www.saenzanderson.com

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

Case No. __________________

NEYBER RUIZ, and other similarly situated 

individuals,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

M & R SECURITY SERVICE, INC.,

MARIO DE MOYA and ANA 

RODRIGUEZ,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

COMPLAINT

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

Plaintiffs, NEYBER RUIZ (“Plaintiff”) and other similarly situated individuals, sue the 

Defendants, M & R SECURITY SERVICE, INC., MARIO DE MOYA and ANA RODRIGUEZ

(collectively the “Defendants”), and allege:

JURISDICTION

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

retaliatory discharge under the laws of the United States. 

2. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §

201-219 (Section 216 for jurisdictional placement) (“the Act”).

Case 1:20-cv-22787-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 1 of 10
www.saenzanderson.com

2

VENUE

3. Plaintiff is a resident of Broward County, Florida. Plaintiff is a covered employee 

for purposes of the Act.

4. M & R SECURITY SERVICE, INC. (individually the “Corporate Defendant”), 

MARIO DE MOYA and ANA RODRIGUEZ (individually the “Individual Defendants”), are a

Florida company and Florida residents, respectively, having their main place of business in MiamiDade County, Florida, where Plaintiff worked for Defendants, and at all times material hereto were

and are engaged in interstate commerce. The Individual Defendants, upon information and belief, 

reside in Miami-Dade, Florida.

COUNT I: WAGE AND HOUR VIOLATION BY

M & R SECURITY SERVICE, INC. (OVERTIME)

5. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-4

above as if set out in full herein. 

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

Corporate Defendant 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 work week 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 half times the regular rate at which he is employed.”

7. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by Title 28 U.S.C. § 1337 and by Title 29 

U.S.C. § 216(b). The Corporate Defendant is and, at all times pertinent to this Complaint, was 

Case 1:20-cv-22787-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 2 of 10
www.saenzanderson.com

3

engaged in interstate commerce. At all times pertinent to this Complaint, the Corporate Defendant

operates as an organization which sells and/or markets its services and/or goods to customers from 

throughout the United States and also provides its services for goods sold and transported from 

across state lines of other states, and the Corporate Defendant obtains and solicits funds from nonFlorida sources, accepts funds from non-Florida sources, uses telephonic transmissions going over 

state lines to do its business, transmits funds outside the State of Florida, and otherwise regularly 

engages in interstate commerce, particularly with respect to its employees. Upon information and 

belief, the annual gross revenue of the Corporate Defendant was at all times material hereto in 

excess of $500,000 per annum, and/or Plaintiff and those similarly situated, by virtue of working 

in interstate commerce, otherwise satisfy the Act’s requirements. 

8. By reason of the foregoing, the Corporate Defendant is and was, during all times 

hereafter mentioned, an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for 

commerce as defined in §§ 3 (r) and 3(s) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 203(r) and 203(s) and/or Plaintiff 

and those similarly situated were and/or are engaged in interstate commerce for the Corporate 

Defendant. The Corporate Defendant’s business activities involve those to which the Act applies. 

The Corporate Defendant is a security guard agency and, through its business activity, affects 

interstate commerce. The Plaintiff’s work for the Corporate Defendant likewise affects interstate 

commerce. Plaintiff was employed by the Corporate Defendant as a security guard for the 

Corporate Defendant’s business.

9. While employed by the Corporate Defendant, Plaintiff worked approximately an 

average of 50-80 hours per week without being compensated at the rate of not less than one- and 

Case 1:20-cv-22787-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 3 of 10
www.saenzanderson.com

4

one-half times the regular rate at which he was employed. Plaintiff was employed as a security 

guard performing the same or similar duties as that of those other similarly situated security guards

whom Plaintiff observed working in excess of 40 hours per week without overtime compensation. 

10. Plaintiff worked for the Corporate Defendant from approximately late 2016 to 

approximately June 8, 2020. In total, Plaintiff worked approximately 153 compensable weeks 

under the Act, or 153 compensable weeks if we count 3 years preceding the date of the filing of 

the instant action.

11. The Corporate Defendant paid Plaintiff on average approximately $11 per per hour. 

12. However, the Corporate Defendant did not properly compensate Plaintiff for hours 

that Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 per week. Specifically, Corporate Defendant paid Plaintiff 

via payroll checks for 40 hours of work and then paid Plaintiff via cash or check at the regular rate 

for hours that Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 per week.

13. Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages accumulated from the date of hire 

and/or from 3 (three) years preceding the date of the filing of this Complaint.

14. Prior to the completion of discovery and to the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge, at the 

time of the filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff’s good faith estimate of unpaid overtime wages 

(subject to discovery) is as follows:

START DATE FOR COMPENSABLE WEEKS 7/2/2017

END DATE FOR COMPENSABLE WEEKS 6/8/2020

TOTAL COMPENSABLE WEEKS 153.1428571

HOURLY RATE $11.00 

HOURS WORKED (approx. on average) 70

OVERTIME RATE $5.50 

OVERTIME HOURS WORKED (approx. on average) 30

Case 1:20-cv-22787-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 4 of 10
www.saenzanderson.com

5

OVERTIME (ACTUAL DAMAGES) $25,268.57 

OVERTIME (LIQUIDATED DAMAGES) $25,268.57 

TOTAL DAMAGES

$50,537.14, 

plus 

attorney’s 

fees and costs 

pursuant to 

law.

15. At all times material hereto, the Corporate Defendant 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 Corporate Defendant to properly pay them at the rate of time and 

one half for all hours worked in excess of forty hours (40) per workweek as provided in the Act. 

The additional persons who may become Plaintiffs in this action are weekly-paid employees and/or 

former employees of the Corporate Defendant who are and who were subject to the unlawful 

payroll practices and procedures of the Corporate Defendant and were not paid time and one half 

of their regular rate of pay for all overtime hours worked in excess of forty.

16. The Corporate Defendant knew and/or showed reckless disregard for the provisions 

of the Act concerning the payment of overtime wages and remains owing Plaintiff and those 

similarly situated these overtime wages since the commencement of Plaintiff’s and those similarly 

situated employees’ employment with the Corporate Defendant as set forth above, and Plaintiff 

and those similarly situated are entitled to recover double damages. The Corporate Defendant

Case 1:20-cv-22787-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 5 of 10
www.saenzanderson.com

6

never posted any notice, as required by Federal Law, to inform employees of their federal rights 

to overtime and minimum wage payments.

17. The Corporate Defendant willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff 

overtime wages as required by the laws of the United States as set forth above and remains owing 

Plaintiff these overtime wages since the commencement of Plaintiff’s employment with the 

Corporate Defendant as set forth above.

18. 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 and those similarly situated request that this Honorable Court: 

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

Defendant on the basis of the Corporate Defendant’s willful violations of the Fair Labor 

Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. and other Federal Regulations; and

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

overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty weekly; 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. 

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff and those similarly situated demand trial by jury of all issues so triable as of right. 

Case 1:20-cv-22787-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 6 of 10
www.saenzanderson.com

7

COUNT II: WAGE AND HOUR VIOLATION BY

MARIO DE MOYA and ANA RODRIGUEZ (OVERTIME)

19. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-18

above as if set out in full herein.

20. At the times mentioned, the Individual Defendants were, and are now, the owners

and/or officer of the Corporate Defendant. The Individual Defendants were employers of Plaintiff 

and others similarly situated within the meaning of Section 3(d) of the Act [29 U.S.C. § 203(d)], 

in that these defendants acted directly or indirectly in the interests of the Corporate Defendant in 

relation to the employees of the Corporate Defendant, including Plaintiff and others similarly 

situated. The Individual Defendants had operational control of the Corporate Defendant, were

involved in the day-to-day functions of the Corporate Defendant, provided Plaintiff with his work 

schedule, and are jointly liable for Plaintiff’s damages.

21. The Individual Defendants are and were, at all times relevant, persons in control of 

the Corporate Defendant’s financial affairs and can cause the Corporate Defendant to compensate 

(or not to compensate) its employees in accordance with the Act.

22. The Individual Defendants willfully and intentionally caused Plaintiff not to receive 

overtime compensation as required by the laws of the United States as set forth above and remain 

owing Plaintiff these overtime wages since the commencement of Plaintiff’s employment with the 

Corporate Defendant as set forth above. 

23. 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

Case 1:20-cv-22787-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 7 of 10
www.saenzanderson.com

8

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and those similarly situated request that this Honorable Court: 

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

Defendants on the basis of the Defendants’ willful violations of the Fair Labor 

Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. and other Federal Regulations; and

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

overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty weekly; 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.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff and those similarly situated demand trial by jury of all issues so triable as of right.

COUNT III: 

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

RETALIATORY DISCHARGE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

24. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1 

through 23 above as if set out in full herein.

25. The Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff his legally owed 

overtime wages as required by the laws of the United States and remain owing Plaintiff these 

wages as set forth above. 

26. 29 U.S.C. § 206(a)(3) states that it shall be unlawful for any person “to discharge 

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

Case 1:20-cv-22787-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 8 of 10
www.saenzanderson.com

9

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 such proceeding . . . .”

27. Plaintiff complained about his unpaid overtime wages to the Defendants just before 

his termination (approximately 15 days before).

28. On or about June 8, 2020, Defendants fired Plaintiff. 

29. The motivating factor, which caused Plaintiff’s discharge as described above, was

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

Plaintiff would not have been fired but for his complaint about unpaid overtime wages.

30. The Defendants’ termination of Plaintiff was in direct violation of 29 U.S.C. § 

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

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court: 

A. Enter a judgment against the Defendants for all back wages from the date of discharge 

to the present date and an equal amount of back wages as liquidated damages, 

attorneys’ fees, costs, and;

B. Reinstatement and promotion and injunctive relief prohibiting the Defendants from 

discriminating in the manner described above, emotional distress and humiliation, and 

pain and suffering, front wages, as well as other damages recoverable by law under 29 

U.S.C. § 216(b).

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff and those similarly situated demand trial by jury of all issues so triable as of right.

Case 1:20-cv-22787-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 9 of 10
www.saenzanderson.com

10

Dated: 07/07/2020.

Respectfully submitted,

By:__/s/ Tanesha Blye

Tanesha Blye, Esquire

 Fla. Bar No.: 738158

 Email: tblye@saenzanderson.com

Aron Smukler, Esquire

 Fla. Bar No.: 297779

 Email: asmukler@saenzanderson.com

R. Martin Saenz, Esquire

 Fla. Bar No.: 0640166 

 Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com

SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800

Aventura, Florida 33180

Telephone: (305) 503-5131

Facsimile: (888) 270-5549

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 1:20-cv-22787-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 10 of 10