EXHIBIT 1

Case 1:20-cv-22723-MGC Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 1 of 13
7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450, Miami, FL 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

1

IN THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

ROGELIO RIVERO ALEMAN, CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION

Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 

vs.

A & J GENERAL CONTRACTORS CORP., 

MIGUEL A. GUERRERO, SR., and 

MIGUEL A. GUERRERO, JR.,

Defendants.

______________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Rogelio Rivero Aleman, sues Defendants, A & J General Contractors Corp., 

Miguel A. Guerrero, Sr., and Miguel A. Guerrero, Jr., as follows:

Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue

1. Plaintiff, Rogelio Rivero Aleman, is over 18 years old and has been a sui juris

resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida, at all times material. 

2. Defendant, A & J General Contracting Corp. (“A&J”), is a sui juris Florida 

for-profit corporation that conducted its general contracting, construction, and roofing business

in Miami-Dade County, Florida, at all times material, where it maintained its principal place of 

business and owed real property. 

3. Defendant, Manuel A. Guerrero, Sr., was at all times material an 

owner/officer/director/member of A&J, for the time period relevant to this lawsuit. He ran 

A&J’s day-to-day operations, was responsible for all operational decisions, was partially or totally 

responsible for paying Plaintiff’s wages and the issuance of information returns.

4. Defendant, Manuel A. Guerrero, Jr., was at all times material an 

Filing # 108184811 E-Filed 06/01/2020 11:29:03 AM Case 1:20-cv-22723-MGC Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 2 of 13
7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450, Miami, FL 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

2

owner/officer/director/member of A&J for the time period relevant to this lawsuit. He ran 

A&J’s day-to-day operations, was the qualifier for A&J, was responsible for all operational 

decisions, and was partially or totally responsible for paying Plaintiff’s wages and the issuance of 

information returns.

5. Venue is proper pursuant to because Defendants transact business in Miami-Dade 

County, because Defendants, maintained their principal places of business in this Miami-Dade 

County, because Plaintiff worked and was due to be paid in Miami-Dade County, and because 

most if not all of the operational decisions were made in Miami-Dade County.

6. This is an action for damages greater than $30,000, and this Court has 

jurisdiction over this matter.

7. Any/all condition(s) precedent to filing this lawsuit occurred and/or was satisfied 

by Plaintiff.

8. Plaintiff previously filed a lawsuit against Defendants bearing Case No.: 1:19-CV24956-UNGARO on December 3, 2019, which was dismissed without prejudice on February 25, 

2020. Thereafter, the Courts were closed and all deadlines/limitations period stayed, which 

tolled the statute(s) of limitations applicable to Plaintiff’s claims.

9. Plaintiff retained the undersigned counsel and agreed to pay a reasonable fee for 

all services rendered.

COUNT I - FLSA MINIMUM WAGE VIOLATION(S)

Plaintiff, Rogelio Rivero Aleman, reincorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 9 as 

though set forth fully herein and further alleges as follows:

10. Defendants were Plaintiff’s direct employers, joint employers and co-employers 

for purposes of the FLSA, as the term “employer” is defined by 29 U.S.C. §203(d). 

Case 1:20-cv-22723-MGC Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 3 of 13
7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450, Miami, FL 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

3

11. Defendants regularly employed two or more employees for the relevant time 

period that handled goods or materials that travelled through interstate commerce, or used 

instrumentalities of interstate commerce, thus making Defendants’ business an enterprise covered 

by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

12. Defendants have been at all times material engaged in interstate commerce in the 

course of their provision of general contracting, construction, and roofing which, traditionally, 

cannot be performed without using shingles, roof tiles, felt, tar, adhesives, fasteners, vehicles, 

wood, goods, materials, supplies, and equipment that have all moved through interstate 

commerce. 

13. Defendants also engage in interstate commerce in the course of their submission 

of billings and receipt of payment involving out-of-state payors. 

14. Furthermore, Defendants obtain, solicit, exchange and send funds to and from 

outside of the State of Florida, regularly and recurrently use telephonic transmissions going 

outside of the State of Florida to conduct business, and transmit electronic information through 

computers, the internet, via email, and otherwise outside of the State of Florida in the course of 

their business.

15. Defendants’ annual gross revenues derived from this interstate commerce are 

believed to be in excess of $500,000.00 for the relevant time period.

16. Plaintiff was an hourly employee of Defendants, as the term “employee” is defined 

by 29 U.S.C. §203(e).

17. Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee of Defendants.

18. Plaintiff consents to participate in this lawsuit.

19. Defendants hired Plaintiff to work for them as a driver to also perform general 

Case 1:20-cv-22723-MGC Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 4 of 13
7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450, Miami, FL 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

4

labor and roofing labor for them.

20. Plaintiff hauled roofing materials, adhesives, fasteners, and supplies, that traveled 

in interstate commerce prior to Plaintiff’s transportation of same. 

21. During this time, Plaintiffs regularly and routinely utilized vehicles, cellular 

telephones, fuel, oil, and other goods and supplies that moved through interstate commerce.

22. Plaintiff worked for Defendants from about 2015 to April 20, 2019, when he was 

injured on the job. To the extent that records exist regarding the exact dates of Plaintiff’s 

employment exist, such records are in the exclusive custody of Defendants.

23. Plaintiff would start his workday for Defendants by first picking up other 

employees for Defendants to drive them to Defendants’ warehouse and then to the jobsite(s), with 

the first pickup commencing at around 5:15 a.m.

24. Plaintiff would then end his workday by then driving to the warehouse to unload 

the work truck owned by Defendants, and oftentimes would then drive one or more employees 

home for the benefit Defendants, completing his workday.

25. Plaintiff worked for Defendants for six to seven days each week for over 12 hours 

each day.

26. Defendants would pay Plaintiff a day rate that ranged from $80 to $100, 

regardless of the hours worked.

27. Defendants paid Plaintiff his day rate for each day worked on a weekly basis, with 

a small part of his wages made by check and with the remainder of his wages paid in cash.

28. When considering all of the hours that Defendants required Plaintiff to work, and 

the daily rate(s) of pay, Defendants failed and refused to pay Plaintiff an hourly wage at or above 

the applicable minimum wage for all of the hours that he worked.

Case 1:20-cv-22723-MGC Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 5 of 13
7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450, Miami, FL 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

5

29. Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff wages at or above 

the applicable minimum wage for each of the hours he worked during the relevant time period.

30. Defendants either recklessly failed to investigate whether their failure to pay 

Plaintiff at least the applicable minimum wage for the hours he worked during the relevant time 

period violated the Federal Wage Laws of the United States, they intentionally misled Plaintiff to 

believe that Defendants were not required to pay him at least the applicable minimum wage rate, 

and/or Defendants concocted a scheme pursuant to which the deprived Plaintiff the applicable 

minimum wage pay earned.

31. Plaintiff is entitled to a backpay award of minimum wages for all hours he worked, 

plus an equal amount as a penalty, plus all attorneys’ fees and costs.

WHEREFORE Plaintiff, Rogelio Rivero Aleman, demands the entry of a judgment in 

his favor and against Defendants, A & J General Contracting Corp., Manuel A. Guerrero, Sr., 

and Manuel A. Guerrero, Jr., jointly and severally after trial by jury, and as follows:

a. That Plaintiff recover compensatory minimum wage damages and an 

equal amount of liquidated damages as provided under the law and in 29 

U.S.C. § 216(b);

b. That Plaintiff recover pre-judgment interest on all unpaid minimum wages 

if the Court does not award liquidated damages;

c. That Plaintiff recover an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and 

expenses pursuant to the FLSA;

d. That Plaintiff recover all interest allowed by law;

Case 1:20-cv-22723-MGC Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 6 of 13
7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450, Miami, FL 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

6

e. That Defendants be Ordered to make Plaintiff whole by providing 

appropriate minimum pay and other benefits wrongly denied in an 

amount to be shown at trial and other affirmative relief; 

f. That the Court declare Defendants to be in willful violation of the 

minimum wage provisions of the FLSA; and 

g. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

COUNT II - FLSA OVERTIME WAGE VIOLATION(S)

Plaintiff, Rogelio Rivero Aleman, reincorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 9 as 

though set forth fully herein and further alleges as follows:

32. Defendants were Plaintiff’s direct employers, joint employers and co-employers 

for purposes of the FLSA, as the term “employer” is defined by 29 U.S.C. §203(d). 

33. Defendants regularly employed two or more employees for the relevant time 

period that handled goods or materials that travelled through interstate commerce, or used 

instrumentalities of interstate commerce, thus making Defendants’ business an enterprise covered 

by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

34. Defendants have been at all times material engaged in interstate commerce in the 

course of their provision of general contracting, construction, and roofing which, traditionally, 

cannot be performed without using shingles, roof tiles, felt, tar, adhesives, fasteners, vehicles, 

wood, goods, materials, supplies, and equipment that have all moved through interstate 

commerce. 

35. Defendants also engage in interstate commerce in the course of their submission 

of billings and receipt of payment involving out-of-state payors. 

Case 1:20-cv-22723-MGC Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 7 of 13
7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450, Miami, FL 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

7

36. Furthermore, Defendants obtain, solicit, exchange and send funds to and from 

outside of the State of Florida, regularly and recurrently use telephonic transmissions going 

outside of the State of Florida to conduct business, and transmit electronic information through 

computers, the internet, via email, and otherwise outside of the State of Florida in the course of 

their business.

37. Defendants’ annual gross revenues derived from this interstate commerce are 

believed to be in excess of $500,000.00 for the relevant time period.

38. Plaintiff was an hourly employee of Defendants, as the term “employee” is defined 

by 29 U.S.C. §203(e).

39. Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee of Defendants.

40. Plaintiff consents to participate in this lawsuit.

41. Defendants hired Plaintiff to work for them as a driver to also perform general 

labor and roofing labor for them.

42. Plaintiff hauled roofing materials, adhesives, fasteners, and supplies, that traveled 

in interstate commerce prior to Plaintiff’s transportation of same. 

43. During this time, Plaintiffs regularly and routinely utilized vehicles, cellular 

telephones, fuel, oil, and other goods and supplies that moved through interstate commerce.

44. Plaintiff worked for Defendants from about 2015 to April 20, 2019, when he was 

injured on the job. To the extent that records exist regarding the exact dates of Plaintiff’s 

employment exist, such records are in the exclusive custody of Defendants.

45. Plaintiff would start his workday for Defendants by first picking up other 

employees for Defendants to drive them to Defendants’ warehouse and then to the jobsite(s), with 

the first pickup commencing at around 5:15 a.m.

Case 1:20-cv-22723-MGC Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 8 of 13
7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450, Miami, FL 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

8

46. Plaintiff would then end his workday by then driving to the warehouse to unload 

the work truck owned by Defendants, and then oftentimes would drive one or more employees 

home for Defendants, when he would complete his workday.

47. Plaintiff worked for Defendants for six to seven days each week.

48. Defendants would pay Plaintiff a day rate that ranged from $80 to $100 per day, 

regardless of the hours worked each day.

49. Defendants paid Plaintiff on a weekly basis for all hours worked in part by check 

and in part in cash.

50. Plaintiff would regularly and routinely work more than 40 hours in a workweek

for Defendants.

51. Defendants failed and refused to pay Plaintiff overtime wages calculated at time 

and one-half times his regular hourly rate(s) of pay for all of the hours that he worked over 40 

hours in a given workweek.

52. Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff wages at a rate of 

time and one-half times his regular rate of pay for each of the overtime hours he worked during 

the relevant time period by paying Plaintiff in cash for all hours worked over 80 in a pay period

at their gas station at his regular rate of pay.

53. Defendants either recklessly failed to investigate whether their failure to pay 

Plaintiff an overtime wage for the hours he worked during the relevant time period violated the 

Federal Wage Laws of the United States, they intentionally misled Plaintiff to believe that 

Defendants were not required to pay an overtime rate, and/or Defendants concocted a scheme 

pursuant to which the deprived Plaintiff the overtime pay earned.

Case 1:20-cv-22723-MGC Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 9 of 13
7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450, Miami, FL 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

9

54. Plaintiff is entitled to a backpay award of overtime wages for all overtime hours he 

worked, plus an equal amount as a penalty, plus all attorneys’ fees and costs.

WHEREFORE Plaintiff, Rogelio Rivero Aleman, demands the entry of a judgment in 

his favor and against Defendants, A & J General Contracting Corp., Manuel A. Guerrero, Sr., 

and Manuel A. Guerrero, Jr., jointly and severally after trial by jury, and as follows:

a. That Plaintiff recover compensatory overtime wage damages and an equal 

amount of liquidated damages as provided under the law and in 29 U.S.C. 

§ 216(b);

b. That Plaintiff recover pre-judgment interest on all unpaid overtime wages 

if the Court does not award liquidated damages;

c. That Plaintiff recover an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and 

expenses pursuant to the FLSA;

d. That Plaintiff recover all interest allowed by law;

e. That Defendants be Ordered to make Plaintiff whole by providing 

appropriate overtime pay and other benefits wrongly denied in an amount 

to be shown at trial and other affirmative relief; 

f. That the Court declare Defendants to be in willful violation of the 

overtime provisions of the FLSA; and 

g. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

COUNT III – VIOLATION(S) OF 26 U.S.C. §7434 FOR 2018

Plaintiff, Rogelio Rivero Aleman, reincorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 9 as 

though set forth fully herein and further alleges as follows:

55. Plaintiff performed worked for Defendants during calendar year 2018.

Case 1:20-cv-22723-MGC Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 10 of 13
7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450, Miami, FL 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

10

56. Defendants, A & J General Contracting Corp., Manuel A. Guerrero, Sr., and 

Manuel A. Guerrero, Jr., each had an obligation to provide correct information returns to the 

IRS and to the Plaintiff.

57. Defendants, A & J General Contracting Corp., Manuel A. Guerrero, Sr., and 

Manuel A. Guerrero, Jr., paid Plaintiff and so are directly responsible for the issuance of checks 

to Plaintiff(s), the payment of taxes to the IRS based on the wages earned by and paid to Plaintiff, 

the accurate reporting of all income paid as to Plaintiff as wages, the issuance of correct W-2’s to 

Plaintiff for each calendar year during which he performed work for Defendants, and the filing of 

correct information returns on own behalf of the corporate Defendants.

58. Defendants, A & J General Contracting Corp., Manuel A. Guerrero, Sr., and 

Manuel A. Guerrero, Jr., normally paid Plaintiff by check for some of the hours he worked in a 

weekly pay period in 2018.

59. During the time that Plaintiff worked for Defendants, A & J General Contracting 

Corp., Manuel A. Guerrero, Sr., and Manuel A. Guerrero, Jr., they also paid Plaintiff in cash in 

2018 for the remainder of the hours he worked.

60. Defendants, A & J General Contracting Corp., Manuel A. Guerrero, Sr., and 

Manuel A. Guerrero, Jr., did not include the amounts that they paid to Plaintiff in the cash in 

2018 in any information returns relating to the wages earned by (or paid to) Plaintiff, such as the 

Form W-2 that Defendants issued to Plaintiff for calendar year 2018.

61. Defendants, A & J General Contracting Corp., Manuel A. Guerrero, Sr., and 

Manuel A. Guerrero, Jr., willfully and intentionally served/filed/provided Plaintiff with a 

fraudulent and/or false IRS Form 2018 for calendar year 2018 by underreporting the amount 

they paid to Plaintiff in calendar year 2018.

Case 1:20-cv-22723-MGC Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 11 of 13
7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450, Miami, FL 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

11

62. Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of Defendants’ willful provision of false 

information returns in 2018 caused by Defendants’ intentional and willful acts as described 

above.

63. Section 7434 of 26 U.S.C. provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 

(a) In general 

If any person willfully files a fraudulent information return with respect to payments 

purported to be made to any other person, such other person may bring a civil action for 

damages against the person so filing such return.

(b) Damages In any action brought under subsection (a), upon a finding of liability on 

the part of the defendant, the defendant shall be liable to the plaintiff in an amount equal 

to the greater of $5,000 or the sum of—

(1) any actual damages sustained by the plaintiff as a proximate result of the filing 

of the fraudulent information return (including any costs attributable to resolving 

deficiencies asserted as a result of such filing), 

(2) the costs of the action, and 

(3) in the court’s discretion, reasonable attorneys’ fees.

WHEREFORE Plaintiff, Rogelio Rivero Aleman, demands the entry of a judgment in 

his favor and against Defendants, A & J General Contracting Corp., Manuel A. Guerrero, Sr., 

and Manuel A. Guerrero, Jr., jointly and severally after trial by jury and as follows:

a. That Plaintiff recover the greater of $5,000 for each fraudulent 

information return filed/served by Defendants in 2018 as set forth above; 

b. That Plaintiff recover an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and 

expenses pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §7434;

c. That Plaintiff recover all interest allowed by law; and

d. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Case 1:20-cv-22723-MGC Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 12 of 13
7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450, Miami, FL 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

12

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, Rogelio Rivero Aleman, demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable.

Dated this 1st day of June, 2020.

FAIRLAW FIRM

Counsel for Plaintiff

7300 N. Kendall Drive

Suite 450

Miami, FL 33156

Tel: 305.230.4884

Fax: 305.230.4844

s/Brian H. Pollock, Esq.

Brian H. Pollock, Esq.

Fla. Bar No. 174742

brian@fairlawattorney.com

Case 1:20-cv-22723-MGC Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 13 of 13