UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI DIVISION 

CASE NO.: 1:20-cv-22873-RNS 

CARLOS H. ESPINOZA, and all others 

similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), 

 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

SOUTH BEACH ASSOCIATES, LLC, and 

STEFANO FRITTELLA, individually, 

 Defendants. 

______________________________________/ 

DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

 The defendants, South Beach Associates, LLC (“South Beach”) and Stefano Frittella 

(collectively, “Defendants”), submit their Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

 On March 9, 2020, the plaintiff, Carlos Espinoza (“Plaintiff” or “Espinoza”), initiated the 

instant action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 -216 (“FLSA”) against 

Defendants, asserting nonpayment of overtime wages incurred while Espinoza was employed by 

South Beach.1 Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration on July 17, 2020, seeking to 

compel arbitration and stay the case based on Espinoza’s execution of an Employee Dispute 

Resolution agreement with South Beach, which required the parties to resolve any employmentrelated disputed between the parties through binding arbitration. [DE 6] 

 Espinoza opposed the motion to compel arbitration, asserting that he did not sign the 

 

1Plaintiff filed the action in the Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade, Florida. Defendants removed 

the case to this Court on July 13, 2020. [DE 1] 

Case 1:20-cv-22873-RNS Document 55 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2021 Page 1 of 5
2 

Dispute Resolution agreement or otherwise enter into any agreement to arbitrate with Defendants. 

The Court denied the Motion to Compel Arbitration without prejudice and set the matter for trial. 

[DE 19] The parties thereafter filed competing motions for summary judgment on the issue of the 

existence of an arbitration agreement. [DE 36; DE 39] The Court denied both motions for 

summary judgment and ordered that the matter proceed to trial. [DE 51] 

A bench trial on the sole issue of the existence of an arbitration agreement between the 

parties was held on January 19, 2021. Based on the testimony of the witnesses and the 

documentary evidence received at the trial and admitted into evidence, the following relevant facts 

are found: 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

1. Espinoza was employed by South Beach at Social, one of South Beach’s 

restaurants, from 2013 to 2019. 

2. Demian Maggioni (“Maggioni”) was the General Manager at Social when Espinoza 

began working there in 2013. 

3. Around 2015 or 2016, South Beach implemented a new onboarding system for all 

its restaurants and trained the restaurant managers on the new process. 

4. That process included logging the employee into the HR work cycle program, 

having them input their basic information and then having them go through a number of electronic 

documents, including the Employee Dispute Resolution policy, which provides for binding 

arbitration. The system required the employee to electronically sign each document before 

allowing them to move on to the next. At the end, the system would print out a Receipt 

Acknowledgment for the employee to sign by hand, certifying that the employee had read and 

electronically signed the computerized documents. 

Case 1:20-cv-22873-RNS Document 55 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2021 Page 2 of 5
3 

5. South Beach maintained copies of employees’ electronically-signed Dispute 

Resolution policies in its HR work cycle program. 

6. Maggioni assisted Espinoza in migrating to the new system on March 3, 2016. 

Maggioni opened the computer screen for Espinoza, explained what was going to happen, was 

present as Espinoza went through and e-signed the documents, including the Dispute Resolution. 

Maggioni also witnessed Espinoza hand-sign the Receipt Acknowledgment, which listed the 

Dispute Resolution as a document that Espinoza was provided and agreed to comply with. 

7. Maggioni confirmed both Espinoza’s and his own signature on the Receipt 

Acknowledgment. 

8. Maggioni specifically recalled going through the process with Espinoza because 

Espinoza was one of the managers at the restaurant, and because Maggioni thought Espinoza might 

sue the company, so he got Espinoza’s file together and gave it to one of South Beach’s owners, 

Antonio Rizzi (“Rizzi”). 

9. Espinoza denied that he e-signed the electronic Dispute Resolution or that he handsigned the Receipt Acknowledgment of same. 

10. Espinoza’s signature on the I-9 form that he signed when he was hired by South 

Beach matches the signature on the Receipt Acknowledgment. 

11. Espinoza initially swore under oath that he never saw the I-9 form and that the 

signature on the I-9 form was not his, but subsequently admitted that he did sign the I-9 form and 

that the signature was his. 

12. Espinoza’s signature on his permanent resident card also matched the signature on 

the Receipt Acknowledgment. 

13. Based on the documentary evidence and credibility of the witness testimony, the 

Case 1:20-cv-22873-RNS Document 55 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2021 Page 3 of 5
4 

Court finds that Espinoza electronically signed the Dispute Resolution policy and the hand-signed 

the Receipt Acknowledgment. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1. The Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this case. 

2. Whether an arbitration agreement exists is a matter of contract. Rodera v. Signal 

Fin. Co. LLC, 365 F. Supp.3d 1263, 1264 (S.D. Fla. 2018) (Altonaga, J.). 

3. Florida contract law governs this dispute. Id. At 1265. 

4. Under Florida law, as the party seeking enforcement, it is Defendants’ burden to 

prove the existence of the arbitration agreement. Palm Garden of Healthcare Holdings, LLC v. 

Haydu, 209 So. 3d 636, 638 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). 

5. Defendants have met their burden of proving by the preponderance of the evidence 

that Espinoza signed the Dispute Resolution agreement and Receipt Acknowledgment, and that 

the parties thereby formed an arbitration agreement. 

Date: January 5, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Cathy M. Stutin 

 Cathy M. Stutin 

 Florida Bar No.: 91156 

cstutin@fisherphillips.com

Alexander Castro 

Florida Bar No.: 1003630 

acastro@fisherphillips.com 

Fisher & Phillips LLP 

450 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 800 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 

Telephone: (954) 525-4800 

 Facsimile: (954)-525-8739 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Case 1:20-cv-22873-RNS Document 55 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2021 Page 4 of 5
5 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on January 5, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing document with 

the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served 

this day on all counsel of record or pro se parties identified on the attached Service List in the 

manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or 

in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive 

electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. 

/s/ Cathy M. Stutin 

 Cathy M. Stutin 

SERVICE LIST

J.H. Zidell 

zabogado@aol.com

Natalie Staroschak 

nstar.zidellpa@gmail.com

Samuel C. Gold 

Samgold.zidell.law@gmail.com

300 71st Street, Suite 605 

Miami Beach, Florida 33141 

Telephone: (305)-865-6766 

Facsimile: (305)-865-7167 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Case 1:20-cv-22873-RNS Document 55 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2021 Page 5 of 5