sources, accepts funds 

from non-Florida sources, uses the instrumentalities and channels of interstate commerce. 

Case 9:20-cv-80830-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 4 of 9
Page 5 of 9

Upon information and belief, the annual gross revenue of the Employer/Defendant was 

always material hereto in excess of $500,000 per annum. Defendant’s business activities 

involve those to which the Fair Labor Standards Act applies. Therefore, there is FLSA 

enterprise coverage.

22. The Plaintiff’s work for the Defendant likewise affected interstate commerce. Plaintiff was 

employed by an enterprise engaged in interstate commerce, and through his daily activities,

he regularly engaged in interstate commerce when he handled and worked on goods and 

materials that had been produced for commerce and moved in interstate commerce at any 

stage of the business. Therefore, there is FLSA individual coverage.

23. Defendants BOWLING SUPERMARKET and NORBERTO BENITEZ-CALDERON 

employed Plaintiff JUAN A. PRIETO as a non-exempted, full-time, supermarket 

employee, from about September 22, 2018, through approximately June 21, 2019, or 39 

weeks. 

24. Plaintiff had multiple duties as a supermarket employee. Plaintiff’s last wage-rate was 

$10.00 an hour. Plaintiff’s overtime rate should be $15.00 an hour.

25. During his relevant employment period with the Defendants, the Plaintiff had a regular 

schedule. Plaintiff worked 6 days per week a minimum average of 55 hours weekly. 

Plaintiff has already deducted 6 hours of lunchtime per week.

26. Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours every week period, and he was paid for all hours at 

his regular rate. However, he was not paid for overtime hours.

27. Plaintiff clocked in and out utilizing a computer and Defendants were in complete control 

of Plaintiff’s schedule. The Defendants were able to keep track of the time worked by 

Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals.

Case 9:20-cv-80830-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 5 of 9
Page 6 of 9

28. Therefore, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff for all his overtime hours at the rate 

of time and one-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).

29. Plaintiff was paid weekly with checks and paystubs that did not show the number of days 

worked in every week period.

30. The records, if any, concerning the number of hours worked by Plaintiff JUAN A. 

PRIETO, and all other similarly situated employees, and the compensation actually paid to 

such employees should be in the possession and custody of Defendants. However, upon 

information and belief, Defendants did not maintain accurate and complete time records of 

hours worked by Plaintiff and other employees in the asserted class.

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

32. 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.

33. Defendants violated the Posting requirements of 29 U.S.C. § 516.4.

34. 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 wages 

are 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 allegedly unpaid overtime wages:

Two Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty-Five Dollars and 00/100 ($2,925.00)

b. Calculation of such wages: 

Total time of employment: 39 Weeks

Case 9:20-cv-80830-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 6 of 9
Page 7 of 9

 Total relevant period of employment: 39 weeks

 Total number of hours worked: 55 average weekly

 Total number of O/T hours: 15 weekly average

 Total number of paid O/T hours: 55 weekly average at regular rate.

 Regular rate: $10.00 an hour x 1.5=$15.00 

 O/T rate: $15.00 an hour-$10.00 O/T rate paid=$5.00 half-time difference

 Half-time difference $5.00 x 15 O/T hours=$75.00 weekly x 39 weeks=$2,925.00 

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

 This amount represents the unpaid half-time overtime wages. 

35. At all times material hereto, the Employers/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 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. 

36. Defendants BOWLING SUPERMARKET and NORBERTO BENITEZ-CALDERON 

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 Plaintiff and those 

similarly situated are entitled to recover double damages.

37. At the times mentioned, the individual Defendant NORBERTO BENITEZ-CALDERON 

was the owner and manager of BOWLING SUPERMARKET. Defendant NORBERTO 

BENITEZ-CALDERON was the employer 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)]. In 

that, this individual Defendant acted directly in the interests of BOWLING 

SUPERMARKET in relation to their employees, including Plaintiff and others similarly 

situated. Defendant NORBERTO BENITEZ-CALDERON had absolute financial and 

Case 9:20-cv-80830-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 7 of 9
Page 8 of 9

operational control of the Corporation, determining terms, and working conditions of 

Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, and he is jointly and severally liable for 

the Plaintiff’s damages. 

38. Defendants BOWLING SUPERMARKET and NORBERTO BENITEZ-CALDERON 

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, as set forth above. 

39. 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 JUAN A. PRIETO and those similarly situated individuals respectfully 

request that this Honorable Court: 

A. Enter judgment for Plaintiff JUAN A. PRIETO and other similarly situated and against the 

Defendants BOWLING SUPERMARKET and NORBERTO BENITEZ-CALDERON 

based on Defendants’ willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 

et seq.; and

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

for hours worked in excess of 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 available 

pursuant to Federal Law. 

Case 9:20-cv-80830-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 8 of 9
Page 9 of 9

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff JUAN A. PRIETO and those similarly situated demand trial by a 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 9:20-cv-80830-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 9 of 9