UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

 CASE NO: 

GERARDO FERNANDEZ and 

KORNPHAT HILDEBRANT, 

 Plaintiffs, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

v. 

THAI ISLAND RESTAURANT, LLC, a 

Florida limited liability company, and PHEN 

P. FUTTERMAN, 

 

 Defendants. 

______________________________________/ 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

GERARDO FERNANDEZ (“FERNANDEZ”), and KORNPHAT HILDEBRANT, 

(“HILDEBRANT”) by and through their undersigned attorney, files this, their Complaint for 

Damages against Defendants, THAI ISLAND RESTAURANT, LLC, a Florida limited liability 

company (hereinafter, “THAI ISLAND”), and PHEN P. FUTTERMAN (hereinafter 

“FUTTERMAN”), and state as follows: 

INTRODUCTION 

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

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

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 Defendant, THAI 

Case 4:20-cv-10069-JLK Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2020 Page 1 of 7
ISLAND regularly owned and operated a business 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, THAI ISLAND and FUTTERMAN operated a restaurant. Plaintiffs’ 

work involved handling on a regular and recurrent basis “goods” or “materials,” as defined by 

the FLSA, which were used commercially in Defendants’ business, and moved in interstate 

commerce. This included food, drink and restaurant supplies that were manufactured outside 

the State of Florida. 

4. Upon information and belief, during the relevant time period, the Defendants had an 

annual gross volume of sales made or business done of not less than $500,000.00. 

5. The Defendants are subject to the jurisdiction of this Court because it engages in 

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

6. The Defendants are is also subject to the jurisdiction of this Court because they 

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

VENUE 

7. 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, 

b. Defendants are and continues to be a corporation and an individual doing 

business within this judicial district. 

Case 4:20-cv-10069-JLK Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2020 Page 2 of 7
PARTIES 

8. At all times material hereto, Plaintiffs, FERNANDEZ and HILDEBRANT were 

“employee[s]” of the Defendants within the meaning of the FLSA. 

9. At all times material hereto, corporate Defendant, THAI ISLAND, was conducting 

business in Key West, Monroe County, Florida with its principal location in that city. 

10. At all times material hereto, Defendants, THAI ISLAND and FUTTERMAN were 

the employers of Plaintiffs, FERNANDEZ and HILDEBRANT. 

11. At all times material hereto, Defendants, THAI ISLAND and FUTTERMAN were 

and continue to be an “employer[s]” within the meaning of the FLSA. 

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

Plaintiffs, FERNANDEZ and HILDEBRANT their lawfully earned wages in conformance with 

the FLSA. 

13. Defendants committed a willful and unlawful violation of the FLSA and, therefore, 

are liable for monetary damages. 

14. At all times material hereto, corporate Defendant, THAI ISLAND operated an 

“enterprise engaged in commerce” within the meaning of the FLSA. 

15. At all times material hereto, the work performed by Plaintiffs, FERNANDEZ and 

HILDEBRANT was directly essential to the business performed by Defendants. 

16. Plaintiffs, FERNANDEZ and HILDEBRANT have fulfilled all conditions 

precedent to the institution of this action and/or such conditions have been waived. 

Case 4:20-cv-10069-JLK Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2020 Page 3 of 7
STATEMENT OF FACTS 

17. In or about 2012, Plaintiff, FERNANDEZ was hired by the Defendants as a line 

cook at the Defendants’ restaurant. His employment ended on about the end of January 2020. 

18. Plaintiff, FERNANDEZ was paid a daily rate of $160.00 per day, which was 

increased to $170.00 per day in or about October 2019. 

19. Plaintiff, FERNANDEZ was not paid time-and-one-half his regular hourly rate of 

pay for all his hours in excess of forty in each week. 

20. In or about 2014, Plaintiff, HILDEBRANT was hired by the Defendants as a line 

cook at the Defendants’ restaurant. Her employment ended in about March 2019. 

21. Plaintiff, HILDEBRANT was paid a daily rate of $150.00 per day. 

22. Plaintiff, HILDEBRANT was not paid time-and-one-half her regular hourly rate of 

pay for all her hours in excess of forty in each week. 

23. Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not 

paying wages in conformance with the applicable law, to the Plaintiffs. 

 24. Defendant, FUTTERMAN was a supervisor and/or managers/owner who was 

involved in the day-to-day operations of the Defendant company and/or was directly 

responsible for the supervision of Plaintiffs, FERNANDEZ and HILDEBRANT. Therefore, he 

is personally liable for the FLSA violations. 

 25. Defendant, FUTTERMAN was directly involved in decisions affecting employee 

compensation and/or hours worked by Plaintiffs, FERNANDEZ and HILDEBRANT. 

 26. Plaintiffs have retained Bober & Bober, P.A. to represent them in this litigation and 

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

Case 4:20-cv-10069-JLK Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2020 Page 4 of 7
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: 

COUNT I 

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

27. Plaintiffs, FERNANDEZ and HILDEBRANT repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1 

through 26 as if fully set forth herein. Plaintiffs, FERNANDEZ and HILDEBRANT’s 

employment with the Defendants was to consist of a normal work week for which they should 

have received time and one-half for their hours worked in excess of the maximum hours 

provided for in the FLSA. 

28. During Plaintiffs’ employment, Plaintiffs worked hours in excess of forty (40) per 

week for which they were not compensated at the statutory rate of time and one-half for all of 

their hours. Plaintiffs, FERNANDEZ and HILDEBRANT were entitled to be paid at the rate of 

time and one-half for all their hours worked in excess of the maximum hours provided for in the 

FLSA. 

29. Records, if any, concerning the number of hours worked by Plaintiffs and the actual 

compensation paid to Plaintiffs are in the possession and custody of the Defendants. Plaintiffs, 

FERNANDEZ and HILDEBRANT intend to obtain these records by appropriate discovery 

proceedings to be taken promptly in this case and, if necessary, they will then seek leave of 

Court to amend their Complaint for Damages to set forth the precise amount due. 

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

as evidenced by their failure to compensate Plaintiffs, FERNANDEZ and HILDEBRANT at the 

statutory rate of time and one-half for all the hours they worked in excess of forty (40) hours per 

week when they knew or should have known such was due. 

Case 4:20-cv-10069-JLK Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2020 Page 5 of 7
31. Defendants failed to properly disclose or apprise Plaintiffs, FERNANDEZ and 

HILDEBRANT of their rights under the FLSA. 

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

Plaintiffs, FERNANDEZ and HILDEBRANT are entitled to liquidated damages pursuant to the 

FLSA. 

 33. Due to the willful and unlawful actions of the Defendants, Plaintiffs, FERNANDEZ 

and HILDEBRANT have suffered damages in the amount not presently ascertainable of unpaid 

overtime wages, plus an equal amount as liquidated damages. 

 34. Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs 

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). 

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, FERNANDEZ and HILDEBRANT respectfully request that 

judgment be entered in their favor against the Defendants: 

 a. Declaring that the Defendants violated the overtime provisions of 29 

 U.S.C. § 207; 

 b. Awarding Plaintiffs overtime compensation in the amount calculated; 

 c. Awarding Plaintiffs liquidated damages in the amount calculated; 

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

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

 e. Awarding Plaintiffs post-judgment interest; and 

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

 proper. 

Case 4:20-cv-10069-JLK Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2020 Page 6 of 7
JURY DEMAND 

 Plaintiffs demand trial by jury on all issues so triable as of right by jury. 

DATED: July 2, 2020. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 

 BOBER & BOBER, P.A. 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

 2699 Stirling Road, Suite A-304 

 Hollywood, FL 33312 

 Phone: (954) 922-2298 

 Fax: (954) 922-5455 

 peter@boberlaw.com 

 samara@boberlaw.com 

 

 By: s/. Peter Bober 

 PETER BOBER 

FBN: 0122955 

 SAMARA BOBER 

FBN: 0156248 

Case 4:20-cv-10069-JLK Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2020 Page 7 of 7