Page 1 of 17

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 

ANTHONY ORTUETA,

and other similarly situated individuals,

Plaintiff (s),

v. 

TRUE GRADE, LLC, and

ANTONIO MALAVE, individually,

Defendants,

________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT

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

COMES NOW the Plaintiff ANTHONY ORTUETA, and other similarly situated

individuals, by and through the undersigned counsel, and hereby sues Defendants TRUE GRADE, 

LLC, and ANTONIO MALAVE, individually, and alleges: 

JURISDICTION AND VENUES

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”).

2. The Plaintiff also brings an action under Florida State law, pursuant to the Florida Private 

Sector Whistleblower’s Act, Section 448.10.

3. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 and §1343. 

Case 1:20-cv-23138-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 1 of 17
Page 2 of 17

4. Plaintiff invokes this Court’s supplemental and pendant jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state 

law claims because they arise out of the same nucleus of operative facts as the federal Case, 

and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1332 and 1367. 

5. The venue of this action is properly placed in the Southern District of Florida, Miami

Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b), since the employment practices hereafter alleged 

to be unlawful, were committed in Miami-Dade County, within the jurisdiction of this 

Honorable Court. 

PARTIES

6. The Plaintiff ANTHONY ORTUETA is a resident of Dade County, Florida, within the 

jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. The Plaintiff was a covered employee for purposes 

of the Act.

7. Defendant TRUE GRADE, LLC, (hereinafter TRUE GRADE, LLC, or Defendant) is a 

Florida corporation, having its main place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida. At 

all times, the Defendant was and is engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of 

the FLSA.

8. The individual Defendant ANTONIO MALAVE was and is now, the owner/officer and 

manager of Defendant Corporation TRUE GRADE, LLC. Defendant ANTONIO 

MALAVE is the employer of Plaintiff and others similarly situated within the meaning of 

Section 3(d) of the “Fair Labor Standards Act” [29 U.S.C. § 203(d)].

9. All the actions raised in this complaint took place in Miami/Dade County Florida, within 

the jurisdiction of this Court.

Case 1:20-cv-23138-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 2 of 17
Page 3 of 17

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

10. Defendant TRUE GRADE, LLC is a food and beverage wholesaler distributor. Defendant 

TRUE GRADE, LLC, specializes in the seafood market and sells its products to 

wholesalers, retailers, schools, and cruise lines. Defendant’s corporate offices are located 

at 7200 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 100, Miami, Florida 33126. 

11. Defendants TRUE GRADE, LLC, and ANTONIO MALAVE employed the Plaintiff 

ANTHONY ORTUETA, from approximately from January 2017, to July 06, 2020, or 181 

weeks. However, for FLSA purposes, Plaintiff’s relevant period of employment is 142 

weeks. (Plaintiff did not work for approximately 3 months, or 12 weeks during August, 

September, and October 2019).

12. Plaintiff was hired as a non-exempted, full-time, warehouse employee. Plaintiff performed 

the same duties as many others similarly situated employees, which consisted on general 

cold storage/warehouse work, such as receiving cargo, counting pieces, icing fish, 

organizing merchandise in the racks, pulling orders, palletizing, shrink wrapping, moving 

cargo around the warehouse, cleaning, disposing of garbage, etc. Plaintiff never performed 

activities affecting the safety of operation of motor vehicles. Plaintiff never exercised any 

discretion or judgment in any planning, building, placing, distribution, or balancing any 

pallet, container, or loose cargo. Plaintiff never performed activities affecting the safety of 

operation of motor vehicles. At the moment of his termination, Plaintiff was a lead receiver.

13. During his relevant time of employment, Plaintiff had a regular schedule, he worked 6 days 

per week from Monday to Saturday, from approximately 9:00 AM to 11:00 PM. (14 hours

each day). Plaintiff completed a minimum of 84 working hours every week.

Case 1:20-cv-23138-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 3 of 17
Page 4 of 17

14. Within his relevant time of employment, the Plaintiff was compensated with a salary, and 

with an hourly wage rate. Plaintiff was paid as follows:

15. 1.- From July 21, 2017, to July 31, 2019, or 106 weeks

Plaintiff worked approximately 84 hours weekly, he was paid a salary of $700.00 weekly, 

or $8.34 an hour. Plaintiff was not paid for overtime hours. Plaintiff should have been paid 

half-time overtime for every hour that he worked over 40 in a week. In this period, the 

Plaintiff did not clock in and out, and he was not provided with paystubs.

16. 2.- From November 01, 2019, to December 21, 2019, or 7 weeks (Plaintiff did not work 

August, September, and October 2019).

Plaintiff worked approximately 84 hours weekly, he was paid a salary of $850.00 weekly, 

or $10.12 an hour. Plaintiff was not paid for overtime hours. Plaintiff should have been 

paid half-time overtime for every hour that he worked over 40 in a week. In this period, 

the Plaintiff did not clock in and out, and he was not provided with paystubs. 

17. 3.- From December 22, 2019, to July 06, 2020, or 29 weeks 

In this period, the Plaintiff became an hourly paid employee, his wage-rate was $17.00 an 

hour. The Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours weekly, Plaintiff clocked in and out and he 

was paid for overtime hours. Plaintiff was not able to take bonafide lunch periods. 

However, Defendants improperly deducted from Plaintiff’s wages 1 hour daily as a lunch 

break or 6 hours in a week. These 6 hours improperly deducted, constitute 6 unpaid 

overtime hours.

18. At all times during his employment, the Defendants were able to track the number of hours 

worked by Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals. Even though Plaintiff worked 

Case 1:20-cv-23138-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 4 of 17
Page 5 of 17

more than 40 hours, he was not paid for overtime hours during a substantial number of 

weeks.

19. Therefore, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime hours at the rate of time 

and one-half his regular rate for every hour that he worked more than forty (40), in violation 

of Section 7 (a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 207(a)(1). and 29 

U.S.C. § 201 et seq.

20. At least during the time in which the Plaintiff was a salaried employee, the Plaintiff was 

paid without paystubs or any other record showing basic information about the real number 

of days and hours worked, wage rate paid and employment taxes withheld.

21. On or about June 25, 2020, while working at the warehouse, the owner of the business 

ANTONIO MALAVE approached Plaintiff and ordered him to change the expiration dates 

on a lot of frozen swai fish fillets sold to a cruise line. Plaintiff refused to participate in the 

illegal activity and did not follow the orders of his superior. 

22. As a result, on or about July 06, 2020, Manager Jimmy Hidalgo stated that owner 

ANTONIO MALAVE said to fire Plaintiff because the business was slow, which was not 

true.

23. The retaliatory actions described above were conducted by Defendants because Plaintiff 

objected to and refused to participate in unlawful activities.

24. The above-described actions of Defendants constitute a violation of the Florida Private 

Whistleblower’s Act, Section 448.102(3).

25. The Plaintiff is not in possession of time and payment records, but he will offer a 

preliminary good faith estimate of his unpaid overtime hours based on his best 

recollections. The Plaintiff will adjust his statement of claim after proper discovery. 

Case 1:20-cv-23138-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 5 of 17
Page 6 of 17

26. Plaintiff ANTHONY ORTUETA seeks to recover unpaid overtime hours, liquidated 

damages, retaliatory damages under the Florida Private Whistleblower’s Act, Section 

448.102(3), and any other relief, as allowable by law. 

27. The additional persons who may become Plaintiffs in this action are weekly-paid 

employees and/or former employees of Defendants who are and who were subject to the 

unlawful payroll practices and procedures of Defendants and were not paid regular wages, 

or overtime hours at the rate of time and one half of their regular rate of pay for all overtime 

hours worked over forty. 

COUNT I:

WAGE AND HOUR FEDERAL STATUTORY VIOLATION;

FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME, AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

28. Plaintiff ANTHONY ORTUETA re-adopts every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 

1-27 above as if set out in full herein. 

29. This cause of action is brought by Plaintiff ANTHONY ORTUETA as a collective action 

to recover from the Defendant overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, and 

reasonable attorney’s fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as 

amended, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq (the “FLA or the “ACT”), on behalf of Plaintiff and all 

other current and former employees similarly situated to Plaintiff (“the asserted class”) and 

who worked in excess of forty (40) hours during one or more weeks on or after July 2017, 

(the “material time”) without being compensated “at a rate not less than one and a half 

times the regular rate at which he is employed.”

30. At all times pertinent to this Complaint, the Employer/Defendant is and was, during all 

times hereafter mentioned, an enterprise engaged in commerce or 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). the 

Case 1:20-cv-23138-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 6 of 17
Page 7 of 17

Employer/Defendant operates as a cold storage/warehouse/distribution company that sells 

and/or markets its services and/or goods to customers from throughout the United States. 

The Employer/Defendant employs more than two employees affecting interstate 

commerce. The Employer/Defendant uses the instrumentalities of interstate commerce and 

otherwise regularly engages in interstate commerce, particularly concerning its employees. 

Upon information and belief, the annual gross revenue of the Employer/Defendant was 

always, more than $500,000 per annum. Therefore, there is FLSA enterprise coverage.

31. The Plaintiff was employed by an enterprise engaged in interstate commerce. Plaintiff was 

a warehouse worker who was directly engaged in interstate commerce by handling and 

shipping merchandise out of state locations. Thus, Plaintiff was a covered employee for 

the Act. Therefore, there is FLSA individual coverage.

32. Defendants TRUE GRADE, LLC, and ANTONIO MALAVE employed the Plaintiff 

ANTHONY ORTUETA, from approximately from January 2017, to July 06, 2020, or 181 

weeks. However, for FLSA purposes, Plaintiff’s relevant period of employment is 142 

weeks. (Plaintiff did not work for approximately 3 months, or 12 weeks during August, 

September, and October 2019).

33. Plaintiff was hired as a non-exempted, full-time, warehouse employee. 

34. During his relevant time of employment, Plaintiff had a regular schedule, he worked 6 days 

per week a minimum of 84 hours.

35. Within his relevant time of employment, the Plaintiff was compensated with a salary, and 

with an hourly wage rate. Plaintiff was paid as follows:

36. 1.- From July 21, 2017, to July 31, 2019, or 106 weeks

Case 1:20-cv-23138-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 7 of 17
Page 8 of 17

Plaintiff worked approximately 84 hours weekly, he was paid a salary of $700.00 weekly, 

or $8.34 an hour. Plaintiff was not paid for overtime hours. Plaintiff should have been paid 

half-time overtime for every hour that he worked over 40 in a week. In this period, the 

Plaintiff did not clock in and out, and he was not provided with paystubs. 

37. 2.- From November 01, 2019, to December 21, 2019, or 7 weeks (Plaintiff did not work 

August, September, and October 2019).

Plaintiff worked approximately 84 hours weekly, he was paid a salary of $850.00 weekly, 

or $10.12 an hour. Plaintiff was not paid for overtime hours. Plaintiff should have been 

paid half-time overtime for every hour that he worked over 40 in a week. In this period, 

the Plaintiff did not clock in and out, and he was not provided with paystubs. 

38. 3.- From December 22, 2019, to July 06, 2020, or 29 weeks 

In this period, the Plaintiff became an hourly paid employee, his wage-rate was $17.00 an 

hour. The Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours weekly, Plaintiff clocked in and out and he 

was paid for overtime hours. Plaintiff was not able to take bonafide lunch periods. 

However, Defendants improperly deducted from Plaintiff’s wages 1 hour daily as a lunch 

break or 6 hours in a week. These 6 hours improperly deducted, constitute 6 unpaid 

overtime hours.

39. At all times during his employment with Defendants, they were able to track the number 

of hours worked by Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals. Even though Plaintiff 

worked more than 40 hours, he was not paid for overtime hours during a substantial number 

of weeks.

40. Therefore, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime hours at the rate of time 

and one-half his regular rate for every hour that he worked more than forty (40), in violation 

Case 1:20-cv-23138-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 8 of 17
Page 9 of 17

of Section 7 (a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 207(a)(1). and 29 

U.S.C. § 201 et seq.

41. At least during the time in which the Plaintiff was a salaried employee, the Plaintiff was 

paid without paystubs or any other record showing basic information about the real number 

of days and hours worked, wage rate paid and employment taxes withheld.

42. The records, if any, concerning the number of hours worked by the Plaintiff and those 

similarly situated, and the compensation paid to such employees should be in the 

possession and custody of the Defendant. However, upon information and belief, 

Defendant did not maintain time accurate records of hours worked by the Plaintiff and 

other employees. 

43. Defendants violated the record-keeping requirements of FLSA, 29 CFR Part 516.

44. Defendants never posted any notice, as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and 

Federal Law, to inform employees of their Federal rights to overtime and minimum wage 

payments. Defendants violated the Posting requirements of 29 U.S.C. § 516.4.

45. The Plaintiff is not in possession of time and payment records, but he will offer a 

preliminary good faith estimate of his unpaid overtime hours based on his best 

recollections. The Plaintiff will adjust his statement of claim after proper discovery. 

*Please note that these amounts are based on a preliminary calculation and that these 

figures could be subject to modification as discovery could dictate.

 **Florida minimum wage is higher than federal minimum wage, as per FLSA 

 regulations the higher minimum wage rate applies.

 

a. Total amount of alleged unpaid O/T wages:

 Twenty-Five Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty-Four Dollars and 20/100

 ($25,724.20)

b. Calculation of such wages:

Case 1:20-cv-23138-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 9 of 17
Page 10 of 17

Total time of Employment: 181 weeks

Relevant weeks of employment: 142 weeks 

Total number of hours worked: 84 hours weekly average

Total overtime hours: 44 weekly average

 1.- Overtime from July 21, 2017, to July 31, 2019, or 106 weeks

Relevant weeks of employment: 142 weeks 

Total number of hours worked: 84 hours weekly average

Total overtime hours: 44 weekly average

Salary: $700.00 weekly:84 hours= $8.58 regular rate

Regular wage rate: $8.34 

Fl Min. wage: $8.46 an hour x 1.5=$12.69 O/T rate-$8.46 rate paid=$4.23

Half-time rate: $4.23 difference

 O/T half-time difference $4.23 x 44 O/T hours=$186.12 weekly

 $186.12 x 106 weeks=$19,728.72

 2.- Overtime from November 01, 2019, to December 21, 2019, or 7 weeks

Relevant weeks of employment: 7 weeks 

Total number of hours worked: 84 hours weekly average

Total overtime hours: 44 weekly average

Salary: $850.00 weekly: 84 hours= $10.12 regular rate

Regular wage rate: $10.12 an hour x 1.5=$15.18 O/T rate

O/T rate $15.18-$10.12 rate paid = $5.06 an hour half-time difference

Half-time rate: $5.06 difference

 O/T half-time difference $5.06 x 44 O/T hours=$222.64 weekly 

 $222.64 weekly x 7 weeks=$1,558.48

 3.- Overtime from December 22, 2019, to July 06, 2020, or 29 weeks 

Relevant weeks of employment: 29 weeks 

Total number of hours worked: 84 hours weekly average

Total unpaid overtime hours: 6 hours weekly (6 lunch hours)

Wage rate: $17.00 an hour x 1.5=$25.50 O/T rate

O/T rate: $25.50 

 O/T rate $25.50 x 6 O/T hours=$153.00 weekly x 29 weeks= $4,437.00

 

 Total #1, #2, and #3: $25,724.20

Case 1:20-cv-23138-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 10 of 17
Page 11 of 17

c. Nature of wages (e.g. overtime or straight time):

 This amount represents unpaid overtime wages.

46. At all times material hereto, the Employers/Defendants failed to comply with Title 29 

U.S.C. §207 (a) (1), in that Plaintiff and those similarly-situated performed services and 

worked more than the maximum hours provided by the Act, but no provision was made by 

the Defendant to properly pay them at the rate of time and one half for all hours worked 

over forty hours (40) per workweek as provided in said Act. 

47. Defendants knew and/or showed reckless disregard of the provisions of the Act concerning 

the payment of overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and remain

owing Plaintiff and those similarly-situated these overtime wages since the commencement 

of Plaintiff’s and those similarly-situated employee’s employment with Defendant as set 

forth above, and Plaintiff and those similarly-situated are entitled to recover double 

damages. 

48. At the times mentioned, individual Defendant ANTONIO MALAVE was the 

owner/partner/manager of TRUE GRADE, LLC. Defendant ANTONIO MALAVE was 

the employer of Plaintiff and others similarly situated within the meaning of Section 3(d) 

of the “Fair Labor Standards Act” [29 U.S.C. § 203(d)]. In that, this individual Defendant 

acted directly in the interests of TRUE GRADE, LLC concerning its employees, including 

Plaintiff and others similarly situated. Defendant ANTONIO MALAVE had absolute 

financial and operational control of the Corporation, determining terms, and working 

conditions of Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, and he is jointly and 

severally liable for Plaintiff’s damages. 

49. Defendants TRUE GRADE, LLC, and ANTONIO MALAVE willfully and intentionally 

refused to pay Plaintiff overtime wages at the rate of time and one half his regular rate, as 

Case 1:20-cv-23138-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 11 of 17
Page 12 of 17

required by the law of the United States and remains owing Plaintiff these overtime wages 

since the commencement of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant as set forth above. 

50. The Plaintiff has retained the law offices of the undersigned attorney to represent him in 

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

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and those similarly situated respectfully requests that this Honorable 

Court: 

A. Enter judgment for Plaintiff ANTHONY ORTUETA and other similarly situated 

individuals and against the Defendants TRUE GRADE, LLC, and ANTONIO MALAVE

TRUE GRADE, LLC, on Defendants’ willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards 

Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.; and

B. Award Plaintiff ANTHONY ORTUETA actual damages in the amount shown to be 

due for unpaid overtime compensation for hours worked more than forty weekly, with 

interests; 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 and/or 

available pursuant to Federal Law. 

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff ANTHONY ORTUETA demands trial by a jury of all issues triable as of right by a jury.

COUNT II:

Case 1:20-cv-23138-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 12 of 17
Page 13 of 17

VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA PRIVATE SECTOR WHISTLEBLOWER’S ACT, 

SECTION 448.102 (3) AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

51. Plaintiff re-adopts every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-26 of this complaint 

as if set out in full herein. 

52. The Defendant TRUE GRADE, LLC is a food and beverage wholesaler distributor. 

Defendant TRUE GRADE, LLC, specializes in the seafood market and sells its products 

to wholesalers, retailers, schools, and cruise lines. Defendant’s corporate offices are 

located at 7200 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 100, Miami, Florida 33126. 

53. Defendant TRUE GRADE, LLC, employs ten or more persons, and it is the employer of 

Plaintiff within the meaning of Section 3 (d) of the “Fair Labor Standards Act” [29 U.S.C. 

§ 203(d)], and the FWA section 448.101 (3). 

54. The individual Defendant ANTONIO MALAVE was and is now, the owner/officer and 

manager of Defendant Corporation TRUE GRADE, LLC. Defendant ANTONIO 

MALAVE was an “employer” of Plaintiff within the meaning of Section 3(d) of the “Fair 

Labor Standards Act” [29 U.S.C. § 203(d)], and the FWA section 448.101 (3), and he is 

jointly liable for Plaintiff’s damages.

55. Defendants TRUE GRADE, LLC, and ANTONIO MALAVE employed the Plaintiff 

ANTHONY ORTUETA, from approximately from January 2017, to July 06, 2020, or 181 

weeks. However, for FLSA purposes, Plaintiff’s relevant period of employment is 142 

weeks. 

56. Plaintiff was hired as a non-exempted, full-time, warehouse employee. Plaintiff performed 

the same duties as many other similarly situated employees, which consisted of general 

cold storage/warehouse work, such as receiving cargo, counting pieces, icing fish, 

organizing merchandise in the racks, pulling orders, palletizing, shrink wrapping, moving 

Case 1:20-cv-23138-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 13 of 17
Page 14 of 17

cargo around the warehouse, etc. At the moment of his termination, Plaintiff was a lead 

receiver.

57. On or about June 25, 2020, while working at the Defendants’ warehouse, the owner of the 

business ANTONIO MALAVE approached Plaintiff and ordered him to change the 

production and expiration dates labeling on a lot of frozen swai fish fillets sold to Royal 

Caribbean Cruises, LTD. (“RCCL”). Plaintiff refused to participate in the illegal activity 

and did not follow the orders of his superior. 

58. Plaintiff ANTHONY ORTUETA objected to the illegal employment practices of 

Defendants concerning “Food Tampering”.

59. As a result, on or about July 06, 2020, Manager Jimmy Hidalgo stated that owner 

ANTONIO MALAVE said to fire Plaintiff because the business was slow, which was not 

true.

60. The retaliatory actions described above were conducted by Defendants because Plaintiff 

objected to and refused to participate in unlawful activities.

61. The above-described actions of Defendants constitute a violation of the Florida Private 

Whistleblower’s Act, Section 448.102(3).

62. Plaintiff ANTHONY ORTUETA was subjected to adverse employment actions such as his 

termination from his employment with Defendants as a direct result of, and in retaliation 

for his opposition, and his reporting refusal to participate in fraudulent practices in 

violation of the Florida Anti-Tampering Act, Fl Statute § 501.001, and other laws, rules 

and regulations.

63. The retaliatory actions described above were conducted by Defendants because Plaintiff 

objected to and refused to participate in unlawful activities.

Case 1:20-cv-23138-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 14 of 17
Page 15 of 17

64. The above-described actions of Defendants constitute a violation of the Florida Private 

Whistleblower’s Act, Section 448.102(3).

65. At all times material hereto, the Employers/Defendants failed to comply with Florida’s 

private sector Whistleblower’s Act, Florida Statute Section 448.102 (1), which provides, 

in relevant part: “An employer may not take any retaliatory personnel action against an 

employee because the employee has: ...(3) Objected to, or refused to participate in, any 

activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or 

regulation.”

66. The discharge of Plaintiff by Defendants was based on Plaintiff’s refusal, complaining,

and objecting to illegal activities.

67. At all relevant times, including the time of termination of the Plaintiff, Defendants were 

aware of Plaintiff’s rights as an employee. 

68. At the time of termination from employment, the Plaintiff did perform and excel at the 

performance of the essential functions of his position. 

69. The Plaintiff was qualified for the position. 

70. The Defendants’ actions were malicious and were recklessly indifferent to the Plaintiff’s 

rights under Florida’s Private Sector Whistleblower’s Act, Florida Statute section 448.102, 

protecting a person from retaliation for opposing illegal conduct.

71. The actions of Defendants were done wantonly, willfully, maliciously, and with reckless 

disregard of the consequences of such actions.

72. At the times mentioned, individual Defendant ANTONIO MALAVE was the 

owner/partner/manager of TRUE GRADE, LLC. Defendant ANTONIO MALAVE was 

the employer of Plaintiff and others similarly situated within the meaning of Section 3(d) 

Case 1:20-cv-23138-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 15 of 17
Page 16 of 17

of the “Fair Labor Standards Act” [29 U.S.C. § 203(d)]. In that, this individual Defendant 

acted directly in the interests of TRUE GRADE, LLC concerning its employees, including 

Plaintiff and others similarly situated. Defendant ANTONIO MALAVE had absolute 

financial and operational control of the Corporation, determining terms, and working 

conditions of Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, and he is jointly and 

severally liable for Plaintiff’s damages. 

73. Plaintiff has retained the law offices of the undersigned attorney to represent him in this 

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

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff ANTHONY ORTUETA respectfully requests that this court order the 

following:

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining TRUE GRADE, LLC, and ANTONIO 

MALAVE, officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or 

participation with it, from engaging in any employment practice which violates the 

Florida Whistleblower’s Act.

B. Reinstate Plaintiff ANTHONY ORTUETA to the same position he held before the 

retaliatory personnel action, or to an equivalent position.

C. Reinstate full fringe benefits and seniority rights to Plaintiff ANTHONY ORTUETA.

D. Order Defendants TRUE GRADE, LLC and ANTONIO MALAVE to make Plaintiffs 

whole, by compensating Plaintiff ANTHONY ORTUETA for lost wages, benefits, 

including front pay, back pay with prejudgment interest and other remuneration for 

mental pain, anguish, pain and humiliation from being terminated due to his refusal to 

participate in illegal actions of Defendants. 

E. For a money judgment representing prejudgment interest.

Case 1:20-cv-23138-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 16 of 17
Page 17 of 17

F. Award any other compensation allowed by law including punitive damages, attorney’s 

fees (448.104), and further demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiff ANTHONY ORTUETA and those similarly situated demand trial by a jury of all issues 

triable as of right by a jury.

Dated: July 29, 2020

 Respectfully submitted,

 

 By: _/s/ Zandro E. Palma____

 ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.

 Florida Bar No.: 0024031

 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd.

 Suite 1500

 Miami, FL 33156

 Telephone: (305) 446-1500

 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502

 zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

 Attorney for Plaintiff

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-23138-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 17 of 17