COMPOSITE

EXHIBIT A

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 1 of 68
7/16/2020 OCS Search

https://www2.miami-dadeclerk.com/ocs/Search.aspx 1/4

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY CLERK OF THE COURTS

HARVEY RUVIN

Contact Us My Account 

CIVIL, FAMILY AND PROBATE COURTS ONLINE SYSTEM

 BACK

ANTHONY BURGOS VS DESIGNER FRAGRANCES & COSMETICS COMPANY ET AL

Local Case Number: 2019-017539-CA-01 Filing Date: 06/11/2019

State Case Number: 132019CA017539000001 Judicial Section: CA02

Consolidated Case No.: N/A Case Type: Discrimination - Employment or Other

Case Status: OPEN

 Parties

Total Of Parties: 4 

Party Description Party Name Attorney Information Other Attorney(S)

Plaintiff Burgos, Anthony B#:  (Bar Number)363103

N:  (Attorney Name)Paul A Sack

Defendant Designer Fragrances & Cosmetics Company B#:  (Bar Number)948799

N:  (Attorney Name)Sherril M Colombo

Defendant AKA Kiehls B#:  (Bar Number)948799

N:  (Attorney Name)Sherril M Colombo

Defendant L OREAL USA, INC. B#:  (Bar Number)948799

N:  (Attorney Name)Sherril M Colombo

 Hearing Details Total Of Hearings: 1 

Hearing Date Hearing Time Hearing Code Description Hearing Location

05/22/2020 9:45AM CMC Case Management Conference

 Dockets Total Of Dockets: 29 

Number Date Book/Page

Docket

Entry

Event

Type Comments



25 07/09/2020 Motion to

Set Aside

Default

Event



24 07/09/2020 Order

Setting Aside

Default

Event IS HEREBY GRANTED



23 07/07/2020 Motion for

Extension of

Time

Event Parties: Designer Fragrances & Cosmetics Company; L OREAL USA INC.



22 07/07/2020 Notice of

Appearance

Event Parties: Sherril M Colombo; Designer Fragrances & Cosmetics Company;

Kiehls; L OREAL USA INC. 

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 2 of 68
7/16/2020 OCS Search

https://www2.miami-dadeclerk.com/ocs/Search.aspx 2/4

Number Date Book/Page

Docket

Entry

Event

Type Comments

21 06/03/2020 Receipt: Event RECEIPT#:2660065 AMT PAID:$10.00 NAME:PAUL A SACK 1210

WASHINGTON AVENUE SUITE 245 MIAMI BEACH FL 33139

COMMENT: ALLOCATION CODE QUANTITY UNIT AMOUNT 3139-

SUMMONS ISSUE FEE 1 $10.00 $10.00 TENDER TYPE:E-FILING ACH

TENDER AMT:$10.0

20 06/03/2020 Receipt: Event RECEIPT#:2660063 AMT PAID:$10.00 NAME:PAUL A SACK 1210

WASHINGTON AVENUE SUITE 245 MIAMI BEACH FL 33139

COMMENT: ALLOCATION CODE QUANTITY UNIT AMOUNT 3139-

SUMMONS ISSUE FEE 1 $10.00 $10.00 TENDER TYPE:E-FILING ACH

TENDER AMT:$10.0

06/02/2020 20 Day

Summons

Issued

Service



19 06/02/2020 ESummons

20 Day

Issued

Event Parties: L OREAL USA INC.

06/02/2020 20 Day

Summons

Issued

Service



18 06/02/2020 ESummons

20 Day

Issued

Event Parties: Designer Fragrances & Cosmetics Company



17 06/02/2020 (M) 20 Day

(C)

Summons

(Sub)

Received

Event



16 06/02/2020 (M) 20 Day

(C)

Summons

(Sub)

Received

Event



15 05/26/2020 Order on

Case

Management

Plan

Event

05/22/2020 Case

Management

Conference

Hearing CMC



14 05/12/2020 Mot to File

Amended

Complaint

Event



13 05/12/2020 Notice: Event



12 04/27/2020 Order

Setting

Management

Conference

Event ON 05-22-2020 AT 9:45AM



11 01/08/2020 Default Event Parties: Designer Fragrances & Cosmetics Company



10 10/18/2019 Amended

Motion

Event FOR CLERK S DEFAULT



9 10/11/2019 Notice of

Filing:

Event VERIFIED RETURN OF SERVICE



8 09/24/2019 Motion for

Default

Event



Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 3 of 68
7/16/2020 OCS Search

https://www2.miami-dadeclerk.com/ocs/Search.aspx 3/4

 BACK

Please be advised:

The Clerk’s Office makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of the following information; however it makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding the

completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of such information and data. Information on this website has been posted with the intent that it be readily available for personal

and public non-commercial (educational) use and to provide the public with direct online access to information in the Miami-Dade Clerk’s Office information systems.

Other than making limited copies of this website's content, you may not reproduce, retransmit, redistribute, upload or post any part of this website, including the

contents thereof, in any form or by any means, or store it in any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the Miami-Dade Clerk’s

Office.

If you are interested in obtaining permission to reproduce, retransmit or store any part of this website beyond that which you may use for personal use, as defined

above, visit our Web API Services. You can review the complete Miami-Dade County Disclaimer

Number Date Book/Page

Docket

Entry

Event

Type Comments



7 09/24/2019 Service

Returned

Event

6 06/26/2019 Receipt: Event RECEIPT#:3540103 AMT PAID:$10.00 NAME:PAUL A SACK 1130

WASHINGTON AVE STE 3 MIAMI BEACH FL 33139-4600 COMMENT:

ALLOCATION CODE QUANTITY UNIT AMOUNT 3139-SUMMONS

ISSUE FEE 1 $10.00 $10.00 TENDER TYPE:E-FILING ACH TENDER

AMT:$10.00

06/25/2019 20 Day

Summons

Issued

Service



5 06/25/2019 ESummons

20 Day

Issued

Event Parties: Designer Fragrances & Cosmetics Company



4 06/24/2019 (M) 20 Day

(C)

Summons

(Sub)

Received

Event

3 06/13/2019 Receipt: Event RECEIPT#:3530113 AMT PAID:$401.00 NAME:PAUL A SACK 1130

WASHINGTON AVE STE 3 MIAMI BEACH FL 33139-4600 COMMENT:

ALLOCATION CODE QUANTITY UNIT AMOUNT 3100-CIRCUIT FILING

FEE 1 $401.00 $401.00 TENDER TYPE:E-FILING ACH TENDER

AMT:$401.



2 06/11/2019 Complaint Event



1 06/11/2019 Civil Cover Event

General

Online Case Home

Civil / Family Courts Information

Login

Help and Support

Clerk's Home

Privacy Statement

ADA Notice

Disclaimer

Contact Us

About Us



Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 4 of 68
7/16/2020 OCS Search

https://www2.miami-dadeclerk.com/ocs/Search.aspx 4/4

HARVEY RUVIN

Miami-Dade County 

Clerk of the Courts

73 W. Flagler Street

Miami, Florida 33130

305-275-1155

©2020 Clerk of the Courts. All rights reserved.



Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 5 of 68
Filing # 90939572 E-Filed 06/1 1/2019 05:28:44 PM

FORM 1.997. CIVIL COVER SHEET

The civil cover sheet and the information contained in it neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings

or other documents as required by law. This form must be filed by the plaintiff or petitioner for the use of the Clerk of

Court for the purpose of reporting judicial workload data pursuant to section 25.075, Florida Statutes. (See instructions for

completion.)

I. CASE STYLE

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

Case No.:

Judge:

Anthony Burgos

Plaintiff

vs.

Designer Fragrances & Cosmetics Company

Defendant

II. TYPE OF CASE

Non-homestead residential foreclosure

$250,00 or more

Other real property actions $0 - $50,000

Other real property actions $50,001 - $249,999

Other real property actions $250,000 or more

Condominium

.Contracts and indebtedness

O Eminent domain

O Auto negligence

O Negligence - other

. Business governance

Business torts

. Environmental/Toxic tort

. Third party indemnification

. Construction defect

Mass tort

Professional malpractice

. Malpractice - business

. Malpractice - medical

. Malpractice - other professional

J2L Other

Antitrust/Trade Regulation

Business Transaction

Circuit Civil - Not Applicable

Constitutional challenge-statute or

ordinance

Constitutional challenge-proposed

amendment

Corporate Trusts

Discrimination-employment or other

Insurance claims

Intellectual property

Libel/Slander

Shareholder derivative action

Securities litigation

Trade secrets

Trust litigation

Negligent security

Nursing home negligence

Premises liability - commercial

Premises liability - residential

. Products liability

. Real Property/Mortgage foreclosure

Commercial foreclosure $0 - $50,000

Commercial foreclosure $50,001 - $249,999

Commercial foreclosure $250,000 or more

Homestead residential foreclosure $0 - 50,000

a

Homestead residential foreclosure $50,001 -

$249,999

Homestead residential foreclosure $250,000 or

more

Non-homestead residential foreclosure $0 -

$50,000

Non-homestead residential foreclosure

$50,001 -$249,999

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 6 of 68
COMPLEX BUSINESS COURT

This action is appropriate for assignment to Complex Business Court as delineated and mandated by the

Administrative Order. Yes No IEI

REMEDIES SOUGHT (check all that apply):

J2L Monetary;

Non-monetary declaratory or injunctive relief;

Punitive

IV. NUMBER OF CAUSES OF ACTION: ( )

(Specify)

2

V. IS THIS CASE A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT?

. Yes

IEI No

VI. HAS NOTICE OF ANY KNOWN RELATED CASE BEEN FILED?

JEL No

. Yes - If "yes" list all related cases by name, case number and court:

VII. IS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN COMPLAINT?

M Yes

No

I CERTIFY that the information I have provided in this cover sheet is accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief, and

that I have read and will comply with the requirements of Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.425.

Signature s/ Paul A Sack FLBarNo.: 363103

Attorney or party (Bar number, if attorney)

Paul A Sack 06/11/2019

(Type or print name) Date

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 7 of 68
Filing # 90939572 E-Filed 06/1 1/2019 05:28:44 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

Case No.:

ANTHONY BURGOS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DESIGNER FRAGRANCES & COSMETICS COMPANY

d/b/a KIEHL'S,

Defendant.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, ANTHONY BURGOS, brings this action against Defendant, DESIGNER

FRAGRANCES & COSMETICS COMPANY d/b/a KIEHL'S ("DESIGNER"), and alleges as

follows:

This is an action for damages in excess of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000),

exclusive of interest, costs, and fees.

At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was a Florida resident and resident ofMiamiDade County and an "employee" ofDefendant as defined by the applicable law referenced herein.

1.

2.

At all times material hereto, Defendant, DESIGNER, was a corporation with a place

of business in Miami-Dade County at or about 540 Lincoln Road, Miami Beach, Florida 33139,

engaged in commerce in the field of makeup retail and/or skin care retail and/or other retail, at all

times material hereto was the "employer" ofPlaintiff as that term is defined under the applicable

law referenced herein, engaged along with its employees in interstate commerce, and has annual

gross sales and/or business volume ofFive Hundred Thousand ($500,000.00) Dollars or more. In

justifiable reliance upon Defendant's representations and promises, Plaintiff accepted employment

and began working for Defendant providing retail services. The work performed by the Plaintiff

was directly essential to the business performed by Defendant.

3.

4. Defendant, DESIGNER, discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of race and/or

ethnicity and/or origin.

5. Plaintiff is of Puerto Rican descent and/or is African American. Plaintiff was

1

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 8 of 68
(f) On or about June 2016, Defendant, DESIGNER'S, Plaintiff was with the assistant

manager Tizaira Velasquez and she approached him to go to the back for education.

She mentioned to the manager on duty Nina Libron (full time manager on duty) that

Anthony (Plaintiff) and I are going to the back to work on education. Nina Libron

replied "Black's to the back". This was said with the purpose and had the effect of

disparaging Plaintiff. This constituted discrimination and harmed Plaintiff. Plaintiff

communicated to manager Nina Libron that it was inappropriate. Tizaira Velasquez

essentially shrugged;

(g) Nina Libron acted eradicate towards Plaintiff. On or about August 2015, Nina Libron

told Plaintiff to leave the store. She started screaming at Plaintiff, 1 cannot believe you

told Chad (the regional manager) about the blacks to the back comment; she then asked

Plaintiff to leave and said if he does not leave, then that is insubordination. Shortly

after, the assistant manager Tizaira Velasquez called Plaintiff and essentially said you

should come back because they might say you abandoned your shift. Plaintiff said

essentially well you were there when she said I should leave, etc.

(h) They made Plaintiff a part-time MOD (manager on duty) at one point, however, they

did not give Plaintiff the full time position and he was denied the position at least three

or four times in furtherance ofthe discrimination; despite that Plaintiff was one of the

highest producing people and was with the company for years;

(i) It was clear to Plaintiff and others that Plaintiff was being discriminated against;

Plaintiff was periodically contacted by HR, and he expressed these concerns to HR;

shortly after, Plaintiff would get a warning from the HR person;

(j) Upon information and belief, there have been multiple and repeated complaints of

discrimination of a similar type and frequency and of other types by other employees

against Defendant, DESIGNER, including without limitation throughout and following

the entire period of time worked by Plaintiff;

(k) Human Resource personnel were rotated and terminated multiple times as a result of

the ongoing discrimination; and/or

(1) There were many other instances ofdiscriminatory conduct by Defendant, DESIGNER.

Many people repeatedly left because of the toxic environment.

COUNT 1: FLORIDA DISCRIMINATION CLAIM

Plaintiffre-alleges Paragraphs 1-7 as iffully set forth herein.

This Count is a claim for damages brought by Plaintiff against Defendant,

DESIGNER, under, Florida's employment discrimination laws, including the Florida Civil Rights

Act and Fla. Stat. § 760.10. Venue is proper because the events giving rise to this claim arose in

Miami-Dade County.

8.

9.

10. Defendant was an employer ofPlaintiff; Plaintiffwas an employee protected by the

3

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 9 of 68
Florida Civil Rights Act and Fla. Stat. § 760.10, and Defendant was an employer subject to the

Florida Civil Rights Act and Fla. Stat. § 760.10.

1 1 . Plaintiff has complied with all conditions precedent to bringing this suit, or same

have been waived or abandoned. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

("EEOC") has issued to Plaintiff a Right to Sue Letter. The claim and charge were timely and

properly presented to the EEOC and, thus, this claim is timely brought within the applicable

statutory period.

Plaintiff has retained the services ofthe undersigned to represent him in this action

and is obliged to pay for the legal services provided.

Defendant, DESIGNER'S, employees and/or agents discriminated against

12.

13.

Plaintiff.

14. The discrimination was used as the basis for employment decisions affecting

Plaintiff and negatively affected the terms, conditions, and privileges of his employment and

harmed Plaintiff.

15. In response to Plaintiffs complaints, he was reprimanded. Management and/or

employees were malicious and cruel and treated Plaintiff in a demeaning manner; management

both directed and permitted Defendant, DESIGNER, and Defendant, DESIGNER'S, agents to

punish Plaintiff for reporting discrimination.

16. Management punished him with fake disciplinary write-ups.

17. By Defendant, DESIGNER'S, intentional and willful conduct, actions, and

omissions, Defendant condoned and encouraged discrimination ofPlaintiff.

18. Plaintiff was treated differently and in a disparate manner than white employees

and/or employees of different ethnicity and/or of different race because ofthe discrimination.

19. Plaintiffwas treated differently and in a disparate manner than employees who were

not African American and/or was treated differently than those who were not Puerto Rican.

20. Defendant acted with malice and reckless indifference in its actions. The severe and

pervasive discrimination created a hostile environment that interfered with Plaintiff s work

performance and created an intimidating and offensive work environment. The discrimination and

mistreatment was well known to other agents and employees.

21. Plaintiff s complaints of discrimination were disregarded, and submission to the

discrimination was implicitly a term or condition of Plaintiffs employment and continued

employment.

4

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 10 of 68
22. This discrimination constituted discrimination because of race and/or because of

ethnicity and/or because of origin.

23. The conduct had the purpose and effect of unreasonably interfering with Plaintiffs

work performance and created an intimidating, hostile, and offensive working environment.

24. Plaintiff seeks recovery of all attorneys' fees and costs recoverable under the law

referenced herein; Florida's Civil Rights Act; and all other applicable law.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands Trial by Jury, judgment against the Defendant for

damages suffered, attorneys' fees; and such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

COUNT II: TITLE VII DISCRIMINATION

25. Plaintiff re-alleges Paragraphs 1-7 as iffully set forth herein.

26. This Count is a claim for damages brought by Plaintiff, Maribel Rivera, against

Defendant, 2K Clevelander, LLC, under, Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §

2000e etseq. and 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. Venue is proper because the events giving rise to this claim

arose in Miami-Dade County.

27. Defendant was an employer of Plaintiff; Plaintiff was an employee protected by

Title VII, and Defendant was an employer subject to Title VII.

28. Plaintiff has complied with all conditions precedent to bringing this suit, or same

have been waived or abandoned. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

("EEOC") has issued to Plaintiff a Right to Sue Letter. The claim and charge were timely and

properly presented to the EEOC and, thus, this claim is timely brought within the applicable

statutory period.

29. Plaintiff has complied with all conditions precedent to bringing this suit, or same

have been waived or abandoned. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

("EEOC") has issued to Plaintiff a Right to Sue Letter. The claim and charge were timely and

properly presented to the EEOC and, thus, this claim is timely brought within the applicable

statutory period.

30. Plaintiff has retained the services ofthe undersigned to represent him in this action

and is obliged to pay for the legal services provided.

31. The discrimination was used as the basis for employment decisions affecting

Plaintiff and negatively affected the terms, conditions, and privileges of his employment and

harmed Plaintiff.

32. In response to Plaintiff s complaints, he was reprimanded. Management and/or

5

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 11 of 68
employees were malicious and cruel and treated Plaintiff in a demeaning manner; management

both directed and permitted Defendant, DESIGNER, and Defendant, DESIGNER'S, agents to

punish Plaintiff for reporting discrimination.

33. Management punished him with fake disciplinary write-ups.

34. By Defendant, DESIGNER'S, intentional and willful conduct, actions, and

omissions, Defendant condoned and encouraged discrimination ofPlaintiff.

35. Plaintiff was treated differently and in a disparate manner than white employees

and/or employees ofdifferent ethnicity and/or of different race because ofthe discrimination.

36. Plaintiffwas treated differently and in a disparate manner than employees who were

not African American and/or was treated differently than those who were not Puerto Rican.

37. Defendant acted with malice and reckless indifference in its actions. The severe and

pervasive discrimination created a hostile environment that interfered with Plaintiff s work

performance and created an intimidating and offensive work environment. The discrimination and

mistreatment was well known to other agents and employees.

38. Plaintiff s complaints of discrimination were disregarded, and submission to the

discrimination was implicitly a term or condition of Plaintiffs employment and continued

employment.

39. This discrimination constituted discrimination because of race and/or because of

ethnicity and/or because of origin.

40. The conduct had the purpose and effect ofunreasonably interfering with Plaintiffs

work performance and created an intimidating, hostile, and offensive working environment.

41 . Plaintiff seeks recovery of all attorneys' fees and costs under Title VII; under 42

USC § 2000e-5(k); and all other applicable law.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands Trial by Jury, judgment against the Defendant for

damages suffered, attorneys' fees; and such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Dated this 1 1th day of June, 2019

Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICES OF PAUL A. SACK, P A.

1 130 Washington Avenue, Suite 3

Miami Beach, Florida 33139

Telephone: 305-397-8077

Facsimile: 305-763-8057

6

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 12 of 68
By: /s/ Paul A. Sack

PAUL A. SACK, ESQ.

FBN: 363103

Primary: paul@paulsacklaw.com

Ps 1 6 1 9@bel 1 south. net

R. BRANDON DEEGAN, ESQ.

FBN: 117368

Primary: deegan@paulsacklaw.com

7

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 13 of 68
8

M V.

¥' i

.-i :-i ? •i'iffS'

if:

:J:S wm WM

1

•1'

<>

MWtM <<: <y- P>

&

¥ i ' ff

V>X ¥,•: PPBPggg :vX # #' -," -

»Sfe

-. <'< '! V >i *1

§»:Swi:$®K Si

namxa v

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 14 of 68
-

s>

*Xi mz WW-#

lllH!ill:Siil W:>- 5:S

m m

m

SSSwwSr mmm

-v 'i

¥5:

'". "< ff ?}

*^1111 " t?¥?:

po» t&g rc&tov^&s

SSSKS :5':S::'?S :£:

5

>. & mm®

f

>:

..... . :

"' ^ ^ 1 •> ¥ .. > S,> \ • ?^"-- * & -s'<" .7r~., m

i ' > ^ - - >-sv * > >" V ^ - % } ' „ .V ft " _* O' 1 i " - v v J ' »fm* m#®ik a? *y&i & ^

yS£::£:y£yy£y::;;::::^S:y:&&:y:xy::::yy3:^

:• ::-..v:

:s m >$?&%& >" ' 1 •' :-::-:-:-:-:-:':^-:;^:-:-:v:v;-;

ifeS4 -> ' ' "' ' ' ' ><&&&%

v&mvmitu«

revaftAB&$}&$*-$» mmmmmmmmmmm

mmmrnrn Wm$3§&:

*P1 M &? 1 itOT

1

?*.- f::5i«:: ,:• >. > . c

i:

"Wii :fi::;i.|:5:::.y;;:::i:Y;:w.yi:?;. ' ' ' '

• ^^:¥v- '>- (•<'< ,\

1

9

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 15 of 68
Filing# 91590393 E-Filed 06/24/2019 05:02:25 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

DIVISION CIVIL ACTION SUMMONS CASE NUMBER: 2019-017539-CA-01

( X ) Civil

) Other

PLAINTIFF vs. DEFENDANTS

CLOCK IN

ANTHONY BURGOS,

vs.

DESIGNER FRAGRANCES & COSMETICS COMPANY

d/b/a KIEHL'S

THE STATE OF FLORIDA:

To Each Sheriff of the State:

YOU ARE COMMANDED to serve this summons, and a copy of the Complaint in this action on

the following named Defendant:

TO: DESIGNER FRAGRANCES & COSMETICS COMPANY d/b/a KIEHL'S

c/o Registered Agent:

Corporation Service Company

1201 Hays Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301-2525

Each Defendant is required to serve written defenses to the complaint or petition on Plaintiffs

Attorney: Paul A. Sack, Esq.

Whose address is: PAUL A. SACK, ESQ.

1130 Washington Avenue

Suite 3

Miami Beach, Florida 33139

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 16 of 68
Telephone: (305) 397-8077

E-mail: paul@paulsacklaw.com

Psl619@bellsouth.net

within 20 calendar days after this Summons is served on that Defendant, exclusive of the day of

service, and to file the original of the defenses with the Clerk of this Court either before service

on Plaintiffs attorney or immediately thereafter. If a Defendant fails to do so, a default will be

entered against that Defendant for the relief demanded in the Complaint.

HARVEY RUVIN, CLERK

CLERK OF THE COURT By: DATE

Deputy Clerk

COURT SEAL

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 17 of 68
Filing# 91590393 E-Filed 06/24/2019 05:02:25 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

DIVISION CIVIL ACTION SUMMONS CASE NUMBER: 2019-017539-CA-01

( X ) Civil

) Other

PLAINTIFF vs. DEFENDANTS

CLOCK IN

ANTHONY BURGOS,

vs.

DESIGNER FRAGRANCES & COSMETICS COMPANY

d/b/a KIEHL'S

THE STATE OF FLORIDA:

To Each Sheriff of the State:

YOU ARE COMMANDED to serve this summons, and a copy of the Complaint in this action on

the following named Defendant:

TO: DESIGNER FRAGRANCES & COSMETICS COMPANY d/b/a KIEHL'S

c/o Registered Agent:

Corporation Service Company

1201 Hays Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301-2525

Each Defendant is required to serve written defenses to the complaint or petition on Plaintiffs

Attorney: Paul A. Sack, Esq.

Whose address is: PAUL A. SACK, ESQ.

1130 Washington Avenue

Suite 3

Miami Beach, Florida 33139

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 18 of 68
Telephone: (305) 397-8077

E-mail: paul@paulsacklaw.com

Psl619@bellsouth.net

within 20 calendar days after this Summons is served on that Defendant, exclusive of the day of

service, and to file the original of the defenses with the Clerk of this Court either before service

on Plaintiffs attorney or immediately thereafter. If a Defendant fails to do so, a default will be

entered against that Defendant for the relief demanded in the Complaint.

HARVEY RUVIN, CLERK

% Vktm &

CLERK OF THE COURT By: dat£/25/2019

me I I . TV. i

* COift0

COURT SEAL

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 19 of 68
Filing # 96232540 E-Filed 09/24/2019 05:16:43 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO. 2019-017539-CA-01

ANTHONY BURGOS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DESIGNER FRAGRANCES & COSMETICS COMPANY;

Defendant.

NOTICE OF FILING VERIFIED RETURN OF SERVICE

Plaintiff, ANTHONY BURGOS, by and through undersigned counsel, files this his

Notice of Filing Verified Return of Service on Defendant, Designer Fragrances & Cosmetics

Company

Dated: This 24th day of September, 2019.

Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICES OF PAUL A. SACK, P.A.

1210 WASHINGTON AVENUE, SUITE 245

MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139

305-397-8077

305-763-8057

Tel:

Fax:

By: /s/PaulA. Sack

PAUL A. SACK, ESQ.

FBN: 363103

Primary: paul@paulsacklaw.com

Secondary: psl619@bellsouth.net

R. BRANDON DEEGAN, ESQ.

FBN: 117368

Primary: deegan@paulsacklaw.com

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 20 of 68
RETURN OF SERVICE

State of Florida County of Miami-Dade Circuit Court

Case Number: 201 9-01 7539-CA-01

Plaintiff:

ANTHONY BURGOS,

vs.

Defendant: : DIS1GNER FRAGRANCES & COSMETICS COMPANY,

For:

PAUL SACK

PAUL A. SACK. ESQ.

1 130 WASHINGTON AVENUE

MIAMI BEACH,, FL 33139

Received by ESTASERVE on the 21st day of August, 2019 at 5:28 pm to be served on DESIGNER FRAGRANCES &

COSMETICS COMPANY D/B/A KIEHL'S C/O REGISTERED AGENT CORPORATION SERVICE CO., 1201 HAYS STREET,

TALLAHASSEE, FL 32301.

I, ERIC L LARSON, do hereby affirm that on the 22nd day of August, 2019 at 12:20 pm, I:

served a CORPORATION by serving a true copy of the CIVIL ACTION SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT with the date and hour of

service endorsed thereon by me, to: KANEISHA GROSS as CLERK FOR RA for DESIGNER FRAGRANCES & COSMETICS

COMPANY D/B/A KIEHL'S C/O REGISTERED AGENT CORPORATION SERVICE CO., at the address of: 1201 HAYS STREET,

TALLAHASSEE, FL 32301, and informed said person of the contents therein, in compliance with state statutes, pursuant to F.S.

48.081(3)

Additional Information pertaining to this Service:

KANEISHA GROSS, CLERK FOR RA, BF 25 YRS 57 1 70 LBS BLACK HAIR NO GLASSES

Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have read the forgoing Verified return of Service and the facts stated in it are true, that

I that I am over the age of 18, have no interest in the above action, and am a Certified Process Server, in good standing, in the

judicial circuit in which the process was served. I also certify that the above stated facts are correct to the best of my

knowledge.. Pursuant to F.S. 92.525(2), Notary not required. ;

ERICLTtSRSUN'1

CPS #.063, 2ND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

ESTASERVE

4215 Sw 143rd Ave

Miami, FL 33175

(786) 399-0003

Our Job Serial Number: JES-201 9001 389

Ref: 1389

Copyrigtii © 19S2-201S Database Services, Inc. - Process Server's Toolbox V8: !c

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 21 of 68
IJ

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

DIVISION CIVIL ACTION SUMMONS CASE NUMBER: 2019-017539-CA-01

( X ) Civil

{ ) Other

PLAINTIFF vs. DEFENDANTS

CLOCK IN

ANTHONY BURGOS,

vs.

DESIGNER FRAGRANCES & COSMETICS COMPANY

d/b/a KIEHL'S

THE STATE OF FLORIDA:

To Each Sheriff of the State:

YOU ARE COMMANDED to serve this summons, and a copy of the Complaint in this action on

the following named Defendant:

TO: DESIGNER FRAGRANCES & COSMETICS COMPANY d/b/a KIEHL'S

c/o Registered Agent:

Corporation Service Company

1201 Hays Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301-2525

Each Defendant is required to serve written defenses to the complaint or petition on Plaintiffs

Attorney: Paul A. Sack, Esq.

Whose address is: PAULA. SACK, ESQ.

1130 Washington Avenue

Suite 3

Miami Beach, Florida 33139

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 22 of 68
Filing # 96233490 E-Filed 09/24/2019 05:29:00 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO. 2019-017539-CA-01

ANTHONY BURGOS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DESIGNER FRAGRANCES & COSMETICS COMPANY

d/b/a KIEHL'S;

Defendant.

MOTION FOR CLERK'S DEFAULT

Plaintiff, Anthony Burgos ("Plaintiff), having properly served Defendant, Designer

Fragrances & Cosmetics Company d/b/a Kiehl's ("Defendant"), moves for entry of a default by the

Clerk against Defendant for failure to serve any paper required by law.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy hereof was filed with Florida's E-Filing

Portal and thereby served upon all counsel of record on September 24, 2019.

By: /s/Pau/A. Sack

Paul A. Sack, Esq.

Fla. Bar No.: 363103

Primary: paul@paulsacklaw.com

Law Offices of Paul A. Sack, P.A.

1210 Washington Avenue, Suite 245

Miami Beach, Florida 33139

Tel: 305-397-8077 Fax: 305-763-8057

DEFAULT

A Default is entered in this action against the Defendant named in the foregoing motion for

failure to serve or file any paper as required by law.

WITHNESS my hand and seal of said Court on

Harvey Ruvin

As Clerk of the Court

By:

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 23 of 68
Filing # 970934 1 4 E-Filed 1 0/1 1/2019 09:33:34 AM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20 1 9-0 1753 9-CA-0 1

ANTHONY BURGOS

Plaintiff,

v.

DESIGNER FRAGRANCES & COSMETICS COMPANY;

Defendant.

AMENDED NOTICE OF FILING VERIFIED RETURN OF SERVICE

Plaintiff. ANTHONY BURGOS, by and through undersigned counsel, tiles this his

Amended Notice of Filing Verified Return of Service on Designer Fragrances & Cosmetic

Company.

Dated: This 1 1 tb day of October, 201 9.

Respectfully submitted.

LAW OFFICES OF PAUL A. SACK, P.A.

1210 WASHINGTON AVENUE, SUITE 245

MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139

305-397-8077

305-763-8057

Tel:

Fax:

By: /s/ Paul A. Sack

PAUL A. SACK. ESQ.

FBN: 363103

Primary : pau I@paulsaeki aw.com

Secondary: ps 1 6 i 9@bel lsouth.net

R. BRANDON DEEGAN, ESQ.

FBN: 117368

Primary : deegan@pau1 sack law.com

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 24 of 68
RETURN OF SERVICE

State of Florida County of Miami-Dade Circuit Court

Case Number: 2G1S-017539-CA-01

Plaintiff:

ANTHONY BURGOS,

vs.

Defendant

DiSiGNER FRAGRANCES & COSMETICS COMPANY,

For

PAUL SACK

PAULA. SACK. ESQ.

1 130 WASHING TON AVENUE

MIAMI BEACH,, FL 33139

Received by ESTASERVE on the 21st day of August, 2019 at 5:28 pm to be served on DESIGNER FRAGRANCES &

COSMETICS COMPANY D/B/A KIEHL'S C/C REGISTERED AGENT CORPORATION SERVICE CO., 1201 HAYS STREET,

TALLAHASSEE, FL 32301 .

I, ERIC L. LARSON, do hereby affirm that on the 22«d day of August, 2019 at 1 2:20 pro, L

served a CORPORATION by serving a true copy of the CIVIL ACTION SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT with the bate anc hour of

service endorsed thereon by me, to; KANEISHA GROSS as CLERK FOR RA for DESIGNER FRAGRANCES & COSMETICS

COMPANY D/B/A KIEHL'S C/O REGISTERED AGENT CORPORATION SERVICE CO.. at the address of: 1201 HAYS STREET,

TALLAHASSEE, FL 32301, and informed said person of the contents therein, in compliance with state statutes, pursuant to F,5.

48.081(3).

Additional Information pertaining to this Service:

KANEISHA GROSS, CLERK FOR RA, BF 25 YRS 57 1 70 LBS SLACK HAIR NO GLASSES

Under penally of perjury. I declare that i have read the forgoing Verified return of Service ana the facte stated in it are true, that I that t am over the age of 18, have nc interest in the above action, and am a Certified Process Server, in good standing, in the judicial circuit in which the process was served. ! also certify that the above stated facts are correct to the best of my

Knowledge.. Pursuant to F.S. 92.525(2). Notary not required.

ERIC LtiWkSUW1 " CPS #.063, 2ND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

ESTASERVE

4215 Sw 143rd Ave

Miami, FL 33175

(786) 399-0003

Ourdeb Serial Number: JES-201 9001 389

Ref. 1389

Copyright® 1S92-2013 Oolabass Services.' Inc. - Process Saiv'Srs Tooibo*.VS. to

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 25 of 68
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

DIVISION CIVIL ACTION SUMMONS CASE NUMBER: 2019-0X7539-CA-G1

( X } Civil

( ) Other

PLAINTIFF vs. DEFENDANTS

CLOCK IN

ANTHONY BURGOS,

vs.

DESIGNER FRAGRANCES & COSMETICS COMPANY

d/b/a KIEHL'S

THE STATE OF FLORIDA:

To Each Sheriff of the State:

YOU ARE COMMANDED to serve this summons, and a copy of the Complaint in this action on

the following named Defendant:

TO: DESIGNER FRAGRANCES & COSMETICS COMPANY d/b/a KIEHL'S

c/o Registered Agent:

Corporation Service Company

1201 Hays Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301-2525

Each Defendant is required to serve written defenses to the complaint or petition on Plaintiff's

Attorney: Paul A. Sack, Esq.

Whose address Is: PAULA, SACK, ESQ.

1130 Washington Avenue

Suite 3

Miami Beach, Florida 33139

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 26 of 68
Telephone: (305) 397-8077

E-mail: paul@paulsackiaw,com

Psl619@belisouth.net

within 20 calendar days after this Summons is served on that Defendant, exclusive of the day of

service, and to file the original of the defenses with the Clerk of this Court either before service

on Plaintiff's attorney or immediately thereafter. If a Defendant fails to do so, a default will be

entered against that Defendant for the relief demanded in the Complaint.

HARVEY RUVtSM, CLERK

C?

w DATgp/25/2G19 CLERK OF THE COURT By: r

tCOURT SEAL

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 27 of 68
Filing# 97535503 E-Filed 1 0/18/2019 03:40:1 1 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO. 2019-017539-CA-01

ANTHONY BURGOS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DESIGNER FRAGRANCES & COSMETICS COMPANY

d/b/a KIEHL'S;

Defendant.

AMENDED MOTION FOR CLERK'S DEFAULT

Plaintiff, Anthony Burgos ("Plaintiff), having properly served Defendant, Designer

Fragrances & Cosmetics Company d/b/a Kiehl's ("Defendant"), moves for entry of a default by the

Clerk against Defendant for failure to serve any paper required by law.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy hereof was filed with Florida's E-Filing

Portal and thereby served upon all counsel of record on October 18, 2019.

By: 5 PaulA. Sack

Paul A. Sack, Esq.

Fla. Bar No.: 363103

Primary: paul@paulsacklaw.com

Law Offices of Paul A. Sack, P.A.

1210 Washington Avenue, Suite 245

Miami Beach, Florida 33 139

Tel: 305-397-8077 Fax: 305-763-8057

DEFAULT

A Default is entered in this action against the Defendant named in the foregoing motion for

failure to serve or file any paper as required by law.

WITHNESS my hand and seal of said Court on

Harvey Ruvin

As Clerk of the Court

By:

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 28 of 68
Filing# 97535503 E-Filed 10/18/2019 03:40:11 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO. 2019-01753 9-CA-0 1

ANTHONY BURGOS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DESIGNER FRAGRANCES & COSMETICS COMPANY

d/b/a KIEHL'S;

Defendant.

AMENDED MOTION FOR CLERK'S DEFAULT

Plaintiff, Anthony Burgos ("Plaintiff), having properly served Defendant, Designer

Fragrances & Cosmetics Company d/b/a Kiehl's ("Defendant"), moves for entry of a default by the

Clerk against Defendant for failure to serve any paper required by law.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy hereof was filed with Florida's E-Filing

Portal and thereby served upon all counsel ofrecord on October 18, 2019.

By: /s/PaulA. Sack

Paul A. Sack, Esq.

Fla. Bar No.: 363103

Primary: paul@paulsacklaw.com

Law Offices of Paul A. Sack, P.A.

1210 Washington Avenue, Suite 245

Miami Beach, Florida 33 139

Tel: 305-397-8077 Fax: 305-763-8057

CD

5

(Si G3 H

DEFAULT ^ ° J}

N

n

o

cp A Default is entered in this action against the Defendant named in the foregoing motion for

failure to serve or file any paper as required by law.

CD

0

WITHNESS my hand and seal of said Court on 4^ - 0 202Q est

o o

o

Harvey Ruvin

As Clerk of the Court

It

By:

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 29 of 68
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL

CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO: 2019-017539-CA-01

SECTION: CA02

JUDGE: Alan Fine

Anthony Burgos

Plaintiff(s)

vs.

Designer Fragrances & Cosmetics Company

Defendant(s)

____________________________/

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

 This case is scheduled for a Case Management Conference in accordance with Rule

1.200(a), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The case management hearing is scheduled for May

22nd, 2020 at 09:45 AM before the Presiding Judge via Zoom (invite will be sent approximately

one week before the hearing). 

The purpose of this Case Management Conference is to resolve outstanding issues and determine

what action is necessary to proceed towards case resolution. This Conference was scheduled due

to the length of time that the subject case has been pending. At the Conference the Court may:

1. Schedule or reschedule the service of motions, pleadings and other papers;

2. Set or reset the time of trials, subject to Rule 1.440(c);

Coordinate the progress of action if the complex litigation factors contained in Rule

1.201(a)(2)(A)-(a)(2)(H) are present

3.

4. Limit, schedule, order or expedite discovery; 

Consider the possibility of obtaining admissions of fact and voluntary exchange of

documents and electronically stored information, and stipulations regarding authenticity of

documents and electronic stored information;

5.

Case No: 2019-017539-CA-01 Page 1 of 3

Filing # 106762949 E-Filed 04/27/2020 11:42:31 PM Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 30 of 68
Consider the need for advance rulings from the Court on the admissibility of documents

and electronically stored information;

6.

Discuss as to electronically stored information, the possibility of agreements from the

parties regarding the extent to which such evidence should be preserved, the form in which

such evidence should be produced, and whether discovery of such information should be

conducted in phases or limited to particular individuals, time periods or sources; 

7.

Schedule disclosure of expert witnesses and the discovery of facts known and opinions held

by such experts;

8.

9. Schedule or hear motions in limine;

10. Pursue the possibilities of settlement;

11. Require finding of preliminary stipulations if issues can be narrowed; 

12. Consider referring issues to a magistrate for findings of fact; and

Schedule other conferences or determine other matters that may aid in the disposition of

the action. 

13.

Mandatory Case Management Report

A Case Management Report shall be filed by each party with the Clerk of Court and served on

opposing parties, with a courtesy copy delivered to the Court via Upload to CourtMAP as a

supporting document to the CMC hearing. This report shall be filed and delivered no later than

ten (10) days prior to the scheduled Case Management Hearing Date. 

The Case Management Report must include:

1. A brief summary of facts and theory of liability and/or defenses; 

2. Pleading status; 

3. Mediation efforts;

Status of outstanding discovery, including but not limited to depositions to be taken and

hiring of experts; 

4.

5. A statement as to trial readiness.

If there has been no record activity in the case for the past 10 months, the parties must state in the

Case Management Report as to good cause why the case should remain pending and as to intent

and effort to prosecute the case. 

Case No: 2019-017539-CA-01 Page 2 of 3

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 31 of 68
Scheduling of Dates

Parties must bring their calendars to the Case Management Conference to schedule matters as

deemed necessary by the Presiding Judge. 

UPON FAILURE OF COUNSEL TO ATTEND THE CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE, THE COURT MAY DISMISS THE ACTION, STRIKE PLEADINGS,

LIMIT PROOF OF WITNESSES OR TAKE ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ACTION AS

PROVIDED IN RULE 1.200(c), Fla. R. Civ. P. 

THIS CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE MAY NOT BE CANCELLED WITHOUT

THE COURT’S WRITTEN PERMISSION. 

STIPULATIONS TO CONTINUE WILL BE GRANTED ONLY UPON A SHOWING OF

GOOD CAUSE. 

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Miami-Dade County, Florida on this 27th day of April,

2020.

2019-017539-CA-01 04-27-2020 11:31 PM

Hon. Alan Fine

CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

Electronically Signed

No Further Judicial Action Required on THIS MOTION

CLERK TO RECLOSE CASE IF POST JUDGMENT

Electronically Served:

Paul A Sack, paul@paulsacklaw.com

Paul A Sack, ps1619@bellsouth.net

R. Brandon Deegan, deegan@paulsacklaw.com

Physically Served:

Case No: 2019-017539-CA-01 Page 3 of 3

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 32 of 68
1

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO. 2019-017539-CA-01

ANTHONY BURGOS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DESIGNER FRAGRANCES & COSMETICS COMPANY

d/b/a KIEHL’S;

Defendant.

___________________________/

PLAINTIFF’S CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT

Plaintiff, Anthony Burgos, by and through undersigned counsel, provides his Case 

Management Report as required by the “Case Management Order” of April 27, 2020 and states:

1. A brief summary of facts and theory of liability;

a. Plaintiff has alleged that the following theories of liability:

i. Count I – Florida Discrimination Claim

ii. Count II – Title VII Discrimination Claim

Plaintiff has alleged, inter alia, that Defendant(s) unlawfully discriminated against 

Plaintiff on the basis of ethnicity, race, and/or origin.

2. Pleading status;

a. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend his Complaint, which is pending. A default was 

previously entered against Designer Fragrances & Cosmetics Company.

3. Mediation efforts;

a. No mediation has been held.

4. Status of outstanding discovery;

a. No outstanding discovery at this time.

5. A statement as to trial readiness

a. Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Amend his Complaint. No Defendants have appeared.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been filed with the 

Clerk of Court via the E-filing portal this 12th day of May, 2020.

Filing # 107391523 E-Filed 05/12/2020 08:34:11 PM Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 33 of 68
2

Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICES OF PAUL A. SACK, P.A.

1210 WASHINGTON AVENUE, SUITE 245

MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139

Tel: 305-397-8077 Fax: 305-763-8057

By: /s/ Paul A. Sack

PAUL A. SACK, ESQ.

FBN: 363103

Primary: paul@paulsacklaw.com

Secondary: ps1619@bellsouth.net

R. BRANDON DEEGAN, ESQ.

FBN: 117368

Primary: deegan@paulsacklaw.com

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 34 of 68
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 2019-017539-CA-01

ANTHONY BURGOS;

Plaintiff,

vs.

DESIGNER FRAGRANCES & COSMETICS COMPANY

d/b/a KIEHL’S,

Defendant.

/

MOTION TO AMEND PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, by and through his undersigned counsel, moves this Honorable Court for leave 

to Amend his Complaint and states: 

1. Plaintiff seeks his first amendment to amend the Complaint to add Defendant,

L’OREAL USA, INC d/b/a KIEHL’s, and provide further detail. 

2. A copy of Plaintiff's proposed Amended Complaint is attached hereto and marked

as Exhibit “A.”

3. According to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1,190, leave to amend

“should be given freely when justice so requires.” As the Fourth District explained: “[L]eave to 

amend a complaint should be freely granted when justice so required and it should not be denied 

unless the privilege has been abused or it is clear the pleading cannot be amended to state a cause 

of action.” Dryden Waterproofing, Inc. v. Bogard, 488 So.2d 672 (4th DCA 1986) (Reversing 

dismissal of fifth amended complaint on action pending over two years and noting that “The 

amended fifth complaint ... should have been allowed” (internal citations omitted).

4. This is the First Amended Complaint. Defendant has not appeared nor filed a

Filing # 107391484 E-Filed 05/12/2020 08:27:19 PM Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 35 of 68
responsive pleading and is in default; no prejudice will occur to any party by granting leave to amend.

5. Upon information and belief, Designer Fragrances & Cosmetics Company, who

filed the fictional filing of “Kiehl’s Since 1851” is a direct or indirect subsidiary of L’Oreal USA, 

Inc. who operates the Kiehl’s brand.

6. While no order is required to amend as to the Defendants who have not yet filed a

responsive pleading, Plaintiff respectfully seeks an order in an abundance of caution. Boca Burger,

Inc. v. Forum, 912 So.2d 561, 567 (Fla. 2005). 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff moves this Honorable Court for an Order which adopts 

and recognizes the Proposed Amended Complaint (Exhibit “A”) as filed in this action, and 

amends the case style to reflect both Defendants as parties to this action. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been filed with the 

Clerk of Courts via the Florida E-Filing Portal and thereby served upon all counsel of record this 

12th day of May, 2020.

LAW OFFICES OF PAUL A. SACK, P.A. 

1210 WASHINGTON AVENUE, STE. 245

MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139 

Tel: 305-397-8077 

Fax: 305-763-8057 

By: /s/ Paul A. Sack

PAUL A. SACK, ESQ.

FBN: 363103

Primary: paul@paulsacklaw.com

Secondary: ps1619@bellsouth.net

R. BRANDON DEEGAN, ESQ.

FBN: 117368

Primary: deegan@paulsacklaw.com

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 36 of 68
1

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 2019-017539-CA-01

ANTHONY BURGOS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DESIGNER FRAGRANCES & COSMETICS COMPANY

d/b/a KIEHL’S and 

L’OREAL USA, INC. d/b/a KIEHL’S,

Defendants.

/

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, ANTHONY BURGOS, sues Defendants, DESIGNER FRAGRANCES & 

COSMETICS COMPANY d/b/a KIEHL’S and L’OREAL USA, INC. (collectively “KIEHL’S”), 

and alleges as follows:

1. This is an action for damages in excess of Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000),

exclusive of interest, costs, and fees.

2. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was a Florida resident and resident of MiamiDade County and an “employee” of Defendants as defined by the applicable law referenced herein.

3. At all times material hereto, Defendants, DESIGNER FRAGRANCES &

COSMETICS COMPANY d/b/a KIEHL’S and L’OREAL USA, INC., were corporations with a 

place of business in Miami-Dade County at or about 540 Lincoln Road, Miami Beach, Florida 

33139, engaged in commerce in the field of makeup retail and/or skin care retail and/or other retail, 

at all times material hereto was the “employer” of Plaintiff as that term is defined under the 

applicable law referenced herein, engaged along with its employees in interstate commerce, and 

has annual gross sales and/or business volume of Five Hundred Thousand ($500,000.00) Dollars 

or more. In justifiable reliance upon Defendants’ representations and promises, Plaintiff accepted 

employment and began working for Defendants providing retail services. The work performed by 

the Plaintiff was directly essential to the business performed by Defendants.

4. Defendant, Designer Fragrances and Cosmetics Company, does business under

“Kiehl’s” and “Kiehl’s Since 1851”. The Defendant’s fictional filing of “Kiehl’s Since 1851” was 

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 37 of 68
2

active at all times material hereto. 1 Upon information and belief Defendant, Designer Fragrances 

and Cosmetics Company, is a direct or indirect subsidiary of “L’OREAL USA, INC.” which 

operates under the name “KIEHL’S” and/or was under direct or indirect control of L’OREAL 

USA, INC. at all times material hereto. “KIEHL’S” was purchased by L’OREAL USA, INC. or 

one of the other L’OREAL related entities in approximately year 2000. Defendants have faced 

lawsuits for the similar conduct alleged herein; were on notice of the conduct complained of herein 

and right to sue; and/or otherwise knew or should have known the claims would be asserted against 

it at all times material hereto.

5. Defendants, KIEHL’S, discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of race and/or

ethnicity and/or origin.

6. Plaintiff is of Hispanic/Puerto Rican descent and/or is African American, i.e.,

“black” (hereinafter “African American”). Plaintiff was discriminated against on by Defendants, 

KIEHL’S, on one or more of these basis. This occurred because Defendants, KIEHL’S, knew that 

Plaintiff was of Hispanic/Puerto Rican descent and/or was African American. This also occurred 

because Defendants, KIEHL’S, believed that Plaintiff was of Hispanic/Puerto Rican descent and/or 

believed that Plaintiff was African American.

7. Plaintiff’s RIGHT TO SUE LETTER is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

8. Upon information and belief, Defendants, KIEHL’S, including without limitation

by and through its management, employees, and/or agents discriminated against Plaintiff, 

including without limitation by (exact facts to be discovered and/or provided throughout the course 

of discovery):

(a) When Plaintiff started working at Kiehl’s in or about May 2015, Plaintiff was

discriminated against. Manager Jessie Rivas made comments that Plaintiff had aids

face, on the basis of stereotypes as to African Americans having aids. This was said

with the purpose and had the effect of disparaging Plaintiff. This constituted

discrimination and harmed Plaintiff. Jessie Rivas said this multiple times to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff complained to store manager Peter Rodriguez after repeated discriminatory

comments made by Jessie Rivas to Plaintiff. Peter Rodriguez essentially said “why are

you being so dramatic”. Plaintiff essentially said “why is it me responding and saying

he said this make me dramatic?”;

1 Designer owned and operates under this “Kiehl’s Since 1851” fictional name in Florida at all times 

material hereto. Subsequent to the filing of this lawsuit, it was discovered that both DESIGNER

FRAGRANCES and “L’OREAL USA, INC.” were collectively defending as employers and had settled 

a discrimination suit based on discrimination against Plaintiff’s fellow employee. This Amended 

Complaint was subsequently filed adding Defendant, “L’OREAL USA, INC.”.

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 38 of 68
3

(b) When Plaintiff mentioned the aids comment, corporate HR personnel Sean Fader called

Plaintiff to the back with manager Peter Rodriguez and asked what happened; Sean

Fader said essentially: we are going to write this off as playful banter between friends.

Plaintiff said essentially “I don’t think you clearly understand—I don’t know this

person outside of work—why are you writing this off as playful banter—the

employment book said these types of comments are not proper in the workplace”;

(c) Plaintiff experienced a backlash after this; e.g. Peter would come up and say essentially

“you are under investigation for giving out too many samples” and words to the effect

of “a customer said you were rushing them” and other ridiculous and fake matters (and

other fake or exaggerated scenarios they were creating) to harass and annoy Plaintiff;

these comments were made to cause Plaintiff to feel uneasy and to punish him for

having reported discriminatory comments and/or were in furtherance of additional

discrimination against Plaintiff; Plaintiff’s hours also were cut in furtherance of the

discrimination;

(d) The Assistant Manager approached Plaintiff and essentially said you are a great

employee and it is not fair what is happening to you;

(e) Plaintiff exceeded work expectations throughout his employment. Despite this,

Plaintiff was passed over for promotions and penalized in a discriminatory manner and

for discriminator reasons;

(f) On or about June 2016, Defendants, KIEHL’S, Plaintiff was with the assistant manager

Tizaira Velasquez and she approached him to go to the back for education. She

mentioned to the manager on duty Nina Libron (full time manager on duty) that

Anthony (Plaintiff) and I are going to the back to work on education. Nina Libron

replied “Black’s to the back”. This was said with the purpose and had the effect of

disparaging Plaintiff. This constituted discrimination and harmed Plaintiff. Plaintiff

communicated to manager Nina Libron that it was inappropriate. Tizaira Velasquez

essentially shrugged;

(g) Nina Libron acted eradicate towards Plaintiff. On or about August 2015, Nina Libron

told Plaintiff to leave the store. She started screaming at Plaintiff, I cannot believe you

told Chad (the regional manager) about the blacks to the back comment; she then asked

Plaintiff to leave and said if he does not leave, then that is insubordination. Shortly

after, the assistant manager Tizaira Velasquez called Plaintiff and essentially said you

should come back because they might say you abandoned your shift. Plaintiff said

essentially well you were there when she said I should leave, etc.

(h) They made Plaintiff a part-time MOD (manager on duty) at one point, however, they

did not give Plaintiff the full time position and he was denied the position at least three

or four times in furtherance of the discrimination; despite that Plaintiff was one of the

highest producing people and was with the company for years;

(i) It was clear to Plaintiff and others that Plaintiff was being discriminated against;

Plaintiff was periodically contacted by HR, and he expressed these concerns to HR;

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 39 of 68
4

shortly after, Plaintiff would get a warning from the HR person;

(j) Upon information and belief, there have been multiple and repeated complaints of

discrimination of a similar type and frequency and of other types by other employees

against Defendants, KIEHL’S, including without limitation throughout and following

the entire period of time worked by Plaintiff;

(k) Human Resource personnel were rotated and terminated multiple times as a result of

the ongoing discrimination; and/or

(l) There were many other instances of discriminatory conduct by Defendant, KIEHL’S.

Many people repeatedly left because of the toxic environment.

COUNT I: FLORIDA DISCRIMINATION CLAIM

9. Plaintiff re-alleges Paragraphs 1-8 as if fully set forth herein.

10. This Count is a claim for damages brought by Plaintiff against Defendants,

KIEHL’S, under, Florida’s employment discrimination laws, including the Florida Civil Rights 

Act and Fla. Stat. § 760.10. Venue is proper because the events giving rise to this claim arose in 

Miami-Dade County.

11. Defendants were employers of Plaintiff; Plaintiff was an employee protected by the

Florida Civil Rights Act and Fla. Stat. § 760.10, and Defendants were an employer subject to the 

Florida Civil Rights Act and Fla. Stat. § 760.10.

12. Plaintiff has complied with all conditions precedent to bringing this suit, or same

have been waived or abandoned. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

(“EEOC”) has issued to Plaintiff a Right to Sue Letter. The claim and charge were timely and 

properly presented to the EEOC and, thus, this claim is timely brought within the applicable 

statutory period. In addition and/or in the alternative, the applicable statutory period has been 

tolled or equitably tolled and this action is timely.

13. Plaintiff has retained the services of the undersigned to represent him in this action

and is obliged to pay for the legal services provided.

14. Defendants, KIEHL’S, employees and/or agents discriminated against Plaintiff.

15. The discrimination was used as the basis for employment decisions affecting

Plaintiff and negatively affected the terms, conditions, and privileges of his employment and 

harmed Plaintiff.

16. In response to Plaintiff’s complaints, he was reprimanded and retaliated against.

Management and/or employees were malicious and cruel and treated Plaintiff in a demeaning 

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 40 of 68
5

manner; management both directed and permitted Defendants, KIEHL’S, and Defendants, 

KIEHL’S, agents to punish Plaintiff for reporting discrimination.

17. Management punished him with fake disciplinary write-ups.

18. By Defendants, KIEHL’S, intentional and willful conduct, actions, and omissions,

Defendants condoned and encouraged discrimination of Plaintiff.

19. Plaintiff was treated differently and in a disparate manner than white employees

and/or employees of different ethnicity and/or of different race because of the discrimination.

20. Plaintiff was treated differently and in a disparate manner than employees who were

not African American and/or was treated differently than those who were not Puerto Rican.

21. Defendants acted with malice and reckless indifference in its actions. The severe

and pervasive discrimination created a hostile environment that interfered with Plaintiff’s work 

performance and created an intimidating and offensive work environment. The discrimination and 

mistreatment was well known to other agents and employees. 

22. Plaintiff’s complaints of discrimination were disregarded, and submission to the

discrimination was implicitly a term or condition of Plaintiff’s employment and continued

employment.

23. This discrimination constituted discrimination because of race and/or because of

ethnicity and/or because of origin.

24. The conduct had the purpose and effect of unreasonably interfering with Plaintiff’s

work performance and created an intimidating, hostile, and offensive working environment.

25. Plaintiff seeks recovery of all attorneys’ fees and costs recoverable under the law

referenced herein; Florida’s Civil Rights Act; and all other applicable law.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands Trial by Jury, judgment against the Defendants for 

damages suffered, attorneys’ fees; and such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

COUNT II: TITLE VII DISCRIMINATION

26. Plaintiff re-alleges Paragraphs 1-8 as if fully set forth herein.

27. This Count is a claim for damages brought by Plaintiff, Anthony Burgos, against

Defendants, KIEHL’S, under, Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. 

and 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. Venue is proper because the events giving rise to this claim arose in 

Miami-Dade County.

28. Defendants were an employer of Plaintiff; Plaintiff was an employee protected by

Title VII, and Defendant was an employer subject to Title VII.

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 41 of 68
6

29. Plaintiff has complied with all conditions precedent to bringing this suit, or same

have been waived or abandoned. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

(“EEOC”) has issued to Plaintiff a Right to Sue Letter. The claim and charge were timely and 

properly presented to the EEOC and, thus, this claim is timely brought within the applicable 

statutory period. In addition and/or in the alternative, the applicable statutory period has been 

tolled or equitably tolled and this action is timely.

30. Plaintiff has complied with all conditions precedent to bringing this suit, or same

have been waived or abandoned. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

(“EEOC”) has issued to Plaintiff a Right to Sue Letter. The claim and charge were timely and 

properly presented to the EEOC and, thus, this claim is timely brought within the applicable 

statutory period.

31. Plaintiff has retained the services of the undersigned to represent him in this action

and is obliged to pay for the legal services provided.

32. The discrimination was used as the basis for employment decisions affecting

Plaintiff and negatively affected the terms, conditions, and privileges of his employment and 

harmed Plaintiff.

33. In response to Plaintiff’s complaints, he was reprimanded and retaliated against.

Management and/or employees were malicious and cruel and treated Plaintiff in a demeaning 

manner; management both directed and permitted Defendants, KIEHL’S, and Defendants, 

KIEHL’S, agents to punish Plaintiff for reporting discrimination.

34. Management punished him with fake disciplinary write-ups.

35. By Defendants, KIEHL’S, intentional and willful conduct, actions, and omissions,

Defendant condoned and encouraged discrimination of Plaintiff.

36. Plaintiff was treated differently and in a disparate manner than white employees

and/or employees of different ethnicity and/or of different race because of the discrimination.

37. Plaintiff was treated differently and in a disparate manner than employees who were

not African American and/or was treated differently than those who were not Puerto Rican.

38. Defendants acted with malice and reckless indifference in its actions. The severe

and pervasive discrimination created a hostile environment that interfered with Plaintiff’s work 

performance and created an intimidating and offensive work environment. The discrimination and 

mistreatment was well known to other agents and employees. 

39. Plaintiff’s complaints of discrimination were disregarded, and submission to the

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 42 of 68
7

discrimination was implicitly a term or condition of Plaintiff’s employment and continued

employment.

40. This discrimination constituted discrimination because of race and/or because of

ethnicity and/or because of origin.

41. The conduct had the purpose and effect of unreasonably interfering with Plaintiff’s

work performance and created an intimidating, hostile, and offensive working environment.

42. Plaintiff seeks recovery of all attorneys’ fees and costs under Title VII; under 42

USC § 2000e-5(k); and all other applicable law.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands Trial by Jury, judgment against the Defendants for 

damages suffered, attorneys’ fees; and such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

By:

Respectfully submitted, 

LAW OFFICES OF PAUL A. SACK, P.A. 

1210 Washington Avenue, Ste. 245

Miami Beach, Florida 33139 

Telephone: 305-397-8077 

Facsimile: 305-763-8057 

/s/ Paul A. Sack

PAUL A. SACK, ESQ. 

FBN: 363103 

Primary: paul@paulsacklaw.com 

Ps1619@bellsouth.net 

R. BRANDON DEEGAN, ESQ.

FBN: 117368

Primary: deegan@paulsacklaw.com

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 43 of 68
8

EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A

CtvKmcp •«*r»OC

'Hill BruAteo to Fil.no *"" UNO** tMS tAW» Ehycrccd BY TH« EEOC

- r*^."s£^ss

r>t«cnmirvrtkNi In Employment Ant (Aut A)

//M tMWrtf**'

0| ••

ruivAtt Suit Hiruns

m Ihe Charge within

Once tfvs SO- In order to pursue this mat*further you must 1 <» a '»asu I ayamt the reJOondon-IS) name a

jodayj ot the dat. you receive this Not.ce Vwsiote, vol sho.-d keep» a reco'd °'th{* d* d to

ii ||J«1W1 where the Notice is signed) v the cete ol the postmark . it la <*-

Voor tewsul, maybe' ted .n U S District Court ot a ,S»Z223df

State court la me V^^v'1 L.^e/i'Tenou^' you must tile a -cnntpla.ilfthat cw.ta.ns a short

..her talking to your attorney F*rvg ttk» Notice a nrt etio J courts often -cqj re that a copy of

*tatonent ot in. 'acts o. yow case wn«* shows th« you,ms *Md ter ^^^^

your Charge must be attached to »« ^ ^ „ ^uct., , aa:e n| tanh Your sun may include

charge by court demons, matter* Ike or nrateC to .no 'natter. ^eTeTiTy sur.s are brought n tne Stale wrtem the a-leged untewful prwekee occurred but ir

t^S^U^M^bJbrtSahl wheni relevant omptoymerM rocords ' « k«*. where the- employment wo. e ha..

the reeponnm- has <s man. oh re I. you he.. .fcepte q, nntiors you usually can ge, answersfron, «« on.ee Ol tne Slunk of d» court whan you wo orlnB.ng su« but do not expect that oft** to write your complain: ot trijk'a.0 xya**1 *va:©gy <J*c«*on& tor you

. arc itPrivate Suir Riohts - Equal Pay Act (EPA):

EPA su-ti mutr te fled m court wrttvn 2 years <3 years for w- ful no shone) ot the akeqod EPA underpayment bacx mm pie. if you were underpaid under the EPA for work pertormne trom Tit/OS to 12> 1.08. you shou'd He sun Peforc 7't/tp - not 12/1/10 « order to 'ecover unpad wages Cue for duty 7008 Ttvs tme .'mil tor tiWig an EPA

tut rt tepa'a'a from the 90-day r.'ing perxxJ undo' Tele Vtl 'he ADA. GINA or the ADEA refer-ttd to above

Therefore if you also pan to sue under Tie VII the ADA. GINA or the ADEA, in addition to Sung on lrve EPA

claim suit must be Ned wvth r 90 days of this Notice ar-4 with n the 2- or 3-year EPA back pay recovery pervod

Attorney Representation - Title VII, the ADA or GINA:

If you cannot afford or have been unable to obtain a iiwyer to 'oprosort you tho U S Distinct Court having jurisdiction

" >ouf auc ",Jv lr: ckwnsiances asset you r\ obtaining a lawyer Requests for such assistance must be made to me u S Dutret Court r the form and manner it requres (yoj shocid be preparec to explaen in detail your

efrns ;o retain an attorney) Requests should be made wcl before the end of the 90-day penod mentioned above , because such requests do not relieve you of the roqu.romont to bring suit within 90 days

Attorney Rfh-rmai ano EFOC Assistance

you may comaci tho EfcC mpreean'ntivo shovm on your Notre -t you m-r<3 help in frnding a lowyr' or ir you h.nvti any

questone about your legal nyhts including Jdvce O" wtven U S tXntnct Col*1 c» I.e.* y . ,* caw rt y>j no,„j miCHv • or obtan a copy ot >idormat*>n «i EfOCs fte on the ciwrgo. pleaee rwqimr.( it prompdy r. writro okI p-ur<Jr

your ciiarge number (as shown on your Notice) While EEOC Ompoys Charge tiles u'lnr a rorn.r trrn ' VI marge '-le»

are kept tnr at mast b wis eher our last action on the case Tlieietwe If you Mo su< and wuix lu Ik. • •• I'*- i-ii m

tie please make your review request within 6 months ol this Notice (Roforo fit ng suit, any -eqi » I ilitud bo made wrtvn T» re«t 90 days )

r

All Statutes

fx VOW RLE SUTT. PLEASE SEND A COPY OP YOUR COURT COMPi AWT TO THIS OTHCt L

8

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 44 of 68
9

Opportunity Commission

and Notice of Rights

rn...> Miami District Oftlce «,»««, Miami Tower. 100 S E 2nd Street Suit* 1M0 Miami, FL 35131

O S eotMt. BMPLOVMPNT

Dismissal

StCA. It ' ' • I f I

I J

Or- fWof emmm f**mav *• ED x -^T/DLNTJAL (7?CrR*1«C-' ?(*,/ TeicohoneNo FEOC Hoprs«*ntativo EEOC Own* NO

Yo'anda Ramiroi,

Investigato* (305) 808-1767

510-2016-04085 THE EEOC IS CLOSING ITS FILE ON THIS CHARGE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON:

7 ho facts aleged In Use charge fall to suite a ctwm imder any ol me statutes enforced by Fie EEOC

Your allegations dd not mvotve a dlsabi'dy as rtwined by me Amecttans Wim DtsabBibes Act

| | The Respondent employs loss thsn the inquired number of employees or Is not otberwee cohered by Ifw statutes

\ I Your charge was not tlmefy filed with EEOC; in other words- you waded too long after the dalefs) of the abegwl d crimination So N© your cfvkrgu

\ X \ TK© EEOC issue* the fc'.cwnq determination Basod upon Ks .nvostigabor . 9w f-EOC »s u^ifcie to conclude th.it the

intc--mat»>n obtained establraheis wlatiars of the statutes : his does not wrrlify that the respondent e» in cxirnplk»nc© with The statutes. No tadlng ts matte as to .my other issues that nk/tf be construed as having been raised by thts charge

\ \ The EEOC ho* adopted U»e finding* af the state or kx.a' fair employment protects agency that investigated this diarcjs

I I Other (brjgfly state)

- NOTICE OF SUIT RIGHTS -

{£*e no aoaborai tnfvmehon otiw-npo to ttvs torm.f

Title VII. the America/is with Disabilities Act. the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, or the Ago

fosf (The time limit for filing suit based on a claim under slato law may be different )

Your

on ttvs ennrgn will be

uS&SESlS'ssr:r^ri; rr ^„».

before you fife suft may not be collectible. P" ° '° VIO,a,,°nS ,hat IPorethan 2 years (3 vearsi

On behalf of the Commission MAR 1

Encteikresivi Michael J. Farreli, District Director (Oare Kta*d> Giordano Vila

VP of Human Resources KlehTs I L'otoal USA. Inc. 10 Hudson Y ards New York. NY 10001

9

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 45 of 68
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL

CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO: 2019-017539-CA-01

SECTION: CA02

JUDGE: Alan Fine

Anthony Burgos

Plaintiff(s)

vs.

Designer Fragrances & Cosmetics Company

Defendant(s)

____________________________/

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND

COMPLAINT

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on May 22, 2020 for a Case Management Conference pursuant

to the Court’s Order and notice. After reviewing Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Plaintiff’s Complaint;

having heard argument of counsel; and being otherwise fully informed, it is ORDERED AND

ADJUDGED:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Plaintiff’s Complaint is GRANTED. The Amended Complaint

attached to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend is deemed filed as of the date of this Order.

1.

The Style is amended in this case to reflect all parties as follows: ANTHONY BURGOS vs.

DESIGNER FRAGRANCES & COSMETICS COMPANY d/b/a KIEHL’S and L’OREAL USA,

INC. d/b/a KIEHL’S.

2.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Miami-Dade County, Florida on this 26th day of May,

2020.

2019-017539-CA-01 05-26-2020 4:52 PM

Hon. Alan Fine

CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

Electronically Signed

Case No: 2019-017539-CA-01 Page 1 of 2

Filing # 107956798 E-Filed 05/26/2020 04:58:09 PM Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 46 of 68
No Further Judicial Action Required on THIS MOTION

CLERK TO RECLOSE CASE IF POST JUDGMENT

Electronically Served:

Paul A Sack, paul@paulsacklaw.com

Paul A Sack, ps1619@bellsouth.net

R. Brandon Deegan, deegan@paulsacklaw.com

Physically Served:

Case No: 2019-017539-CA-01 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 47 of 68
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

DIVISION CIVIL ACTION SECOND ALIAS SUMMONS CASE NUMBER: 2019-017539-CA-01

( X ) Civil

( ) Other

PLAINTIFF vs. DEFENDANTS

CLOCK IN

ANTHONY BURGOS,

vs.

DESIGNER FRAGRANCES & COSMETICS COMPANY

d/b/a KIEHL’S and

L’OREAL USA, INC. d/b/a KIEHL’S

THE STATE OF FLORIDA:

To Each Sheriff of the State:

YOU ARE COMMANDED to serve this summons, and a copy of the Amended Complaint in this 

action on the following named Defendant:

TO: DESIGNER FRAGRANCES & COSMETICS COMPANY d/b/a KIEHL’S

c/o Registered Agent:

Corporation Service Company

1201 Hays Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301-2525

Each Defendant is required to serve written defenses to the complaint or petition on Plaintiff’s 

Attorney: Paul A. Sack, Esq.

Whose address is: PAUL A. SACK, ESQ.

 1210 Washington Avenue

 Suite 245

Filing # 108237297 E-Filed 06/02/2020 09:14:53 AM Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 48 of 68
 Miami Beach, Florida 33139

 Telephone: (305) 397-8077

 E-mail: paul@paulsacklaw.com

 Ps1619@bellsouth.net

within 20 calendar days after this Summons is served on that Defendant, exclusive of the day of 

service, and to file the original of the defenses with the Clerk of this Court either before service 

on Plaintiff’s attorney or immediately thereafter. If a Defendant fails to do so, a default will be 

entered against that Defendant for the relief demanded in the Complaint.

HARVEY RUVIN, CLERK

CLERK OF THE COURT By:_______________________ DATE_______

 Deputy Clerk

COURT SEAL

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 49 of 68
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

DIVISION CIVIL ACTION SUMMONS CASE NUMBER: 2019-017539-CA-01

( X ) Civil

( ) Other

PLAINTIFF vs. DEFENDANTS

CLOCK IN

ANTHONY BURGOS,

vs.

DESIGNER FRAGRANCES & COSMETICS COMPANY

d/b/a KIEHL’S and

L’OREAL USA, INC, d/b/a KIEHL’S

THE STATE OF FLORIDA:

To Each Sheriff of the State:

YOU ARE COMMANDED to serve this summons, and a copy of the Amended Complaint in this 

action on the following named Defendant:

TO: L’OREAL USA, INC d/b/a KIEHL’S

c/o Registered Agent:

The Prentice-Hall Corporation System, Inc. 

251 Little Falls Drive

Wilmington, Delaware 19808

Each Defendant is required to serve written defenses to the complaint or petition on Plaintiff’s 

Attorney: Paul A. Sack, Esq.

Whose address is: PAUL A. SACK, ESQ.

 1210 Washington Avenue

 Suite 245

Filing # 108236515 E-Filed 06/02/2020 09:03:36 AM Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 50 of 68
 Miami Beach, Florida 33139

 Telephone: (305) 397-8077

 E-mail: paul@paulsacklaw.com

 Ps1619@bellsouth.net

within 20 calendar days after this Summons is served on that Defendant, exclusive of the day of 

service, and to file the original of the defenses with the Clerk of this Court either before service 

on Plaintiff’s attorney or immediately thereafter. If a Defendant fails to do so, a default will be 

entered against that Defendant for the relief demanded in the Complaint.

HARVEY RUVIN, CLERK

CLERK OF THE COURT By:_______________________ DATE_______

 Deputy Clerk

COURT SEAL

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 51 of 68
Filing # 108237297 E-Filed 06/02/2020 09:14:53 AM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

DIVISION CIVIL ACTION SECOND ALIAS SUMMONS CASE NUMBER: 2019-017539-CA-01

{ X ) Civil

) Other

PLAINTIFF vs. DEFENDANTS

CLOCK IN

ANTHONY BURGOS,

vs.

DESIGNER FRAGRANCES & COSMETICS COMPANY

d/b/a KIEHL'S and

L'OREAL USA, INC. d/b/a KIEHL'S

THE STATE OF FLORIDA:

To Each Sheriff of the State:

YOU ARE COMMANDED to serve this summons, and a copy of the Amended Complaint in this

action on the following named Defendant:

TO: DESIGNER FRAGRANCES & COSMETICS COMPANY d/b/a KIEHL'S

c/o Registered Agent:

Corporation Service Company

1201 Hays Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301-2525

Each Defendant is required to serve written defenses to the complaint or petition on Plaintiffs

Attorney: Paul A. Sack, Esq.

Whose address is: PAULA. SACK, ESQ.

1210 Washington Avenue

Suite 245

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 52 of 68
Miami Beach, Florida 33139

Telephone: (305) 397-8077

E-mail: paul@paulsacklaw.com

Psl619@bellsouth.net

within 20 calendar days after this Summons is served on that Defendant, exclusive of the day of

service, and to file the original of the defenses with the Clerk of this Court either before service

on Plaintiffs attorney or immediately thereafter. If a Defendant fails to do so, a default will be

entered against that Defendant for the relief demanded in the Complaint.

HARVEY RUVIN, CLERK

6/2/2020

CLERK OF THE COURT By: %DATP

4* Deputy Clerk

COURT SEAL

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 53 of 68
Filing # 108236515 E-Filed 06/02/2020 09:03:36 AM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

DIVISION CIVIL ACTION SUMMONS CASE NUMBER: 2019-017539-CA-01

{ X ) Civil

) Other

PLAINTIFF vs. DEFENDANTS

CLOCK IN

ANTHONY BURGOS,

vs.

DESIGNER FRAGRANCES & COSMETICS COMPANY

d/b/a KIEHL'S and

L'OREAL USA, INC, d/b/a KIEHL'S

THE STATE OF FLORIDA:

To Each Sheriff of the State:

YOU ARE COMMANDED to serve this summons, and a copy of the Amended Complaint in this

action on the following named Defendant:

L'OREAL USA, INC d/b/a KIEHL'S

c/o Registered Agent:

The Prentice-Hall Corporation System, Inc.

251 Little Falls Drive

Wilmington, Delaware 19808

TO:

Each Defendant is required to serve written defenses to the complaint or petition on Plaintiffs

Attorney: Paul A. Sack, Esq.

Whose address is: PAULA. SACK, ESQ.

1210 Washington Avenue

Suite 245

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 54 of 68
Miami Beach, Florida 33139

Telephone: (305) 397-8077

E-mail: paul@paulsacklaw.com

Psl619@bellsouth.net

within 20 calendar days after this Summons is served on that Defendant, exclusive of the day of

service, and to file the original of the defenses with the Clerk of this Court either before service

on Plaintiffs attorney or immediately thereafter. If a Defendant fails to do so, a default will be

entered against that Defendant for the relief demanded in the Complaint.

HARVEY RUVIN, CLERK

6/2/2020

CLERK OF THE COURT By: >c3mte

Deputy Clerk f n

COURT SEAL

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 55 of 68
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH 

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE 

COUNTY, FLORIDA 

ANTHONY BURGOS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DESIGNER FRAGRANCES & 

COSMETICS COMPANY d/b/a 

KIEHL’S and L’OREAL USA, INC. 

d/b/a KIEHL’S, 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. 2019-017539-CA-01 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL AND 

DESIGNATION OF E-MAIL ADDRESSES 

The law firm of LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. enters the appearance of Sherril Colombo, 

Esq. and Stella Chu, Esq. as Counsel for and on behalf of the Defendants, DESIGNER 

FRAGRANCES & COSMETICS COMPANY d/b/a KIEHL’S (“Designer Fragrances”) and 

L’OREAL USA, INC. (“L’Oreal”), (“Defendants”), in the above-styled cause, and requests that 

all papers and pleadings, notices, correspondence, orders, and other papers be served upon them. 

Further, pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516, the undersigned hereby 

designates the following primary and secondary e-mail addresses for service of papers in this 

matter. 

Primary E-mail: SColombo@littler.com 

Primary E-mail: SSChu@ittler.com 

Secondary E-mail: KLJackson@littler.com 

Date: July 7, 2020 Respectfully submitted 

/s/ Stella Chu 

Sherril M. Colombo (FBN 948799) 

Filing # 109893357 E-Filed 07/07/2020 03:34:01 PM Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 56 of 68
Burgos v. Designer Fragrances and L’Oreal 

Case No. 2019-017539-CA-01 

Page | 2 

 

Stella Chu (FBN 060519) 

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 

Wells Fargo Center 

333 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 2700 

Miami, Florida 33131 

E-mail: scolombo@littler.com 

E-mail: sschu@littler.com 

Secondary: kljackson@littler.com 

Telephone: (305) 400-7500 

Facsimile: (305) 603-2552 

Attorneys for Defendant Designer Fragrances & 

Cosmetics Company and L’Oreal USA, Inc. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 7th day of July, 2020, I electronically filed the

foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the Florida Court E-Filing, which will send a copy via 

email to the following: Attorneys for Plaintiff – Paul A. Sack, Esq., FBN 363103, and R. Brandon 

Deegan, Esq., FBN 117368, paul@paulsacklaw.com; ps1619@bellsouth.net; 

deegan@paulsacklaw.com. 

 /s/ Stella S. Chu 

 Stella S. Chu, Esquire 

4834-5265-9138.1 054993.1137 

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 57 of 68
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH 

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR MIAMIDADE COUNTY, FLORIDA 

ANTHONY BURGOS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DESIGNER FRAGRANCES & 

COSMETICS COMPANY d/b/a 

KIEHL’S and L’OREAL USA, INC. 

d/b/a KIEHL’S, 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. 2019-017539-CA-01 

DEFENDANTS DESIGNER FRAGRANCES & COSMETICS COMPANY AND 

L’OREAL USA, INC.’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Defendants DESIGNER FRAGRANCES & COSMETICS COMPANY (“Designer 

Fragrances”) and L’OREAL USA, INC. (“L’Oreal”), (“Defendants” collectively), by and 

through undersigned counsel, move for an unopposed extension of time up to and including 

July 24, 2020 within which to serve its response to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. In support 

thereof, Defendants state as follows: 

1. On or about June 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant action against Defendant 

Designer Fragrances & Cosmetics Company (only); the lawsuit was subsequently served on 

Defendant Designer Fragrances on August 22, 2019. Defendant Designer Fragrances was 

unaware that it had been served (until it investigated this claim in July 2020 after having become 

aware of the amended complaint described below) and following a default motion filed by 

Plaintiff, a Clerk’s default was entered as to Designer Fragrances on January 8, 2020. Defendant 

Designer Fragrances intends to file an unopposed motion to set that default aside. 

Filing # 109905938 E-Filed 07/07/2020 05:29:00 PM Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 58 of 68
Burgos v. Designer Fragrances and L’Oreal 

Case No. 2019-017539-CA-01 

Page | 2 

 

2. On May 12, 2020, Plaintiff moved to amend the Complaint to add Defendant 

L’Oreal to the lawsuit. The lawsuit was deemed filed as of May 26, 2020 per the Court’s May 

26, 2020 order. 

3. The Amended Complaint was served on Defendant L’Oreal on June 17, 2020, 

making L’Oreal’s response to the amended Complaint due on July 7, 2020. 

4. Undersigned counsel for both Defendants is still in the process of reviewing the 

pleadings and investigating Plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly, Defendants desire an extension of 

time up to and including July 24, 2020 so that they can properly evaluate Plaintiff’s claims and to 

file a proper response. 

5. The undersigned conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel, and Plaintiff’s counsel has 

agreed to the relief requested herein. 

6. The requested extension will promote the interests of justice and serve judicial 

economy. The requested extension will also not prejudice Plaintiff. 

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this honorable Court grant 

Defendants’ motion for extension of time and provide Defendants up to and including July 24, 

2020 in which to respond to the Complaint. 

Date: July 7, 2020 Respectfully submitted 

/s/ Stella Chu 

Sherril M. Colombo (FBN 948799) 

Stella Chu (FBN 060519) 

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 

Wells Fargo Center 

333 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 2700 

Miami, Florida 33131 

E-mail: scolombo@littler.com 

E-mail: sschu@littler.com 

Secondary: kljackson@littler.com 

Telephone: (305) 400-7500 

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 59 of 68
Burgos v. Designer Fragrances and L’Oreal 

Case No. 2019-017539-CA-01 

Page | 3 

 

Facsimile: (305) 603-2552 

Attorneys for Defendants Designer Fragrances & 

Cosmetics Company and L’Oreal USA, Inc. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 7th day of July, 2020, I electronically filed the

foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the Florida Court E-Filing, which will send a copy 

via email to the following: Attorneys for Plaintiff – Paul A. Sack, Esq., FBN 363103, and R. 

Brandon Deegan, Esq., FBN 117368, paul@paulsacklaw.com; ps1619@bellsouth.net; 

deegan@paulsacklaw.com. 

 /s/ Stella S. Chu 

 Stella S. Chu, Esquire 

4852-4002-1698.1 054993.1137 

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 60 of 68
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL

CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO: 2019-017539-CA-01

SECTION: CA02

JUDGE: Alan Fine

Anthony Burgos

Plaintiff(s)

vs.

Designer Fragrances & Cosmetics Company et al

Defendant(s)

____________________________/

AGREED ORDER SETTING ASIDE CLERK'S DEFAULT RE DESIGNER

FRAGRANCES & COSMETICS COMPANY ENTERED ON JANUARY 8, 2020

THIS CAUSE having come before the Court upon Defendant Designer Fragrances &

Cosmetics Company’s Unopposed Motion to Vacate or Set Aside Clerk’s Default Entered on

January 8, 2020 and the Court having reviewed the file and Plaintiff’s counsel having agreed to

the request sought herein and being otherwise advised in the premises, it is hereby:

 ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

Defendant Designer Fragrances & Cosmetics Company’s Unopposed Motion is hereby

GRANTED. The Default Entered on January 8, 2020 is hereby vacated and/or set aside.

Case No: 2019-017539-CA-01 Page 1 of 2

Filing # 110039269 E-Filed 07/09/2020 09:21:39 PM Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 61 of 68
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Miami-Dade County, Florida on this 9th day of July,

2020.

2019-017539-CA-01 07-09-2020 9:15 PM

Hon. Alan Fine

CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

Electronically Signed

No Further Judicial Action Required on THIS MOTION

CLERK TO RECLOSE CASE IF POST JUDGMENT

Electronically Served:

KL Jackson, kljackson@littler.com

Paul A Sack, paul@paulsacklaw.com

Paul A Sack, ps1619@bellsouth.net

R. Brandon Deegan, deegan@paulsacklaw.com

Sherril M Colombo, scolombo@littler.com

Sherril M Colombo, KLJackson@littler.com

Stella Si-Ping Chu, sschu@littler.com

Stella Si-Ping Chu, KLJackson@littler.com

Physically Served:

Case No: 2019-017539-CA-01 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 62 of 68
4819-1480-4674.1 054993.1137 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH 

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE 

COUNTY, FLORIDA 

ANTHONY BURGOS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DESIGNER FRAGRANCES & 

COSMETICS COMPANY d/b/a 

KIEHL’S and L’OREAL USA, INC. 

d/b/a KIEHL’S, 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. 2019-017539-CA-01 

DEFENDANT DESIGNER FRAGRANCES & COSMETICS COMPANY’S 

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO VACATE OR SET ASIDE CLERK’S DEFAULT 

JUDGMENT WITH MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT 

Defendant, DESIGNER FRAGRANCES & COSMETICS COMPANY d/b/a KIEHL’S 

(“Designer Fragrances”), pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b), hereby files its 

Unopposed Motion to Vacate or Set Aside Default, and in support thereof, states as follows: 

1. On June 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant action against Designer Fragrances & 

Cosmetics Company. 

2. Designer Fragrances was served with the Summons1

 and Complaint in this action 

on August 11, 2019, via its Registered Agent in Florida. 

3. Designer Fragrances’ responsive pleading, therefore, was due on September 11, 

2019. 

4. No response was timely served or filed by Designer Fragrances due to a clerical 

error and oversight. 

 

1

 There has since been an Amended Complaint filed adding L’Oreal USA, Inc. as an additional Defendant party. 

Filing # 110035081 E-Filed 07/09/2020 05:36:13 PM Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 63 of 68
Burgos v. Designer Fragrances and L’Oreal 

Case No. 2019-017539-CA-01 

Page | 2 

 

4819-1480-4674.1 054993.1137 

5. On September 24, 2019, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Clerk’s Default as to 

Designer Fragrances, followed by an amended Motion for Default on October 18, 2019. 

6. The Clerk issued a Clerk’s default as to Designer Fragrances on January 8, 2020. 

7. On June 17, 2020, Co-Defendant L’Oreal USA, Inc., also represented by 

undersigned counsel, received notice of service of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint as it was sent 

to L’Oreal’s Registered Agent. 

8. Upon receiving this Amended Complaint, Defendant L’Oreal retained 

undersigned counsel. After examining the docket, undersigned counsel learned that Plaintiff 

served the Summons and Complaint on the Registered Agent of Designer Fragrances on August 

22, 2019. 

9. Upon immediate discovery of this on July 3, 2020, undersigned counsel contacted 

Plaintiff’s counsel to seek an agreement on this motion to vacate the Clerk’s default. Plaintiff’s 

counsel agreed to this requested relief. 

10. Pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(1), a court may set aside a 

default judgment if it was the result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable negligence.” 

11. A Party moving to vacate a default judgment must demonstrate three things: 

(1) the failure to file a responsive pleading was the result of excusable neglect; (2) the moving 

party has a meritorious defense; and (3) the moving party acted with due diligence in seeking 

relief from default. See e.g. Florida Eurocars, Inc. v. T.J. Pecorak, 110 So.3d 513 (Fla. 4th 

DCA 2013). 

12. Excusable negligent is found where “inaction results from clerical or secretarial 

error, reasonable misunderstanding, a system gone awry or any other of those foibles to which 

human nature is heir.” Florida Eurocars, Inc. v. T.J. Pecorak, 110 So.3d 513 (Fla. 4th DCA 

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 64 of 68
Burgos v. Designer Fragrances and L’Oreal 

Case No. 2019-017539-CA-01 

Page | 3 

 

4819-1480-4674.1 054993.1137 

2013). Court have set aside defaults when the excusable negligent resulted from mishandling or 

misfiling of the initial pleadings. See Hialeah, Inc. d/b/a/ Hialeah Park v. Adams, 566 So.2d 350 

(Fla. 3rd DCA 1990). 

13. A meritorious defense is established by attaching an Answer which sets out in 

detailed a number of affirmative defenses. See Elliot v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC, 31 So.3d 

304 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). 

14. Finally, due diligence is established by taking affirmative and timely steps to file 

a motion to vacate the default and engage in contacting counsel to determine if the matter could 

“be resolved by agreement rather than by resort to the court.” Florida Eurocars, Inc. v. T.J. 

Pecorak, 110 So.3d 513 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). 

15. More importantly, “Florida public policy favors the setting aside of defaults so 

that controversies may be decided on the merits.” Elliot v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC, 31 So.3d 

304 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). 

16. Here, Defendant Designer Fragrances first learned of the default only after 

receiving notification from undersigned counsel (on July 3, 2020) after L’Oreal was served on 

June 17, 2020 and proceeded to retain undersigned counsel. Immediately after being retained by 

L’Oreal, undersigned counsel pulled the docket and then became aware of the default and 

forwarded that information to Defendant’s in-house counsel. Upon receiving notification of the 

clerk’s default, it was discovered that Designer Fragrances was in fact served on August 22, 

2019; however, nothing further was done as the complaint was misplaced due to an unusual 

internal oversight. This unfortunate oversight is exactly the kind of secretarial or clerical error 

that Florida courts define as excusable error. See e.g. Hialeah, Inc., 566 So.2d at 350-351 

(reversing a denial of a motion to vacate for abuse of discretion because “a defendant’s neglect in 

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 65 of 68
Burgos v. Designer Fragrances and L’Oreal 

Case No. 2019-017539-CA-01 

Page | 4 

 

4819-1480-4674.1 054993.1137 

responding to a complaint is excusable when the inadvertence was due to the mishandling or 

misfiling of suit papers.”). 

17. Designer Fragrances would suffer great prejudice if this judgment is not vacated 

because it has meritorious defenses to Plaintiff’s claims in this case. 

18. Further, on the same day of discovering this clerical error, undersigned counsel 

contacted Plaintiff’s counsel to determine if the vacating of the Clerk’s default “could be 

resolved by agreement,” as prescribed in Florida Eurocars, Inc., 110 So.3d at 516 (“defense 

counsel was entirely correct in contacting plaintiffs’ [sic] counsel initially to determine if this 

matter could be resolved by agreement rather than by resort to the court. This procedure should 

be encouraged, not penalized.”). Plaintiff’s counsel agreed with the request sought. 

19. Since the default was a result of excusable neglect which Designer Fragrances has 

been timely addressed, this Court should vacate/set aside the default and allow the proceedings 

to be resolved on its merits. 

Date: July 9, 2020 Respectfully submitted 

/s/ Stella Chu 

Sherril M. Colombo (FBN 948799) 

Stella Chu (FBN 060519) 

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 

Wells Fargo Center 

333 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 2700 

Miami, Florida 33131 

E-mail: scolombo@littler.com 

E-mail: sschu@littler.com 

Secondary: kljackson@littler.com 

Telephone: (305) 400-7500 

Facsimile: (305) 603-2552 

Attorneys for Defendant Designer Fragrances & 

Cosmetics Company and L’Oreal USA, Inc. 

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 66 of 68
Burgos v. Designer Fragrances and L’Oreal 

Case No. 2019-017539-CA-01 

Page | 5 

 

4819-1480-4674.1 054993.1137 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 9th day of July, 2020, I electronically filed the 

foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the Florida Court E-Filing, which will send a copy 

via email to the following: Attorneys for Plaintiff – Paul A. Sack, Esq., FBN 363103, and R. 

Brandon Deegan, Esq., FBN 117368, paul@paulsacklaw.com; ps1619@bellsouth.net; 

deegan@paulsacklaw.com. 

 /s/ Stella S. Chu 

 Stella S. Chu, Esquire 

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 67 of 68
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH 

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE 

COUNTY, FLORIDA 

ANTHONY BURGOS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DESIGNER FRAGRANCES & 

COSMETICS COMPANY d/b/a 

KIEHL’S and L’OREAL USA, INC. 

d/b/a KIEHL’S, 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. 2019-017539-CA-01 

PROPOSED AGREED ORDER ON DEFENDANT DESIGNER FRAGRANCES & 

COSMETICS COMPANY’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO VACATE OR SET ASIDE 

CLERK’S DEFAULT ENTERED ON JANUARY 8, 2020 

THIS CAUSE having come before the Court upon Defendant Designer Fragrances & 

Cosmetics Company’s Unopposed Motion to Vacate or Set Aside Clerk’s Default Entered on 

January 8, 2020 and the Court having reviewed the file and Plaintiff’s counsel having agreed to 

the request sought herein and being otherwise advised in the premises, it is hereby: 

 ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 

Defendant Designer Fragrances & Cosmetics Company’s Unopposed Motion is hereby 

GRANTED. The Default Entered on January 8, 2020 is hereby vacated and/or set aside. 

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Miami-Dade County, Florida, this ______ day 

of July 2020. 

 _____________________________ 

 HON. ALAN FINE

 CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE 

cc: All Counsel of Record 

Case 1:20-cv-22952-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 68 of 68