www.saenzanderson.com

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

Case No.: 

STACY A. HILL, and other similarly situated 

individuals,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

TASTE RITE, INC. d/b/a Taste Rite, 

PUERTO SECO INC d/b/a Rite, LYNDEN 

GORDON, and JENNIFER CLARKE,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

COMPLAINT

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

Plaintiffs, STACY A. HILL (“Plaintiff”) and other similarly situated individuals, sue the 

Defendants, TASTE RITE, INC. d/b/a Taste Rite, PUERTO SECO INC d/b/a Rite, LYNDEN 

GORDON and JENNIFER CLARKE (collectively the “Defendants”) and allege:

JURISDICTION

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

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

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

VENUE

2. Plaintiff is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida, within the jurisdiction of this 

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

Case 0:20-cv-61445-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 1 of 9
www.saenzanderson.com

2

3. TASTE RITE, INC. d/b/a Taste Rite and PUERTO SECO INC d/b/a Rite (the 

“Corporate Defendants”), LYNDEN GORDON and JENNIFER CLARKE (the “Individual 

Defendants”), are Florida companies and Florida residents, respectively, having places of business 

in Broward County, Florida, where Plaintiff worked for Defendants, and at all times material 

hereto were and are engaged in interstate commerce. The Individual Defendants, upon information 

and belief, reside in Broward County, Florida.

4. The Corporate Defendants share common ownership, common management, 

centralized control of labor relations, and common offices and interrelated operations. Corporate 

Defendants are an integrated enterprise or an agent of each other. Alternatively, each company is 

an enterprise under the Act.

5. The Corporate Defendants share employees or interchange employees; work in the 

direct interest of one another; and their employees are in the common control of both companies. 

The Companies are joint employers or an agent of each other. Alternatively, each company is an 

enterprise under the Act. 

COUNT I: WAGE AND HOUR VIOLATION BY

TASTE RITE, INC. d/b/a Taste Rite and PUERTO SECO INC d/b/a Rite

(OVERTIME)

6. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-5

above as if set out in full herein. 

7. This action is brought by Plaintiff and those similarly situated to recover from the 

Corporate Defendants unpaid overtime compensation, as well as an additional amount as 

liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under the provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 201 

et seq., and specifically under the provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 207. 29 U.S.C. § 207 (a)(1) states, “No 

Case 0:20-cv-61445-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 2 of 9
www.saenzanderson.com

3

employer shall employ any of his employees . . . for a work week longer than 40 hours unless such 

employee receives compensation for his employment in excess of the hours above-specified at a 

rate not less than one and a half times the regular rate at which he is employed.”

8. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by Title 28 U.S.C. § 1337 and by Title 29 

U.S.C. § 216(b). The Corporate Defendants are and, at all times pertinent to this Complaint, were

engaged in interstate commerce. At all times pertinent to this Complaint, the Corporate Defendants

operate as organizations which sell and/or market their services and/or goods to customers from 

throughout the United States and also provide their services for goods sold and transported from 

across state lines of other states, and the Corporate Defendants obtain and solicit funds from nonFlorida sources, accept funds from non-Florida sources, use telephonic transmissions going over 

state lines to do their business, transmit funds outside the State of Florida, and otherwise regularly 

engage in interstate commerce, particularly with respect to their employees. Upon information 

and belief, the annual gross revenue of the Corporate Defendants was at all times material hereto 

in excess of $500,000 per annum, and/or Plaintiff and those similarly situated, by virtue of working 

in interstate commerce, otherwise satisfy the Act’s requirements. 

9. By reason of the foregoing, the Corporate Defendants are and were, during all times 

hereafter mentioned, enterprises engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce 

as defined in §§ 3 (r) and 3(s) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 203(r) and 203(s) and/or Plaintiff and those 

similarly situated was and/or is engaged in interstate commerce for the Corporate Defendants. The 

Corporate Defendants’ business activities involve those to which the Act applies. The Corporate 

Defendants are a chain of bakeries in South Florida and, through their business activities, affect 

interstate commerce. The Plaintiff’s work for the Corporate Defendants likewise affects interstate 

Case 0:20-cv-61445-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 3 of 9
www.saenzanderson.com

4

commerce. Plaintiff was employed by the Corporate Defendants as a cashier for the Corporate 

Defendants’ business.

10. While employed by the Corporate Defendants, Plaintiff worked approximately an 

average of 45-60 hours per week without being compensated at the rate of not less than one- and 

one-half times the regular rate at which she was employed. Plaintiff’s typical schedule was from 

9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., six days per week. 

11. Corporate Defendants did not allow Plaintiff to take breaks and in fact terminated 

Plaintiff because she took a break.

12. Plaintiff was employed as a cashier performing the same or similar duties as that of 

those other similarly situated cashiers whom Plaintiff observed working in excess of 40 hours per 

week without overtime compensation. 

13. Plaintiff worked for the Corporate Defendants from approximately August 8, 2019 

to July 11, 2020. In total, Plaintiff worked approximately 48.285 compensable weeks under the 

Act, or 48.285 compensable weeks if we count 3 years back from the filing of the instant action.

14. The Corporate Defendants paid Plaintiff on average approximately $500 per week. 

15. However, the Corporate Defendants did not properly compensate Plaintiff for hours 

that Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 per week.

16. Corporate Defendants misclassified Plaintiff as an independent contractor. 

17. Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages accumulated from the date of hire 

and/or from 3 (three) years back from the date of the filing of this Complaint.

Case 0:20-cv-61445-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 4 of 9
www.saenzanderson.com

5

18. Prior to the completion of discovery and to the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge, at the 

time of the filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff’s good faith estimate of unpaid overtime wages is as 

follows:

a. Actual Damages: $4,023.75

i. Calculation: $500/60 = $8.33 (hourly pay) x .5 (overtime rate) x 20

(approximate number of overtime hours) x 48.285 (compensable weeks) = 

$4,023.75

b. Liquidated Damages: $4,023.75

c. Total Damages: $8,047.50 plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit.

19. At all times material hereto, the Corporate Defendants failed to comply with Title 

29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 and 29 C.F.R. § 516.2 and § 516.4 et seq. in that Plaintiff and those similarly

situated performed services and worked in excess of the maximum hours provided by the Act but 

no provision was made by the Corporate Defendants to properly pay them at the rate of time and 

one half for all hours worked in excess of forty hours (40) per workweek as provided in the Act. 

The additional persons who may become Plaintiffs in this action are weekly-paid employees and/or

former employees of the Corporate Defendants who are and who were subject to the unlawful 

payroll practices and procedures of the Corporate Defendants and were not paid time and one half 

of their regular rate of pay for all overtime hours worked in excess of forty. 

20. The Corporate Defendants knew and/or showed reckless disregard of the provisions 

of the Act concerning the payment of overtime wages and remains owing Plaintiff and those 

similarly situated these overtime wages since the commencement of Plaintiff’s and those similarly

situated employees’ employment with the Corporate Defendants as set forth above, and Plaintiff 

Case 0:20-cv-61445-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 5 of 9
www.saenzanderson.com

6

and those similarly situated are entitled to recover double damages. The Corporate Defendants

never posted any notice, as required by Federal Law, to inform employees of their federal rights 

to overtime and minimum wage payments. 

21. The Corporate Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff 

overtime wages as required by the laws of the United States as set forth above and remains owing 

Plaintiff these overtime wages since the commencement of Plaintiff’s employment with the 

Corporate Defendants as set forth above.

22. Plaintiff has retained the law offices of the undersigned attorney to represent her in 

this action and is obligated to pay a reasonable attorneys’ fee.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and those similarly situated request that this Honorable Court: 

A. Enter judgment for Plaintiff and others similarly situated and against the Corporate 

Defendants on the basis of the Corporate Defendants’ willful violations of the Fair 

Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. and other Federal Regulations; 

B. Award Plaintiff actual damages in the amount shown to be due for unpaid wages and 

overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty weekly; 

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

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

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

BENCH TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiff and those similarly situated demand trial by a Judge of all issues so triable as of 

right.

Case 0:20-cv-61445-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 6 of 9
www.saenzanderson.com

7

COUNT II: WAGE AND HOUR VIOLATION BY

LYNDEN GORDON and JENNIFER CLARKE (OVERTIME)

23. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-22

above as if set out in full herein.

24. At the times mentioned, the Individual Defendants were, and are now, the owners 

and officers of the Corporate Defendants. The Individual Defendants were employers of Plaintiff 

and others similarly situated within the meaning of Section 3(d) of the Act [29 U.S.C. § 203(d)], 

in that this defendant acted directly or indirectly in the interests of the Corporate Defendants in 

relation to the employees of the Corporate Defendants, including Plaintiff and others similarly 

situated. The Individual Defendants had operational control of the Corporate Defendants, was 

involved in the day-to-day functions of the Corporate Defendants, provided Plaintiff with her work 

schedule, and are jointly liable for Plaintiff’s damages.

25. The Individual Defendants are and were at all times relevant persons in control of 

the Corporate Defendants’ financial affairs and can cause the Corporate Defendants to compensate 

(or not to compensate) their employees in accordance with the Act.

26. The Individual Defendants willfully and intentionally caused Plaintiff not to receive 

overtime compensation as required by the laws of the United States as set forth above and remains 

owing Plaintiff these overtime wages since the commencement of Plaintiff’s employment with the 

Corporate Defendants as set forth above. 

27. Plaintiff has retained the law offices of the undersigned attorney to represent her in 

this action and is obligated to pay a reasonable attorneys’ fee.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Case 0:20-cv-61445-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 7 of 9
www.saenzanderson.com

8

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and those similarly situated request that this Honorable Court: 

A. Enter judgment for Plaintiff and others similarly situated and against the Individual 

Defendants on the basis of the Defendants’ willful violations of the Fair Labor 

Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. and other Federal Regulations; 

B. Award Plaintiff actual damages in the amount shown to be due for unpaid wages and 

overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty weekly; 

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

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

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

BENCH TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiff and those similarly situated demand trial by a Judge of all issues so triable as of 

right.

Dated: July 17, 2020. Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Tanesha Blye

Tanesha Blye, Esquire

 Fla. Bar No.: 0738158

 Email: tblye@saenzanderson.com

Aron Smukler, Esquire

Fla. Bar No.: 297779

Email: asmukler@saenzanderson.com

R. Martin Saenz, Esquire

Fla. Bar No.: 0640166

Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com

SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800

Aventura, Florida 33180

Telephone: (305) 503-5131

Case 0:20-cv-61445-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 8 of 9
www.saenzanderson.com

9

Facsimile: (888) 270-5549

Counsel for Plaintiff(s)

Case 0:20-cv-61445-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 9 of 9