www.saenzanderson.com

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

Case No.: 

ESMERIDO OLIVA CHACON, and other 

similarly situated individuals,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

HOMELAND PATROL CORPORATION 

and MIRTHA E. CORDERO,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

COMPLAINT

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

Plaintiffs ESMERIDO OLIVA CHACON (“Plaintiff”) and other similarly situated 

individuals sue defendants HOMELAND PATROL CORPORATION and MIRTHA E.

CORDERO (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 1:20-cv-23264-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2020 Page 1 of 9
www.saenzanderson.com

2

3. HOMELAND PATROL CORPORATION (the “Corporate Defendant”) and 

MIRTHA E. CORDERO (the “Individual Defendant”), are a Florida company and a Florida

resident, respectively, having their main place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida, where 

Plaintiff worked for Defendants, and at all times material hereto were and are engaged in interstate 

commerce. The Individual Defendant, upon information and belief, resides in Miami-Dade, 

Florida.

COUNT I: WAGE AND HOUR VIOLATION BY

HOMELAND PATROL CORPORATION (OVERTIME)

4. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-3 

above as if set out in full herein. 

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

Corporate Defendant 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 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.”

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

U.S.C. § 216(b). The Corporate Defendant is and, at all times pertinent to this Complaint, was 

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

operates as an organization which sells and/or markets its services and/or goods to customers from 

throughout the United States and also provides its services for goods sold and transported from 

Case 1:20-cv-23264-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2020 Page 2 of 9
www.saenzanderson.com

3

across state lines of other states, and the Corporate Defendant obtains and solicits funds from nonFlorida sources, accepts funds from non-Florida sources, uses telephonic transmissions going over 

state lines to do its business, transmits funds outside the State of Florida, and otherwise regularly 

engages in interstate commerce, particularly with respect to its employees. Upon information and 

belief, the annual gross revenue of the Corporate Defendant 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. 

7. By reason of the foregoing, the Corporate Defendant is and was, during all times 

hereafter mentioned, an enterprise 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 

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

The Corporate Defendant is a security guard agency and, through its business activity, affects 

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

commerce. Plaintiff was employed by the Corporate Defendant as a security guard for the 

Corporate Defendant’s business.

8. While employed by the Corporate Defendant, Plaintiff worked approximately an 

average of 60-84 hours per week without being compensated at the rate of not less than one and 

one half times the regular rate at which he was employed. Plaintiff was employed as a security 

guard performing the same or similar duties as that of those other similarly situated security guards

whom Plaintiff observed working in excess of 40 hours per week without overtime compensation. 

Case 1:20-cv-23264-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2020 Page 3 of 9
www.saenzanderson.com

4

9. Plaintiff worked for the Corporate Defendant since approximately August 10, 2018 

to the present. In total, Plaintiff has so far worked approximately 103 compensable weeks under 

the Act, or 103 compensable weeks if we count 3 years back from the filing of the instant action.

10. The Corporate Defendant paid Plaintiff on average approximately $9.50 per hour 

from August 10, 2018 through December 31, 2018, $10.00 per hour from January 1, 2019 through

June 30, 2019, $11.00 per hour from July 1, 2019 – March 31, 2020, and $12.00 per hour from 

April 1, 2020 – August 5, 2020.

11. However, the Corporate Defendant did not properly compensate Plaintiff for hours 

that Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 per week.

12. 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.

13. 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: $21,587.21

i. Calculation for Unpaid Overtime from August 10, 2018 – December 31, 2018: 

$9.50 (approximate hourly pay) x .5 (overtime rate) x 44 (approximate number 

of overtime hours) x 20.57 (compensable weeks) = $4,299.13

ii. Calculation for Unpaid Overtime from January 1, 2019 – June 30, 2019: $10.00

(approximate hourly pay) x .5 (overtime rate) x 44 (approximate number of 

overtime hours) x 25.71 (compensable weeks) = $5,656.20

Case 1:20-cv-23264-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2020 Page 4 of 9
www.saenzanderson.com

5

iii. Calculation for Unpaid Overtime from July 1, 2019 – March 31, 2020: $11.00

(approximate hourly pay) x .5 (overtime rate) x 44 (approximate number of 

overtime hours) x 39.14 (compensable weeks) = $9,471.88

iv. Calculation for Unpaid Overtime from April 1, 2020 – August 5, 2020: $12.00 

(approximate hourly pay) x .5 (overtime rate) x 20 (approximate number of 

overtime hours) x 18 (compensable weeks) = $2,160.00

b. Liquidated Damages: $21,587.21

c. Total Damages: $43,174.42, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit.

14. At all times material hereto, the Corporate Defendant 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 Defendant 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 Defendant who are and who were subject to the unlawful 

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

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

15. The Corporate Defendant 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 Defendant as set forth above, and Plaintiff 

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

Case 1:20-cv-23264-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2020 Page 5 of 9
www.saenzanderson.com

6

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

to overtime and minimum wage payments. 

16. The Corporate Defendant 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 Defendant as set forth above.

17. Plaintiff has retained the law offices of the undersigned attorney to represent 

him/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 

Defendant on the basis of the Corporate Defendant’s willful violations of the Fair Labor 

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

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; and

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

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 Judge of all issues so triable as of 

right. 

Case 1:20-cv-23264-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2020 Page 6 of 9
www.saenzanderson.com

7

COUNT II: WAGE AND HOUR VIOLATION BY

MIRTHA E. CORDERO (OVERTIME)

18. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-17

above as if set out in full herein.

19. At the times mentioned, the Individual Defendant was, and is now, the Owner

and/or Officer of the Corporate Defendant. The Individual Defendant was an employer 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 Defendant in 

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

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

involved in the day-to-day functions of the Corporate Defendant, provided Plaintiff with his/her

work schedule, and is jointly liable for Plaintiff’s damages.

20. The Individual Defendant is and was at all times relevant a person in control of the 

Corporate Defendant’s financial affairs and can cause the Corporate Defendant to compensate (or 

not to compensate) its employees in accordance with the Act.

21. The Individual Defendant 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 Defendant as set forth above. 

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

him/her in this action and is obligated to pay a reasonable attorneys’ fee.

Case 1:20-cv-23264-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2020 Page 7 of 9
www.saenzanderson.com

8

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 Individual 

Defendant 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; and

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; and

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

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 Judge of all issues so triable as of 

right.

Dated: August 5, 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

Case 1:20-cv-23264-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2020 Page 8 of 9
www.saenzanderson.com

9

Aventura, Florida 33180

Telephone: (305) 503-5131

Facsimile: (888) 270-5549

Case 1:20-cv-23264-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2020 Page 9 of 9