LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A. 

6701 SUNSET DRIVE, SUITE 101, MIAMI, FL, 33143 TELEPHONE (305) 665-9211

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No.: 20-CIV-_________

Eyeris Rodriguez and Yordany Martinez

individually and on behalf of others similarly 

situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Supersonic of Florida, Inc., a for profit 

Florida corporation; Juan C. Gonzalez, 

individually, and; Amed Carretero, 

individually,

Defendants.

CLASS REPRESENTATION

FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Eyeris Rodriguez and Yordany Martinez, individually, and on behalf of others 

similarly situated, sue Defendants, Supersonic of Florida, Inc., a for profit Florida Corporation; 

Juan C. Gonzalez, individually, and; Amed Carretero, individually, and allege: 

JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS

1. This lawsuit is an action to recover money damages for unpaid minimum wages

and unpaid overtime wages brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C., § 

201, et seq., a statute of the United States of America. This action is also brought under Florida 

Statute §§448.110, Florida Statutes (“the Florida Minimum Wage Act”) and under Florida 

common law and statutes, including §448, Fla. Stat., pertaining to claims for unpaid wages earned.

This Court enjoys subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 (federal question), 

1337 (commerce), 1367 (supplemental), as well as under the “FLSA”, 29 U.S.C., §§216(b) and 

under §448, Fla. Stat., and §24, Art. X of the Florida Constitution. 

Case 1:20-cv-23459-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 1 of 9
2

2. Plaintiffs Eyeris Rodriguez and Yordany Martinez worked as a local delivery 

drivers and/or warehousemen for Defendant Supersonic of Florida, Inc., which holds itself out as 

“a Multi-Faceted Transportation provider for the entire state of Florida” who operate through their 

“...dedicated personal [sic], 9 strategic locations, intra line private fleet and technology...”. 

http://supersonicfl.com/ (“The Way We Do it”). Defendant “operate[s] facilities in Miami, 

Orlando, Tampa, Ft. Myers, Ocala, Jacksonville, Fort Pierce, Pensacola, and Tallahassee.” 

http://supersonicfl.com/ (“The Way We Do it”).

3. Plaintiffs Eyeris Rodriguez and Yordany Martinez, together with any other person 

who may hereafter consent to join in this lawsuit, are “employees” within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 

§203(e). 

4. Plaintiffs together with any other person who may hereafter consent to join in this 

lawsuit work or worked during respective tenures of employment at any time during the period of 

time beginning five years prior to the filing of this lawsuit through the present.

5. Defendant Supersonic of Florida, Inc., (“Supersonic”) is a Florida corporation 

which owns and operates a closely, privately held transportation service provider in numerous 

locations around Florida including one in Miami at which the Plaintiffs work or worked.

6. Defendant Juan C. Gonzalez is an individual and principal of “Supersonic” who, 

together with other insiders, directly or indirectly, owns and/or operates “Supersonic” as a 

transportation service company, as part of a conglomerate of other related entities and persons.

7. Defendant Amed Carretero is an individual and principal or management employee 

of “Supersonic” who, together with Defendant Gonzalez and other insiders, directly or indirectly, 

owns and/or operates “Supersonic” as a transportation service company in the Miami location 

where Plaintiffs work or worked.

Case 1:20-cv-23459-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 2 of 9
3

8. Each named Defendant, individually and as a group, is a “person” and an 

“employer” within the meaning of the 29 U.S.C. §203 (a) and (d) and may hereinafter be referred 

to jointly as the “Employer”. Moreover, this same “Employer”, individually or together as a group, 

is an enterprise engaged in commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §203(r), and (s).

9. The Employer is, and at all times material to this action was, an organization which 

sells and/or markets and/or transports services and/or goods to customers in Florida and across 

state lines. Upon information and belief, the annual gross revenue of the Employer was at all times 

material to this action in excess of $500,000.00 per annum. 

10. By reason of the foregoing, the Employer is, and at all times material to this action 

was, an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce as defined in 

Sections 3(r) and 3(s) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C., §§ 203(r) and 203(s). 

CLASS ALLEGATIONS UNDER THE FLSA 

11. The named Plaintiffs are similarly situated to other persons employed as “Local 

Delivery Drivers” and/or “Warehousemen” by the Employer during any part of the five-year 

period preceding the filing of this lawsuit. 

12. The named Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, work or worked for a flat rate 

weekly salary without regard to the number of hours worked. In fact, the Employer does not keep

reliable time-keeping records for hours worked by the Plaintiffs, others similarly situated, or any 

or most of its employees. 

13. The Defendants/Employers have long establish a weekly pay period, with payment 

of wages and compensation scheduled three weeks in arrears.

14. Throughout the period of time covered by this lawsuit, Defendants have failed to 

pay wages to any and all of their employees on the regularly scheduled pay day, withholding wages 

Case 1:20-cv-23459-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 3 of 9
4

until convenient to the employer, often for many weeks later than the scheduled pay day, 

essentially using the wages due to their protected employees as a source of short term, interestfree financing.

15. The Defendants/Employers also require that Plaintiffs, and others similarly 

situated, work in excess of 40 hours per workweek. However, Defendants do not keep reliable 

time records regarding hours worked, and fail to pay the required overtime premium for hours 

worked in excess of forty (40) on given work weeks.

ATTORNEY’S FEES

16. Plaintiffs have engaged the services of the undersigned attorneys and have agreed 

to pay reasonable attorney’s fees for their services. 

ENTITLEMENT TO ATTORNEY’S FEES

17. Plaintiffs and others similarly situated are entitled to an award of prevailing party 

attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 and other 

related authority. Additionally, Plaintiffs are entitled to fees and costs pursuant to Florida Statute 

§448.08, and other related authority.

- COUNT I -

VIOLATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

(Failure to Pay Minimum Wages)

Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, reallege ¶¶ 1-17, as though fully set forth herein.

18. At all times during their employment, the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated 

were employees required to be finally and unconditionally paid a minimum hourly wage for every 

hour worked during the applicable, established pay period. Further, they were entitled to receive 

such compensation on the established regular pay date.

Case 1:20-cv-23459-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 4 of 9
5

19. Throughout Plaintiffs’ employment, the Employer violated the provisions of the 

FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §206 and §215(a)(2) by failing to pay the Plaintiffs, and other similarly situated 

employees, a minimum hourly wage during applicable pay periods by, among other factors: (a) 

failing to finally and unconditionally pay at least the applicable minimum hourly wage for every 

hour worked during numerous covered pay periods as required by law; (b) failing to pay the 

required wages on the date due. 

20. At all times material to this action, the Employer failed to comply with 29 U.S.C. 

Sections 201-219 and 29 C.F.R., Sections 516.1, et. seq. in that Plaintiffs, and those similarly 

situated, performed services for the benefit of the Defendants for which they were paid below the 

minimum wage rates required under both federal law, and under applicable Florida law and 

Constitution, which occasionally higher minimum wage rates are made applicable under the 

FLSA. Other persons who may become plaintiffs in this action also provided labor as hourly-rate 

employees and/or former employees of the Employer and have also been systematically paid less 

than the applicable minimum hourly wage, for the reasons set forth above.

21. The Employer knew or showed a reckless disregard for the provisions of the FLSA 

concerning the timely, complete, and unconditional payment of minimum wages and remains 

owing the named Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees all unpaid minimum hourly

wages for every hour worked during the three year period preceding this lawsuit. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated demand the following: payment of 

minimum wages for every hour worked during every pay period, or as much as is allowed by the 

Fair Labor Standards Act, whichever is greater, in an amount to be proven at the time of trial; an 

additional like amount as liquidated damages; an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, 

and; any and all such other relief which this Court may deem reasonable under the circumstances. 

Case 1:20-cv-23459-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 5 of 9
6

Also, in the event that Plaintiffs do not recover liquidated damages as allowed, then Plaintiffs and 

those similarly situated demand an award of prejudgment interest as a lesser alternative to 

liquidated damages.

- COUNT II -

VIOLATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

(Failure to Pay Overtime Wages)

Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, reallege ¶¶ 1-17, as though fully set forth herein.

22. At all times during their employment, Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, was a 

protected employee required by law to be paid by the hour for work performed for the Employer 

and required to be paid at the rate of one-and-half times his regular hourly rate for those hours he 

worked in excess of forty during any given workweek. 

23. Plaintiffs routinely worked many overtime hours but their overtime hours were 

routinely and systematically not paid at all, or not paid at the applicable premium rate. 

24. Other current and former similarly situated employees of the Employer, who 

performed the same or similar duties for the Employer as Plaintiff, were also not paid overtime 

wages as required by law.

25. At all times material to this action, the Employer failed to comply with 29 U.S.C. 

Sections 201-219; 29 C.F.R., Part 516 – Records to be Kept, and; 29 C.F.R. Part 778 – Overtime 

Compensation, as well as other applicable authority in that Plaintiffs and those similarly situated 

performed services and worked in excess of the maximum hours provided by the FLSA, but no 

adequate provision was made by the Employer to properly pay them at the rate of time-and-a-half 

for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek as provided in the FLSA. Other 

persons who are -- or who may become -- Plaintiffs in this action, also provided labor as hourlyCase 1:20-cv-23459-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 6 of 9
7

rate employees and/or former employees of the Employer. Said other persons were also subject 

to the payroll practices and procedures described above. 

26. The Employer failed to pay overtime compensation to Plaintiffs, and those similarly 

situated, based upon factors to include the following: (a) Plaintiffs were not paid for most of the 

many hours he worked in excess of forty during the vast majority of his workweeks; (b) the 

Employer completely failed to maintain the types of books and records and policies necessary and 

required to establish the commencement of the workweek for overtime wage calculation purposes; 

(c) the Employer has failed to timely disburse overtime compensation during the applicable pay 

period when the excess hours were worked, or ever.

27. The Employer knew and/or showed a reckless disregard for the provisions of the 

FLSA concerning the payment of overtime wages and remains owing Plaintiffs and other similarly

situated employees their overtime wages due from the commencement of their employment and, 

as a result, they are entitled to recover double or liquidated damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated request double damages and 

reasonable attorney’s fees and costs from Defendants, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act as 

cited above to be proven at the time of trial, and for all unpaid overtime wages owing Plaintiffs

and those similarly situated employees for their entire applicable employment period, or as much 

as is allowed by the FLSA, whichever is greater. In the event that Plaintiffs and those similarly 

situated employees do not recover double damages, then Plaintiffs and those similarly situated 

seek an award of prejudgment interest for the unpaid overtime compensation and any and all other 

relief which this Court may deem reasonable under the circumstances.

Case 1:20-cv-23459-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 7 of 9
8

- COUNT III -

BREACH OF AGREEMENT TO PAY WAGES

(Failure to Pay Wages)

Plaintiffs reallege ¶¶ 1 through 17 as though fully set forth herein.

28. At all times during his employment, the Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, were 

employees whom the Employer had agreed to pay a lawful, negotiated wage on a regularly 

scheduled pay day. 

29. The Employer breached the agreement by failing to pay any wage at all, and by 

routinely withholding the payment of wages for many weeks and disbursing wages only when 

convenient for the Defendants.

30. As of the time of this filing, the Employer owed and continues to owe Plaintiffs, 

and others similarly situated, their wages, which are long overdue.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, demand the following: payment of

all accrued unpaid wages and commissions and payments promised under the pay plan, in an 

amount to be proven at the time of trial; accrued interest on those sums at the applicable judgment 

rate of interest, and; an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. 

– COUNT IV –

VIOLATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

(Retaliation by Employers)

Plaintiffs reallege ¶¶ 1 through 17, as though fully set forth herein.

31. Plaintiff Eyeris Rodriguez, and others similarly situated, exercised rights protected 

under the FLSA by complaining and demanding vindication of his right to collect timely payment 

of wages and overtime wages. 

Case 1:20-cv-23459-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 8 of 9
9

32. Shortly after exercising his protected rights under the FLSA, and as a result of such 

exercise, Plaintiff Rodriguez and others similarly situated suffered adverse employment 

consequences. 

33. At all times material to this action, the Employer violated 29 U.S.C. §215(a)(3) in 

that Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff for asserting rights under the FLSA. 

34. The Employer knew and/or showed a reckless disregard of the provisions of the 

FLSA concerning the prohibition against retaliation against the assertion of FLSA rights and thus 

is liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for unpaid wages, compensatory damages, back wages, front 

wages, liquidated damages, punitive damages and other equitable relief. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, demand 

the following: reinstatement of employment, promotion, lost wages, back pay, front pay, 

compensatory damages, pre-judgment interest, and punitive damages pursuant to the Fair Labor 

Standards Act to be proven at the time of trial and for such further relief as may be permitted by 

the FLSA, together with court costs and attorney’s fees.

JURY DEMAND

35. Plaintiffs demands trial by jury of all issues, claims and defenses in this action that 

are triable as of right by a jury.

Dated: August 19, 2020

Anthony F. Sanchez, P.A. 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101

Miami, Florida 33143

Tel.: 305-665-9211

Fax: 305-328-4842

Email: afs@laborlawfla.com

By: /s/ Anthony F. Sanchez

Anthony F. Sanchez

Florida Bar No.789925

Case 1:20-cv-23459-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 9 of 9