UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO:

ROSA MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

URODOCS, INC.,

a Florida corporation, and

RICHARD LEVIN, individually,

Defendants.

______________________________/

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, ROSA MARTINEZ (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) files 

the following Complaint against Defendants, URODOCS, INC., (“URODOCS”), and RICHARD 

LEVIN (“LEVIN”), individually (collectively, “Defendants”), alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Defendants unlawfully deprived Plaintiff of overtime compensation during the course of 

her employment. This action arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) pursuant 

to 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-216, to recover all overtime wages that Defendant has refused to pay 

Plaintiff during her employment.

PARTIES

2. During all times material hereto, Plaintiff was a resident of Broward County, Florida, over 

the age of 18 years, and otherwise sui juris.

Case 1:20-cv-22757-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2020 Page 1 of 7
2

3. During all times material hereto, Defendant, URODOCS, was a Florida for-profit 

corporation located and transacting business within Aventura, Florida, within the 

jurisdiction of this Honorable Court.

4. During all times material hereto, Plaintiff worked for Defendant, URODOCS, at its 

principal location at 21355 East Dixie Highway Suite 102, Aventura, Florida 33180.

5. Defendant, URODOCS, was Plaintiff’s employer, as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), during 

all times pertinent to the allegations herein.

6. Upon information and belief, during all times material hereto, Defendant, LEVIN, was a 

resident of the Southern District of Florida.

7. During all times material hereto, Defendant, LEVIN was the owner of the corporate 

defendant within Aventura, Florida. 

8. During all times material hereto, Defendant, LEVIN, was over the age of 18 years, an 

officer and/or director of the corporate Defendant, and was vested with the ultimate control 

and decision-making authority over the hiring, firing, day-to-day operations, and pay 

practices for Defendant, URODOCS, during the relevant time period.

9. During all times material hereto, Defendant, LEVIN, was Plaintiff’s employer, as defined 

by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d). 

JURSIDICTION AND VENUE

10. All acts and omissions giving rise to this dispute took place within Miami-Dade County, 

Florida, which falls within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court.

11. Defendant, URODOCS, is headquartered and regularly transacts business in Miami-Dade 

County, Florida, and jurisdiction is therefore proper within the Southern District of Florida 

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337.

Case 1:20-cv-22757-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2020 Page 2 of 7
3

12. Venue is also proper within the Southern District of Florida pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) 

and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

13. Defendant, URODOCS, has been in operation in Florida since at least 1997. 

14. Defendant, URODOCS, is a medical practice that provides care to male and female patients 

throughout South Florida in the diagnosis and treatment of urology-related conditions. See 

https://richardlevinmd.com/ (last visited July 3, 2020).

FLSA COVERAGE

15. Defendant, URODOCS, is covered under the FLSA through enterprise coverage, as 

URODOCS was engaged in interstate commerce during Plaintiff’s employment period. 

More specifically, URODOCS’ business and Plaintiff’s work for URODOCS affected 

interstate commerce because the goods and materials Plaintiff and other employees used 

and/or handled on a constant and/or continuous basis moved through interstate commerce 

prior or subsequent to Plaintiff’s use of the same. Accordingly, Defendant, URODOCS

was engaged in interstate commerce pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(B).

16. During her employment with Defendants, Plaintiff and multiple other employees handled 

and worked with various goods and/or materials that moved through interstate commerce, 

including, but not limited to: cell phones, telephones, computers, computer keyboards, 

pens, pencils, paper, surgeon’s tools, medicine, anesthesia, lasers, implants, etc. 

17. Defendant, URODOCS, regularly employed two (2) or more employees for the relevant 

time period, and these employees handled goods or materials similar to those goods and 

materials handled by Plaintiff, thus making Defendant, URODOCS, an enterprise covered 

by the FLSA.

Case 1:20-cv-22757-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2020 Page 3 of 7
4

18. Upon information and belief, Defendant, URODOCS, grossed or did business in excess of 

$500,000.00 during the years 2017, 2018, 2019, and is expected to gross in excess of 

$500,000.00 in 2020.

19. During her employment with Defendants, Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee of 

Defendant, URODOCS, within the meaning of the FLSA.

INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYER LIABILITY

20. During all pertinent times to Plaintiff’s employment, Defendant, LEVIN, oversaw the dayto-day operations of URODOCS and instructed Plaintiff and other employees on their 

duties and responsibilities. Defendant, LEVIN, also controlled the payroll practices and 

policies of the company.

21. Defendant, LEVIN, maintained hiring and firing authority over company employees 

including Plaintiff. 

22. During all times material hereto, Defendants were expressly aware of the work performed 

by Plaintiff, but nevertheless refused to pay Plaintiff for any of the work she performed for 

them. 

PLAINTIFF’S WORK FOR DEFENDANTS

23. Plaintiff began working for Defendant in or about March 2019 as an office specialist, and 

continues to be employed as of the date of filing this Complaint.

24. During all time periods pertinent to this Complaint, Defendants retained the power to hire, 

fire, discipline, and control company pay practices as they relate to Plaintiff.

25. During all time periods pertinent to this Complaint, Plaintiff performed non-exempt work 

for Defendants performing office specialist duties including front desk reception and 

coordinating with medical assistants.

Case 1:20-cv-22757-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2020 Page 4 of 7
5

26. During all time periods pertinent to this Complaint, Plaintiff was an hourly employee. Her 

regular hourly rate ranged from eighteen dollars ($18.00) to nineteen dollars ($19.00) per 

hour.

27. Plaintiff worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week in one or more of her workweeks 

when employed by Defendants.

28. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff time-and-one-half her regular hourly rate for all hours

Plaintiff worked in excess of forty (40) in a workweek.

COUNT I – FEDERAL OVERTIME WAGE VIOLATIONS – 29 U.S.C. § 207

(Against all Defendants)

29. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and re-avers Paragraphs 1 through 28 as though set forth fully 

herein.

30. Plaintiff alleges this action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. 

§ 216(b).

31. From about March 2019 through the present, Defendants refused to compensate Plaintiff 

at the proper overtime rate of time-and-one-half required by the FLSA for all hours worked 

in excess of forty (40) in a workweek.

32. Plaintiff claims the time-and-one-half rate for each hour worked in excess of forty (40) per 

week, during the time period between March 2019 and the present.

33. Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff’s overtime wages as required 

by the FLSA, as Defendants knew of the overtime requirements of the FLSA, or otherwise 

recklessly failed to investigate whether Defendants’ payroll practices were in accordance 

with the FLSA during the relevant time period.

34. Accordingly, the statute of limitations in this action should be three (3) years as opposed 

to two (2) years.

Case 1:20-cv-22757-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2020 Page 5 of 7
6

35. Defendants’ willful and/or intentional violations of federal wage law entitle Plaintiff to an 

additional amount of liquidated, or double, damages.

36. As a result of the violations alleged herein, Plaintiff was required to retain the undersigned 

counsel and is therefore entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ROSA MARTINEZ, respectfully requests that this Honorable 

Court enter judgment in her favor and against Defendants, URODOCS, INC., (“URODOCS”), and 

RICHARD LEVIN (“LEVIN”), individually, (collectively, “Defendants”), and award Plaintiff: (a) 

unliquidated damages to be paid by Defendants, jointly and severally; (b) liquidated damages to 

be paid by Defendants, jointly and severally; (c) reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to be paid by 

Defendants, jointly and severally; and any and all such further relief as may be deemed just and 

reasonable under the circumstances.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, ROSA MARTINEZ, requests and demands a trial by jury on all appropriate 

claims.

Dated this 3rd day of July 2020. Respectfully Submitted,

USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERSJORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC

805 East Broward Blvd. Suite 301

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

Tel: (954) 871-0050

Counsel for Plaintiff

By: /s/ Jordan Richards

JORDAN RICHARDS, ESQUIRE

Florida Bar No. 108372

MELISSA SCOTT, ESQUIRE

Florida Bar No. 1010123

JAKE BLUMSTEIN, ESQUIRE

Florida Bar No. 1017746

Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com

Melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com

Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com

April@usaemploymentlawyers.com

Case 1:20-cv-22757-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2020 Page 6 of 7
7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing document was filed via CM/ECF on July 3,

2020.

By: /s/ Jordan Richards

JORDAN RICHARDS, ESQUIRE

Florida Bar No. 108372

SERVICE LIST:

Case 1:20-cv-22757-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2020 Page 7 of 7