UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 

ROBERTO PAGUAGA, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

PINNACLE ONE PRICE DRY CLEANING OF

DAVIE, LLC d/b/a PINNACLE CLEANERS, a Florida

Limited Liability Company, and ERIC DRAUDT, individually,

Defendants.

________________________________________ /

COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiff ROBERTO PAGUAGA, through undersigned counsel, sue Defendants

PINNACLE ONE PRICE DRY CLEANING OF DAVIE, LLC d/b/a PINNACLE CLEANERS

(“PINNACLE”), and ERIC DRAUDT, individually (“DRAUDT”), and allege as follows:

1. This is an action for unlawful failure to pay overtime compensation as required by 

the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 207(a) (“FLSA”), and its implementing 

regulations. This is also an action for state common law breach of contract for failure to pay 

earned wages. 

2. This Court has jurisdiction over this case based on federal question jurisdiction, 

28 U.S.C. §1331, and the provisions of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). This Court also has 

supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ non-federal, state common law breach of contract claim 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(a).

3. Venue is proper in this Court as all actions complained of herein occurred in the 

Southern District of Florida.

Case 1:20-cv-22694-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 1 of 7
2

4. Plaintiff at all relevant times was, and still is, a resident of Miami-Dade County, 

Florida, and are sui juris. 

5. Defendant PINNACLE is, and at all relevant times was, a Florida for-profit 

corporation authorized to do business, and doing business in Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

PINNACLE is, and at all relevant times was, a dry cleaning service, and based on information 

and belief had annual gross revenues in excess of $500,000 per year.

6. Upon information and belief, Defendant DRAUDT is, and at all relevant times has 

been, a resident of Broward County, Florida, and is sui juris. At all relevant times, DRAUDT

was and still is the owner, operator, and the President of PINNACLE, was an agent of 

PINNACLE, acted in the course and scope of her employment and agency as owner, operator, 

and President of PINNACLE with regard to Plaintiff, and oversaw, supervised, and controlled 

the day-to-day operations of PINNACLE. Upon information and belief, DRAUDT has run and 

overseen the day-to-day operations of PINNACLE.

7. At all relevant times PINNACLE was and still is an “employer” under the FLSA 

for purposes of enterprise coverage in that it was an enterprise that had two or more employees 

handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that have been moved in or 

produced for commerce by any person, and based on information and belief had gross annual 

revenues of not less than $500,000. In addition, DRAUDT was at all relevant times, and still is, 

a statutory “employer” under the FLSA in that he acted, directly or indirectly, on behalf of 

PINNACLE in relation to Plaintiff, and regularly exercised authority to hire and fire employees 

of PINNACLE, determined the work schedules of employees of PINNACLE, set the rates of pay 

and compensation for employees of PINNACLE, controlled the finances and operations of

PINNACLE, and oversaw, supervised, and controlled the day-to-day operations of PINNACLE.

Case 1:20-cv-22694-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 2 of 7
3

8. At all times during his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff was a non-exempt 

employee who regularly worked over 40 hours in one or more work weeks.

9. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from approximately June of 2015 until on 

or about August 9, 2019, during the relevant period of Plaintiff’s employment and until he was 

terminated on or about August 9, 2019, Plaintiff was supposed to be paid at a regular hourly rate 

of $18.75 based on a 40-hour work week, plus overtime.

10. Plaintiff regularly worked over 40 hours in one or more of the work weeks he 

worked, but was not paid the required time and one-half his regular hourly rate for all overtime 

hours he worked. Plaintiff estimates that he worked on a weekly basis between 3 to 14 overtime 

hours per week for which he received no overtime payment.

11. Plaintiff was routinely required to work 5 days a week for approximately 8 to 12 

hours per day. For the approximately 156 relevant weeks Plaintiff worked (within the last 3 year 

period) immediately preceding the filing of this lawsuit, Plaintiff estimates that he worked 

between 3 to 14 overtime hours per week, for an estimated total of 408 and 1904 overtime hours. 

At an overtime time rate of $28.12 per hour which includes the $9.35 in overtime half time. 

Plaintiff estimates that he is owed a total overtime amount of $11,472.96 and $53,540.48 plus an 

equal amount in liquidated damages as provided by the FLSA.

12. For over a 2 year period, Plaintiff routinely complained to DRAUDT about not 

being paid correctly for his overtime hour, and DRAUDT, on behalf of PINNACLE, verbally

informed Plaintiff that PINNACLE “did not pay any overtime, only a salary”. Pursuant to and in 

furtherance of this policy and practice, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff any overtime half time

during his entire period of employment. 

Case 1:20-cv-22694-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 3 of 7
4

13. Plaintiff has kept some but not all of his pay records, but the complete records of 

the compensation actually paid to Plaintiff and the time Plaintiff worked are, or should be, in the 

possession, custody, and control of Defendants. Upon information and belief, however, 

Defendants have failed to properly keep and maintain all the required records of hours worked 

and wages paid to Plaintiff and other employees per the record-keeping requirements of the 

FLSA and based on information and belief may have altered those records to intentionally 

deprive Plaintiff of overtime wages. 

14. All conditions precedent to the filing of this action have been satisfied, waived, or 

otherwise excused.

15. Plaintiff has hired the undersigned law firm to represent him in this case and has 

agreed to pay the firm a reasonable fee of $425.00 per hour for its services.

COUNT I – UNPAID OVERTIME VIOLATION OF FLSA

16. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 15 as if set forth fully herein.

17. Under the FLSA, Defendants were obligated to pay Plaintiff time and one-half of 

his regular hourly pay rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per work week. Plaintiff 

worked in excess of 40 hours per work week in one or more weeks, but was not paid the full time 

and one-half his regular hourly rate of pay for the overtime hours he worked, as required by the 

FLSA. 

18. Defendants have failed and refused to pay Plaintiff the required full time and onehalf his regular hourly rate for each work week in which he worked overtime hours in excess of 

40 hours per work week, in violation of the FLSA overtime requirements of 29 U.S.C. §207(a).

19. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations of the FLSA, Plaintiff

has suffered damages equal to the extra time and one-half his regular hourly rates, for all hours 

Case 1:20-cv-22694-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 4 of 7
5

worked in excess of 40 hours per work week, plus double that amount in liquidated damages as 

provided by the FLSA. Plaintiff’s estimated unpaid overtime is alleged in paragraphs 11 and 12 

above. 

20. Defendants engaged in their overtime pay violations under the FLSA willfully, 

intentionally, and in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights under the law.

21. Plaintiff is also entitled to recover his costs, expenses, and reasonable attorney’s 

fees under the FLSA.

22. Inasmuch as Defendants – in particular DRAUDT – admitted to owing Plaintiff 

for the overtime hours he had worked, as evidenced by the verbal agreement and payments that 

were made thereunder that acknowledged the overtime debt and obligation, Defendants’ failure 

to pay Plaintiff for his overtime was willful.

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, for 

the following relief:

A. A declaration that Defendants are in willful violation of the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff

all due overtime compensation during the period within the three-year period preceding the 

filing of this lawsuit;

B. An award to Plaintiff of all unpaid overtime as required under the FLSA,

C. An award to Plaintiff of liquidated damages equal in amount to the unpaid overtime award,

D. An award to Plaintiff of all costs, expenses, and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in this 

case, and

E. Such further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

Case 1:20-cv-22694-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 5 of 7
6

COUNT II – UNLAWFUL RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FLSA

23. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 14 as if set forth fully herein.

24. The FLSA makes it unlawful to retaliate against an employee who has 

complained about violations of the FLSA.

25. Plaintiff engaged in protected activity under the FLSA when he complained to his 

supervisor DRAUDT and management at PINNACLE that, among other things, he had not been 

paid for all the hours he worked, including overtime pay.

26. In response to and retaliation for Plaintiff’s internal complaints, Plaintiff was 

unfairly and unjustifiably terminated from his job on August 9th 2019.

27. Defendants’ conduct in terminating Plaintiff in retaliation for his internal 

complaints constitutes unlawful retaliation in violation of the FLSA, §215(a)(3).

28. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ retaliation, Plaintiff has suffered 

damages in the past, and will continue to suffer damages into the future, including lost back pay 

and compensatory damages, including damages for emotional distress, humiliation and loss of 

dignity. 

29. Defendants engaged in their retaliation willfully, intentionally, and in reckless 

disregard of the rights of Plaintiff under the law.

30. Plaintiff is entitled to recover her costs, expenses, and reasonable attorney’s fees 

under the FLSA. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, for 

all lost back pay, front pay for a reasonable period, compensatory damages, liquidated damages, 

interest, costs, expenses, attorney’s fees, and such further relief as the Court deems just and 

equitable.

Case 1:20-cv-22694-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 6 of 7
7

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury of all issues so triable. 

DATED: June 30th, 2020

LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO

DURAN, P.A.

Counsel for Plaintiff

 4640 N.W. 7th Street

Miami, FL 33126-2309

T. 305/266-9780 

305/269-8311 (Facsimile)

By ___s/ Pelayo M. Duran ______

PELAYO M. DURAN

Fla. Bar No. 0146595

Case 1:20-cv-22694-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 7 of 7