Page 1 of 9

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 

RUDIS O. VELASQUEZ

and other similarly situated individuals,

Plaintiff(s)

CREST HOTEL GROUP LLC,

d/b/a/ CREST HOTEL SUITES,

Defendant,

________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT

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

COMES NOW the Plaintiff RUDIS O. VELASQUEZ, and other similarly situated

individuals, by and through the undersigned counsel, and hereby sues Defendant CREST HOTEL 

GROUP LLC, d/b/a CREST HOTEL SUITES and alleges:

JURISDICTION VENUES AND PARTIES

1. This is an action to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the laws of 

the United States. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 

U.S.C. § 201-219 (Section 216 for jurisdictional placement) (“the Act”).

2. Plaintiff RUDIS O. VELASQUEZ is a resident of Miami-Dade County, within the 

jurisdiction of this Court. Plaintiff is a covered employee for purposes of the Act.

3. Defendant CREST HOTEL GROUP LLC, d/b/a CREST HOTEL SUITES (hereinafter 

CREST HOTEL SUITES, or Defendant) is a Florida corporation. Defendant has a place of

business in Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times material hereto, Defendant was

Case 1:20-cv-22710-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 1 of 9
Page 2 of 9

engaged in interstate commerce. The Defendant is the employer of Plaintiff and others 

similarly situated within the meaning of Section 3(d) of the “Fair Labor Standards Act” [29 

U.S.C. § 203(d)].

4. All the actions raised in this complaint took place in Miami-Dade County, Florida, within 

the jurisdiction of this Court.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

5. This cause of action is brought by Plaintiff RUDIS O. VELASQUEZ as a collective action 

to recover from the Defendant overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and the costs 

and reasonable attorney’s fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act, as 

amended, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq (the “FLA or the “ACT”) on behalf of Plaintiff and all 

other current and former employees similarly situated to Plaintiff (“the asserted class”) and 

who worked over forty (40) hours during one or more weeks on or after June 2017, (the 

“material time”) without being properly compensated. 

6. Defendant CREST HOTEL SUITES is a boutique hotel located in the heart of South Beach, 

in Miami, Florida. Defendant provides hospitality services mostly to tourists. CREST 

HOTEL SUITES hotel is located at 1670 James Avenue, Miami Beach FL 33139, where 

Plaintiff worked.

7. Defendant CREST HOTEL SUITES employed Plaintiff RUDIS O. VELASQUEZ from 

approximately June 2008 to March 23, 2020, date in which the CREST HOTEL SUITES

hotel closed due to the COVID-19 quarantine, and Plaintiff was laid-off.

8. Plaintiff had been employed by the Defendant for approximately 11 years and 9 months. 

However, for FLSA purposes, Plaintiff's relevant period of employment is 142 weeks. 

Case 1:20-cv-22710-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 2 of 9
Page 3 of 9

9. During the relevant period of employment, the Plaintiff was hired as a non-exempted, fulltime, salaried employee. Plaintiff had duties as a laundry department employee. Plaintiff 

was paid a salary of $456.00 weekly. 

10. During his time of employment with Defendant, Plaintiff, and other similarly situated 

individuals maintained a regular schedule. Plaintiff worked 6 days per week, from 8:00 

AM to 4:30 PM (8.5 hours daily), or a total weekly average of 51 hours. 

11. In addition, the Defendant deducted from the Plaintiff’s total number of hours worked, 30 

minutes of lunchtime daily, or 3 hours in a week of 6 days. Nevertheless, Plaintiff was 

unable to take any bonafide lunchtime twice per week. This unproperly deducted lunchtime 

represents 1 additional unpaid overtime hour. 

12. Consequently, Plaintiff worked 52 hours every week, but he was not paid overtime wages

for hours over forty (40), as required by the FLSA.

13. Plaintiff clocked in and out, and the Defendant was able to keep track of the hours worked 

by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals.

14. Therefore, Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiff for overtime hours at the rate of time 

and one-half his regular rate for every hour that he worked over forty (40), in violation of 

Section 7 (a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 207(a)(1).

15. Plaintiff was paid bi-weekly with checks and paystubs that did not show the real number 

of days and hours worked.

16. Plaintiff is not in possession of time and payment records, but he will provide a good faith 

estimate based on his best recollections. 

Case 1:20-cv-22710-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 3 of 9
Page 4 of 9

17. Plaintiff RUDIS O. VELASQUEZ seeks to recover 12 half-time overtime hours, for the 

relevant period of employment, liquidated damages, and any other relief as allowable by 

law.

18. The additional persons who may become Plaintiffs in this action are employees and/or 

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

practices and procedures of Defendant and were not paid regular and/or overtime wages at 

the rate of time and one half of their regular rate of pay for all overtime hours worked over

forty. 

COUNT I:

WAGE AND HOUR FEDERAL STATUTORY VIOLATION;

FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME

19. Plaintiff RUDIS O. VELASQUEZ re-adopts every factual allegation as stated in 

paragraphs 1-18 above as if set out in full herein. 

20. This cause of action is brought by Plaintiff RUDIS O. VELASQUEZ as a collective action 

to recover from Defendant overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, and 

reasonable attorney’s fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as 

amended, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq (the “FLA or the “ACT”), on behalf of Plaintiff and all 

other current and former employees similarly situated to Plaintiff (“the asserted class”) and 

who worked over forty (40) hours during one or more weeks on or after June 2017, (the 

“material time”) without being compensated “at a rate not less than one and a half times 

the regular rate at which he is employed.”

21. Defendant CREST HOTEL SUITES was and is engaged in interstate commerce as defined 

in §§ 3 (r) and 3(s) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 203(r) and 203(s)(1)(A). The Defendant provides 

lodging services to tourists and through its business activity, affects interstate commerce. 

Case 1:20-cv-22710-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 4 of 9
Page 5 of 9

The Defendant has more than two employees recurrently engaged in commerce or the 

production of goods for commerce by regularly and recurrently using the instrumentalities 

of interstate commerce to accept and solicit funds from non-Florida sources, by using 

electronic devices to authorize credit card transactions. Upon information and belief, the 

annual gross revenue of the Employer/Defendant was always more than $500,000 per 

annum. Because of the foregoing, Defendant’s business activities involve those to which 

the Fair Labor Standards Act applies. Therefore, there is FLSA enterprise coverage.

22. Plaintiff and those similarly situated employees were employed by an enterprise engaged 

in interstate commerce. Plaintiff and those similarly-situated worked as housekeepers, and

through their daily activities, Plaintiff not only regularly, handled, or otherwise worked on 

goods and/or materials that had been produced for commerce and moved in interstate 

commerce at any time in business, but Plaintiff’s activities were directed to the 

maintenance of the facilities providing services in interstate commerce. Therefore, there is 

FLSA individual coverage.

23. Defendant CREST HOTEL SUITES employed Plaintiff RUDIS O. VELASQUEZ from 

approximately June 2008 to March 23, 2020, date in which the CREST HOTEL SUITES 

hotel closed due to the COVID-19 quarantine, and Plaintiff was laid-off.

24. Plaintiff had been employed by the Defendant for approximately 11 years and 9 months. 

However, for FLSA purposes, Plaintiff's relevant period of employment is 142 weeks. 

25. During the relevant period of employment, the Plaintiff was hired as a non-exempted, fulltime, salaried employee. Plaintiff had duties as a laundry department employee. Plaintiff 

was paid a salary of $456.00 weekly. 

Case 1:20-cv-22710-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 5 of 9
Page 6 of 9

26. During his time of employment with Defendant, Plaintiff worked 6 days per week, a total 

weekly average of 51 hours. 

27. In addition, the Defendant deducted from the Plaintiff’s total number of hours worked, 30 

minutes of lunchtime daily, or 3 hours in a week of 6 days. Nevertheless, Plaintiff was 

unable to take any bonafide lunchtime twice per week. This unproperly deducted lunchtime 

represents 1 additional unpaid overtime hour. 

28. Consequently, Plaintiff worked 52 hours every week, but he was not paid overtime wages 

for hours over forty (40), as required by the FLSA.

29. Plaintiff clocked in and out, and the Defendant was able to keep track of the hours worked 

by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals.

30. Therefore, Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiff for overtime hours at the rate of time 

and one-half his regular rate for every hour that he worked over forty (40), in violation of 

Section 7 (a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 207(a)(1).

31. Plaintiff was paid bi-weekly with paystubs that did not show the real number of days and 

hours worked. 

32. The records, if any, concerning the number of hours worked by the Plaintiff and those 

similarly situated, and the compensation paid to such employees should be in the 

possession and custody of the Defendant. However, upon information and belief, 

Defendant did not maintain time accurate records of hours worked by Plaintiff and other 

employees. 

33. Defendant violated the record-keeping requirements of FLSA, 29 CFR Part 516.

Case 1:20-cv-22710-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 6 of 9
Page 7 of 9

34. Defendant never posted any notice, as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and Federal 

Law, to inform employees of their federal rights to overtime and minimum wage payments. 

Defendant violated the Posting requirements of 29 U.S.C. § 516.4.

35. Before the completion of discovery and to the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge, at the time of 

the filing of this complaint, the Plaintiff’s good faith estimate of unpaid overtime wages is

as follows:

* Please note that these amounts are based on a preliminary calculation and that these 

figures could be subject to modifications as discovery could dictate. After proper 

discovery, Plaintiff will adjust his statement of claim properly.

a. Total amount of alleged unpaid O/T wages:

Seven Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Dollars and 56/100 ($7,480.56)

b. Calculation of such wages:

Total period of employment: 11 years + 9 months.

Relevant weeks of employment: 142 weeks

Total hours worked: 52 hours weekly average

Total unpaid overtime hours: 12 overtime hours

Salary: $456.00: 52 hours= $8.77 Regular Rate

Regular rate: $8.77 x 1.5= $13.16 O/T rate

O/T rate: $13.16 - $8.77 rate paid = $4.39 half-time difference

 Half-time O/T rate $4.39 x 12 hours=$52.68 weekly x 142 weeks=$7,480.56

 Nature of wages (e.g. overtime or straight time):

 This amount represents unpaid off-the-clock overtime wages.

36. At all times material hereto, the Employer/Defendant failed to comply with Title 29 U.S.C. 

§207 (a) (1). In that, Plaintiff and those similarly-situated performed services and worked 

over the maximum hours provided by the Act but no provision was made by the Defendant

to properly pay them at the rate of time and one half for all hours worked over forty hours 

(40) per workweek as provided in said Act. 

Case 1:20-cv-22710-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 7 of 9
Page 8 of 9

37. Defendant knew and/or showed reckless disregard of the provisions of the Act concerning 

the payment of overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and remain

owing Plaintiff and those similarly-situated these overtime wages since the commencement 

of Plaintiff’s and those similarly-situated employee’s employment with Defendant as set 

forth above, and Plaintiff and those similarly-situated are entitled to recover double 

damages. 

38. Defendant CREST HOTEL SUITES willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff 

overtime wages at the rate of time and one half his regular rate, as required by the law of 

the United States, and remains owing Plaintiff these overtime wages since the 

commencement of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant as set forth above. 

39. 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 RUDIS O. VELASQUEZ and those similarly situated respectfully 

requests that this Honorable Court: 

A. Enter judgment for Plaintiff RUDIS O. VELASQUEZ and other similarly situated

individuals and against the Defendant CREST HOTEL SUITES, based on Defendant’s

willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.; and

B. Award Plaintiff RUDIS O. VELASQUEZ actual damages in the amount shown to be 

due for unpaid overtime compensation for hours worked over forty weekly, with 

interest; and

C. Award Plaintiff an equal amount in double damages/liquidated damages; and

D. Award Plaintiff reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit; and 

Case 1:20-cv-22710-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 8 of 9
Page 9 of 9

E. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems equitable and just and/or 

available pursuant to Federal Law. 

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff RUDIS O. VELASQUEZ demands trial by a jury of all issues triable as of right 

by a jury.

Dated: June 30, 2020 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 By: _/s/ Zandro E. Palma____

 ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.

 Florida Bar No.: 0024031

 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd.

 Suite 1500

 Miami, FL 33156

 Telephone: (305) 446-1500

 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502

 zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

 Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 1:20-cv-22710-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 9 of 9