Page 1 of 14

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT PIERCE DIVISION

CASE NO.: 

FELIPE BALTAZAR

and other similarly situated individuals,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

B. GREEN & MORE LANDSCAPING INC

and BILLY M. LOPEZ, individually

Defendants,

_____________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT

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

COMES NOW the Plaintiff FELIPE BALTAZAR, and other similarly situated individuals, 

by and through the undersigned counsel, and hereby sues Defendants B. GREEN & MORE 

LANDSCAPING INC, and BILLY M. LOPEZ individually, and alleges:

JURISDICTION VENUES AND PARTIES

1. This is an action to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages and retaliation

under the laws of the United States. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Fair Labor 

Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201-219 (Section 216 for jurisdictional placement) (“the Act”).

2. Plaintiff FELIPE BALTAZAR is a covered employee for purposes of the Act. The Plaintiff 

is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable 

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

Case 2:20-cv-14219-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 1 of 14
Page 2 of 14

3. Defendant B. GREEN & MORE LANDSCAPING INC (hereinafter B. GREEN & MORE, 

or Defendant) is a Florida corporation, having a place of business in Martin County, 

Florida, where the Plaintiff worked. The Defendant was engaged in interstate commerce. 

4. The individual Defendant BILLY M. LOPEZ was and is now, the owner/partner/officer

and operator of Defendant Corporation B. GREEN & MORE. This individual Defendant

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)].

5. All the actions raised in this complaint took place in Martin County Florida, within the 

jurisdiction of this Court.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

6. This cause of action is brought by Plaintiff FELIPE BALTAZAR as a collective action to 

recover from the Defendants overtime compensation, retaliatory damages, 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”) and who worked more than forty (40) hours during one or more weeks on 

or after February 2020, (the “material time”) without being properly compensated. 

7. Defendant B. GREEN & MORE is a full-service landscaping company located in 

Indiantown, Martin County, where the Plaintiff worked

8. Defendants B. GREEN & MORE and BILLY M. LOPEZ employed Plaintiff FELIPE 

BALTAZAR approximately from February 15, 2020, to May 15, 2020, or 13 weeks. 

Case 2:20-cv-14219-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 2 of 14
Page 3 of 14

9. The Plaintiff was hired as a non-exempted full-time landscaper, and he was paid at the rate 

of $17.50 an hour. Plaintiff’s overtime rate should be $26.25 an hour.

10. During his time of employment with Defendants, Plaintiff had a regular schedule, Plaintiff 

worked 5 days per week from Monday to Friday; from 6:30 AM to 6:00 PM. (11.5 hours 

daily). Plaintiff completed 57.5 hours every week.

11. Defendants deducted from Plaintiff’s total number of working hours 1 hour daily (5 hours 

weekly) as a lunchtime. However, Plaintiff took only 30 minutes of lunch break. 

Defendants were entitled to a deduction of just 2.5 hours of lunchtime. The remaining 2.5 

hours constitute unpaid overtime hours.

12. Thus, Plaintiff worked every week 55 hours. (Plaintiff has already deducted 2.5 hours as 

lunchtime). 

13. The Plaintiff always worked 55 hours weekly, but he was paid for 45 hours weekly. 

Defendants paid to Plaintiff 40 regular hours with a check plus 5 overtime hours at his 

regular rate, in cash. The remaining 10 overtime hours were not paid to Plaintiff at any rate, 

not even the minimum wage rate, as established by the FLSA.

14. The Plaintiff did not clock in and out. However, the Defendants were able to keep track of 

the hours worked by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals. 

15. Therefore, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff regular and overtime hours at the 

rate of time and one-half his regular rate for every hour that he worked more than forty 

(40), in violation of Section 7 (a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 

207(a)(1).

16. The Plaintiff was paid bi-weekly with a combination of check and cash, with paystubs that 

did not show the real number of hours worked.

Case 2:20-cv-14219-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 3 of 14
Page 4 of 14

17. The Plaintiff was not in agreement with the wages received every week and he complained 

to the owner of the business BILLY M. LOPEZ multiple times. 

18. As a result of Plaintiff’s complaints, the owner BILLY M. LOPEZ fired Plaintiff on or 

about May 15, 2020. 

19. Plaintiff FELIPE BALTAZAR seeks to recover overtime wages for every hour over 40

that he worked, retaliatory damages, liquidated damages, and any other relief as allowable 

by law. 

20. The additional persons who may become Plaintiffs in this action are employees and/or 

former employees of Defendants who are and who were subject to the unlawful payroll 

practices and procedures of Defendants and were not paid overtime wages at the rate of 

time and one half of their regular rate of pay for all overtime hours worked over forty. 

COUNT I:

WAGE AND HOUR FEDERAL STATUTORY VIOLATION;

FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME, AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

21. Plaintiff FELIPE BALTAZAR re-adopts every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 

1-20 above as if set out in full herein. 

22. This cause of action is brought by Plaintiff FELIPE BALTAZAR as a collective action to 

recover from the Defendants overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, and 

reasonable attorney’s fees under the provisions of the 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”) and 

who worked more than forty (40) hours during one or more weeks on or after February 

Case 2:20-cv-14219-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 4 of 14
Page 5 of 14

2020, (the “material time”) without being compensated “at a rate not less than one and a 

half times the regular rate at which he is employed.”

23. The Defendant B. GREEN & MORE was and is engaged in interstate commerce as defined 

in §§ 3 (r) and 3(s) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 203(r) and 203(s)(1)(A). The Defendant is a 

landscaping company and is engaged in interstate commerce. The Defendant had more 

than two employees recurrently engaged in commerce or the production of goods for 

commerce by regularly and recurrently supplies produced out of state, by using the 

instrumentalities of interstate commerce to accept and solicit funds from non-Florida 

sources, by using electronic devices to authorize credit card transactions. Upon information 

and belief, the annual gross revenue of the Employer/Defendant was always more than

$500,000 per annum. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant’s business activities involve 

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

coverage.

24. Plaintiff and those similarly situated were employed by an enterprise engaged in interstate 

commerce. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated regularly handled and worked on 

goods and materials that were produced for commerce and were moved across State lines 

at any time during the business. Therefore, there is FLSA individual coverage.

25. Defendants B. GREEN & MORE and BILLY M. LOPEZ employed Plaintiff FELIPE 

BALTAZAR approximately from February 15, 2020, to May 15, 2020, or 13 weeks. 

26. The Plaintiff was hired as a non-exempted full-time landscaper, and he was paid at the rate 

of $17.50 an hour. Plaintiff’s overtime rate should be $26.25 an hour.

27. During his time of employment with Defendants, Plaintiff had a regular schedule, Plaintiff 

worked 5 days per week an average of 57.5 hours.

Case 2:20-cv-14219-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 5 of 14
Page 6 of 14

28. Defendants deducted from Plaintiff’s total number of working hours 1 hour daily (5 hours 

weekly) as a lunchtime. However, Plaintiff took only 30 minutes of lunch break. 

Defendants were entitled to a deduction of just 2.5 hours of lunchtime. The remaining 2.5 

hours constitute unpaid overtime hours.

29. Thus, Plaintiff worked every week 55 hours. (Plaintiff has deducted 2.5 hours as lunchtime) 

30. The Plaintiff always worked 55 hours weekly, but he was paid for 45 hours weekly. 

Defendants paid to Plaintiff 40 regular hours with a check plus 5 overtime hours at his 

regular rate, in cash. The remaining 10 overtime hours were not paid to Plaintiff at any rate, 

not even the minimum wage rate, as established by the FLSA.

31. The Plaintiff did not clock in and out. However, the Defendants were able to keep track of 

the hours worked by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals. 

32. Therefore, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff regular and overtime hours at the 

rate of time and one-half his regular rate for every hour that he worked more than forty 

(40), in violation of Section 7 (a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 

207(a)(1).

33. The Plaintiff was paid bi-weekly with a combination of check and cash, with paystubs that 

did not show the real number of hours worked. 

34. The records, if any, concerning the number of hours worked by the Plaintiff and those 

similarly situated, and the compensation paid to such employees should be in the 

possession and custody of the Defendants. However, upon information and belief, 

Defendants did not maintain time accurate records of hours worked by the Plaintiff and 

other employees. 

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

Case 2:20-cv-14219-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 6 of 14
Page 7 of 14

36. Defendant 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. 

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

37. Before the completion of discovery and 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 is as 

follows:

* Please note that these amounts are based on a preliminary calculation and that these 

figures could be subject to modifications as discovery could dictate.

a. Total amount of alleged unpaid O/T wages:

Three Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty-One Dollars and 25/100 ($3,981.25)

b. Calculation of such wages:

Total weeks of employment: 13 weeks

 Total number of relevant weeks: 13 weeks

Total hours worked: 55 hours weekly

Total overtime hours: 15 hours weekly

Paid O/T hours: 5 O/T hours paid at regular rate

Unpaid O/T hours: 10 O/T hours paid at $0.00

Regular rate: $17.50 an hour x 1.5 = $26.25 O/T rate 

Overtime rate: $26.25 / Half-time O/T: $8.75 an hour

1.- Half-time Overtime for 5 hours weekly paid at regular rate

Half-time $8.75 x 5 O/T hours=$43.75 weekly x 13 weeks=$568.75

2.- Overtime for 10 hours weekly paid at $0.00 

O/T rate $26.25 x 10 O/T hours=$262.50 weekly x 13 weeks=$3,412.50

Total # 1 and #2: $3,981.25

 

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

 This amount represents unpaid overtime wages.

Case 2:20-cv-14219-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 7 of 14
Page 8 of 14

38. At all times, the Employers/Defendantsfailed to comply with Title 29 U.S.C. §207 (a) (1).

In that, Plaintiff and those similarly-situated performed services and worked over the 

maximum hours provided by the Act but no provision was made by the Defendants to 

properly pay them at the rate of time and one half for all hours worked over forty hours 

(40) per workweek as provided in said Act. 

39. Defendants 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 remain

owing Plaintiff and those similarly-situated these overtime wages since the commencement 

of Plaintiff’s and those similarly-situated employee’s employment with Defendants as set 

forth above, and Plaintiff and those similarly-situated are entitled to recover double 

damages. 

40. At the times mentioned, individual Defendant BILLY M. LOPEZ was the 

owner/partner/manager of B. GREEN & MORE. Defendant BILLY M. LOPEZ 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 B. GREEN & MORE concerning its employees, including 

Plaintiff and others similarly situated. Defendant BILLY M. LOPEZ had absolute financial 

and 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 

Plaintiff’s damages. 

41. Defendants B. GREEN & MORE and BILLY M. LOPEZ willfully and intentionally 

refused to pay Plaintiff overtime wages at the rate of time and one half his regular rate, as 

Case 2:20-cv-14219-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 8 of 14
Page 9 of 14

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. 

42. The 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 FELIPE BALTAZAR and those similarly situated respectfully requests 

that this Honorable Court: 

A. Enter judgment for Plaintiff FELIPE BALTAZAR and other similarly situated

individuals and against the Defendants B. GREEN & MORE and BILLY M. LOPEZ

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

201 et seq.; and

B. Award Plaintiff FELIPE BALTAZAR actual damages in the amount shown to be due 

for unpaid overtime compensation for hours worked over 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. 

JURY DEMAND

Case 2:20-cv-14219-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 9 of 14
Page 10 of 14

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

COUNT II:

FEDERAL STATUTORY VIOLATION PURSUANT TO 29 U.S.C. 215 (a)(3) 

RETALIATORY DISCHARGE; AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

43. Plaintiff FELIPE BALTAZAR re-adopts every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 

1-20 of this complaint as if set out in full herein.

44. The employer B. GREEN & MORE 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)(1)(A). The Defendant is a 

landscaping company. The Defendant has more than two employees directly and 

recurrently engaged in interstate commerce. Upon information and belief, the annual gross 

revenue of the Employer/Defendant was always over $500,000 per annum. Therefore, there 

is enterprise coverage.

45. The Plaintiff was employed by an enterprise engaged in interstate commerce. The Plaintiff

and other employees similarly situated handled and worked on goods and materials and 

materials that were moved across State lines at any time during the business. Therefore, 

there is individual coverage.

46. Defendant B. GREEN & MORE was and is subjected to the provisions of the Fair Labor 

Standards Act (FLSA).

47. 29 U.S.C. § 207 (a) (1) states, "if an employer employs an employee for more than forty 

hours in any workweek, the employer must compensate the employee for hours over forty 

at the rate of at least one and one-half times the employee's regular rate..."

48. Likewise, 29 U.S.C. 215(a)(3) states... it shall be unlawful for any person— “to discharge 

or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed 

Case 2:20-cv-14219-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 10 of 14
Page 11 of 14

any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to 

this chapter, or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding,......”

49. Defendants B. GREEN & MORE and BILLY M. LOPEZ employed Plaintiff FELIPE 

BALTAZAR approximately from February 15, 2020, to May 15, 2020, or 13 weeks. 

50. The Plaintiff was hired as a non-exempted full-time landscaper, and he was paid at the rate 

of $17.50 an hour. Plaintiff’s overtime rate should be $26.25 an hour.

51. During his time of employment with Defendants, Plaintiff had a regular schedule, Plaintiff 

worked 5 days per week an average of 57.5 hours every week.

52. Defendants deducted from Plaintiff’s total number of working hours 1 hour daily (5 hours 

weekly) as a lunchtime. However, Plaintiff took only 30 minutes of lunch break. 

Defendants were entitled to a deduction of just 2.5 hours of lunchtime. The remaining 2.5 

hours constitute unpaid overtime hours.

53. Thus, Plaintiff worked every week 55 hours. (Plaintiff has already deducted 2.5 hours as 

lunchtime). 

54. The Plaintiff always worked 55 hours weekly, but he was paid for 45 hours weekly. 

Defendants paid to Plaintiff 40 regular hours with a check plus 5 overtime hours at his 

regular rate, in cash. The remaining 10 overtime hours were not paid to Plaintiff at any rate, 

not even the minimum wage rate, as established by the FLSA.

55. The Plaintiff did not clock in and out. However, the Defendants were able to keep track of 

the hours worked by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals. 

56. Therefore, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff regular and overtime hours at the 

rate of time and one-half his regular rate for every hour that he worked over forty (40), in 

violation of Section 7 (a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 207(a)(1).

Case 2:20-cv-14219-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 11 of 14
Page 12 of 14

57. The Plaintiff was not in agreement with the wages received every week and he complained 

to the owner of the business BILLY M. LOPEZ multiple times. 

58. These complaints constituted protected activity under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

59. As a result of Plaintiff’s complaints, the owner BILLY M. LOPEZ fired Plaintiff on or 

about May 15, 2020. 

60. At all times during his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff performed his duties 

satisfactorily. There was no reason other than a retaliatory action to terminate Plaintiff’s 

employment with Defendants.

61. There is proximity between the Plaintiff’s protected activity and the date of his termination.

62. At the times mentioned, individual Defendant BILLY M. LOPEZ was the 

owner/partner/manager of B. GREEN & MORE. Defendant BILLY M. LOPEZ 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 B. GREEN & MORE concerning its employees, including 

Plaintiff and others similarly situated. Defendant BILLY M. LOPEZ had absolute financial 

and 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 

Plaintiff’s damages. 

63. Defendants B. GREEN & MORE and BILLY M. LOPEZ willfully and intentionally 

refused to pay Plaintiff overtime wages as required by the FLSA, and then retaliated against 

Plaintiff by firing him. 

Case 2:20-cv-14219-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 12 of 14
Page 13 of 14

64. The motivating factor which caused the Plaintiff’s termination as described above was the 

complaint seeking overtime wages from the Defendants. In other words, the Plaintiff 

would not have been discharged but for his complaint about overtime wages.

65. The Defendants’ termination of the Plaintiff was in direct violation of 29 U.S.C. 215 (a) 

(3) and, as a direct result, the Plaintiff has been damaged.

66. The 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 FELIPE BALTAZAR respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:

A. Issue a declaratory judgment that Defendants’ acts, policies, practices, and procedures 

complained of herein violated provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act; 

B. Enter judgment against Defendants B. GREEN & MORE, and BILLY M. LOPEZ that

Plaintiff FELIPE BALTAZAR recovers compensatory, damages, and an equal amount 

of liquidated damages as provided under the law and in 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); 

C. That Plaintiff recovers an award of reasonable attorney fees, costs, and expenses. 

D. Order the Defendants to make whole the Plaintiff by providing appropriate back pay 

and other benefits wrongly denied in an amount to be shown at trial and other 

affirmative relief; 

E. Plaintiff FELIPE BALTAZAR further prays for such additional relief as the interests of 

justice may require.

Case 2:20-cv-14219-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 13 of 14
Page 14 of 14

JURY DEMAND

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

Dated: June 30, 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 2:20-cv-14219-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 14 of 14