UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-22746-CV-UNGARO

CARLOS FERNANDEZ

Plaintiff,

vs.

CHECK ALT ERAS INC.

and SHAI STERN

Defendants

_______________________/

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Plaintiff, Carlos Fernandez, sue Defendants, Check Alt Eras, Inc. (“Check”) and 

Shai Stern (“Stern”) and states as follows:

Jurisdiction

1. This is an action for damages which exceeds $30,000 exclusive of attorneys’

fees, interest and costs.

2. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter in that venue is proper in that

Defendant operates out of Miami Dade County Florida. 

The Parties/Participants

3. Plaintiff is a resident of , Florida and is sui juris. Plaintiff was at all material

times hereto an employee of Defendant Check and Stern was the supervisor of Plaintiff

and had operational control over Check.

General Allegations

4. This is an action seeking recovery of unpaid overtime and/or regular

compensation owed to Plaintiff, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.

Section 201, et. seq, as amended.

Case 1:20-cv-22746-AMC Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2020 Page 1 of 5
5. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was a resident of the State of Florida

and was employed by Defendants.

6. At all times material hereto, Defendants were doing business in the State of

Florida and were regularly engaged in activities that involved interstate commerce. Check

is a leader in delivering item processing and treasury management solutions for hundreds

of financial institution and business clients in the United States representing a variety of

industry sectors, including: property management, healthcare, utilities, municipalities,

nonprofit, higher education, and small business. Check provides services for its clients

such as e-check processing, merchant services, loan payment processing, virtual credit

card processing, as well as remote and electronic lock boxes. Check has offices in

California, NewYork and Miami, Florida. CheckAlt maintains a lockbox processing network

of 13 locations nationwide, processing more than 64 million items per year. All of these

actions of Check demonstrate that it engages in interstate commerce. Moreover, at all

times material hereto, each Defendant had annual gross sales or business in an amount

not less than $500,000.00. By reason of the foregoing, each Defendant was and is an

“employer” within the meaning of Section 3(d) of the FLSA.

7. Plaintiff commenced working for Check in 2017 at and agreed to pay him at

$70 an hour for all work performed for it. Plaintiff provided services to Check at $70 per

hour but Check refused to pay Plaintiff for hours worked over 40 in a week. On or about

January 2018, Shai unilaterally reduced Plaintiff’s hourly rate to $65 per hour. Plaintiff

did not agree to the reduction in hourly rate, but continued to work over 40 hours in a week

2

Case 1:20-cv-22746-AMC Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2020 Page 2 of 5
for Check. Plaintiff estimate that he is owed over $22,000 in unpaid overtime. Check

also improperly characterized Plaintiff as a 1099 when he was actually an employee of

Check.

8. During his employment Plaintiff was improperly salary exempt when he

should have been paid overtime for all hours worked over 40 in a week.

9. Plaintiffs has retained the undersigned law firm in this matter and has agreed

to pay it a reasonable fee for its services.

Count I-FLSA

(Overtime and/or Regular Time Compensation)(as to Both Defendants)

10. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through

9 by reference.

11. In several workweeks during the relevant period, Plaintiff worked, in excess

for forty(40) hours per week for Defendants. In these workweeks, Plaintiff was not paid

overtime compensation as is required by Section 207 of the FLSA. It is also believed that

Plaintiff worked regular time for which he was not paid.

12. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ failure to pay overtime

compensation, Plaintiff has been damaged in the loss of wages and have incurred and are

incurring reasonable attorney’s fees.

13. Defendants’ failure to pay overtime was deliberate, willful and without good

faith or any legal justification. Consequently, Plaintiff, is entitled to liquidated damages in

an amount equal to the underpayment of overtime compensation, and may seek recovery

dating back three (3) years from the filing of this action.

3

Case 1:20-cv-22746-AMC Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2020 Page 3 of 5
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for compensatory

damages (unpaid overtime), liquidated damages (double damage) and attorneys’ fees and

court costs pursuant to the FLSA and for such other and further relief as this Court deems

just and proper.

Count II - Breach of Oral Contract (as to Check)

Plaintiffs reavers and realleges paragraphs 1 through 9 as if fully set forth herein

and further alleges:

14. Plaintiffs and Defendant entered into an oral agreement for Plaintiff to be paid

certain at $70 an hour for work performed for it. Check agreed to pay for all hour worked

and to pay time and a half for overtime. Instead Check refused to pay for more than 40

hours worked in any given week. Check also then unilaterally reduced Plaintiff’s hourly

rate to $65 per hour without his agreement.

15. In consideration of the performance of his services, Check was to payPlaintiff

his compensation which Check failed to do in full.

16. Check breached the agreement with Plaintiff by failing to pay the agreed

upon regular time and overtime and by unilaterally reducing Plaintiff’s hourly rate.

17. By virtue of Check’s breach of the agreement, Plaintiff has suffered damages

in excess of $22,000.00.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Check for, damages together

with interest, court costs, attorneys’ fees in accordance with Fla. Stat. § 448.08, and for

any and all other and further relief this Court deems just and proper under the

4

Case 1:20-cv-22746-AMC Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2020 Page 4 of 5
circumstances.

Demand for Jury Trial

Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been emailed this 11 day of September 2020: Laurie Perez, Esq. and Stephen P. Dunn, Esq., 200

S. Michigan Ave., Ste. 1100, Chicago, IL 60604

Behren Law Firm

1930 N. Commerce Parkway-Suite 4

Weston, FL 33326

(954) 636-3802 - phone

(772) 252-3365 - fax

scott@behrenlaw.com

By:/Scott M. Behren/

Scott M. Behren 

Fla Bar No. 987786

5

Case 1:20-cv-22746-AMC Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2020 Page 5 of 5