www.saenzanderson.com

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

Case No. ________________________

ROBERTO DANIEL SOSA, and other 

similarly situated individuals,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

JABA PRO STONE CORP. d/b/a Jaba Pro 

f/k/a Jaba Professional Services Corp. f/k/a 

Jaba Pro LLC, JOSE BUSTAMANTE and 

VALERIE G. BUSTAMANTE,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

COMPLAINT

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

Plaintiffs, ROBERTO DANIEL SOSA (“Plaintiff”) and other similarly situated

individuals, sue the Defendants, JABA PRO STONE CORP. d/b/a Jaba Pro f/k/a Jaba Professional 

Services Corp. f/k/a Jaba Pro LLC and JOSE BUSTAMANTE and VALERIE G. BUSTAMANTE

(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 is also an action for unpaid wages under Florida law. 

2. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §

201-219 (Section 216 for jurisdictional placement) (“the Act”). The Court has supplemental 

jurisdiction over Florida common law for the recovery of unpaid wages. The facts regarding 

Case 0:20-cv-61699-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2020 Page 1 of 10
www.saenzanderson.com

2

Plaintiff’s state law claims are so related to the Federal claims that they form part of the same case 

or controversy.

VENUE

3. Plaintiff is a resident of Broward County, Florida, within the jurisdiction of this 

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

4. JABA PRO STONE CORP. d/b/a Jaba Pro f/k/a Jaba Professional Services Corp. 

f/k/a Jaba Pro LLC (individually the “Corporate Defendant”), JOSE BUSTAMANTE and 

VALERIE G. BUSTAMANTE (the “Individual Defendants”), are a Florida company and Florida

residents, respectively, having their main place of business in Broward County, Florida, where 

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

commerce.

COUNT I: WAGE AND HOUR VIOLATION BY

JABA PRO STONE CORP (OVERTIME)

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

above as if set out in full herein. 

6. 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 attorney’s 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.”

Case 0:20-cv-61699-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2020 Page 2 of 10
www.saenzanderson.com

3

7. 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 

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. 

8. 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 were and/or are 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 construction company 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 construction worker for the 

Corporate Defendant’s business.

Case 0:20-cv-61699-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2020 Page 3 of 10
www.saenzanderson.com

4

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

average of 50-60 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 construction 

worker performing the same or similar duties as that of those other similarly situated construction 

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

compensation. 

10. Plaintiff worked for the Corporate Defendant from approximately October 3, 2016

to July 13, 2020. In total, Plaintiff worked approximately 152 compensable weeks under the Act, 

or 152 compensable weeks if we count 3 years preceding the date of the filing of the instant action.

11. The Corporate Defendant paid Plaintiff on average approximately $18.50 per hour. 

Plaintiff had raises from $15.00 per hour to $18.50 per hour over the years. 

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

that Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 per week.

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

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

14. In addition, while Plaintiff was employed by the Corporate Defendant, the 

Corporate Defendant unlawfully retained two full weeks’ worth of Plaintiff’s duly earned wages.

15. Corporate Defendant purportedly retained Plaintiff’s duly earned wages in an effort 

to offset moneys that Plaintiff may owe to the Corporate Defendant at the time of termination.

16. Plaintiff does not owe any moneys to the Corporate Defendant.

17. In addition, Corporate Defendant unlawfully deducted the amount of approximately 

$1,446.46 from Plaintiff’s wages because the Plaintiff had allegedly done a bad job.

Case 0:20-cv-61699-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2020 Page 4 of 10
www.saenzanderson.com

5

18. Actions by the Corporate Defendant which are used to offset Plaintiff’s minimum 

or overtime wages are illegal.

19. 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: $28,120.00

i. Calculation: $18.50 (hourly pay) x .5 (overtime rate) x 20 (approximate number 

of overtime hours) x 152 (compensable weeks) = $28,120.00

b. Liquidated Damages: $28,120.00

c. Total Damages: $56,240.00, plus Plaintiff’s two full weeks of wages, plus $1,446.46 

of illegally retained wages, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit.

20. 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.

21. The Corporate Defendant knew and/or showed reckless disregard for the provisions 

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

Case 0:20-cv-61699-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2020 Page 5 of 10
www.saenzanderson.com

6

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

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

to overtime and minimum wage payments. 

22. 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.

23. 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 request that this Honorable Court: 

A. Enter judgment for Plaintiff and other 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. 

COUNT II: WAGE AND HOUR VIOLATION BY

Case 0:20-cv-61699-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2020 Page 6 of 10
www.saenzanderson.com

7

JOSE BUSTAMANTE and VALERIE G. BUSTAMANTE (OVERTIME)

24. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-19

above as if set out in full herein.

25. At the times mentioned, the Individual Defendants were, and are now, the Owners

and/or Officers of the Corporate Defendant. 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 these defendants 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 Defendants had operational control of the Corporate Defendant, were

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

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

26. The Individual Defendants are and were, at all times relevant, persons 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.

27. 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 Defendant as set forth above. 

28. 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 request that this Honorable Court: 

Case 0:20-cv-61699-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2020 Page 7 of 10
www.saenzanderson.com

8

A. Enter judgment for Plaintiff and other 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; 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. 

COUNT III: 

UNPAID WAGES UNDER FLORIDA

COMMON LAW AND FLA. STAT. SEC. 448.08

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

through 23 above as if set out in full herein.

30. The Corporate Defendant employed Plaintiff from approximately October 3, 2016 

to July 13, 2020.

31. While Plaintiff was employed by the Corporate Defendant, the Corporate 

Defendant unlawfully retained two full weeks’ worth of Plaintiff’s duly earned wages.

32. Corporate Defendant purportedly retained Plaintiff’s duly earned wages in an effort 

to offset moneys that Plaintiff may owe to the Corporate Defendant at the time of termination.

33. Plaintiff does not owe any moneys to the Corporate Defendant.

34. In addition, Corporate Defendant unlawfully deducted the amount of approximately 

$1,446.46 from Plaintiff’s wages because the Plaintiff had allegedly done a bad job.

Case 0:20-cv-61699-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2020 Page 8 of 10
www.saenzanderson.com

9

35. Actions by the Corporate Defendant which are used to offset Plaintiff’s minimum 

or overtime wages are illegal.

36. When Corporate Defendant employed Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s last salary rate was 

$18.50 per hour. Plaintiff received salary increases from $15.00 to $18.50 per hour over the years.

37. Corporate Defendant employed Plaintiff as a construction worker.

38. All the hours worked by Plaintiff were worked within the State of Florida. 

39. Corporate Defendant has not paid Plaintiff approximately $2,926.46 in duly earned 

wages.

40. Corporate Defendant owes these unpaid wages to Plaintiff.

41. As a result of Corporate Defendant’s unlawful actions, Plaintiff has been damaged. 

42. Corporate Defendant owes Plaintiff his wages earned under Florida common law 

and attorneys’ fees and costs incurred pursuing this action under Florida Statutes, Section 448.08, 

should the Plaintiff prevail on this claim. 

43. Plaintiff has retained undersigned counsel to represent him in this matter and has 

agreed to pay said firm a reasonable attorney’s fee for its services.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, respectfully requests this Court grant the following relief:

A. An award to Plaintiff for actual damages in the amount shown to be due for unpaid 

wages, with interest;

B. Costs of this action, together with reasonable attorneys' fees;

C. Such other and further relief as this Court deems equitable and just. 

Dated: August 21, 2020. Respectfully submitted,

Case 0:20-cv-61699-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2020 Page 9 of 10
www.saenzanderson.com

10

By: /s/ Tanesha Blye

Tanesha Blye, Esquire

 Fla. Bar No.: 0738158

 Email: tblye@saenzanderson.com

Aron Smukler, Esquire

Fla. Bar No.: 0297779

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

Facsimile: (888) 270-5549

Counsel for Plaintiff(s)

Case 0:20-cv-61699-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2020 Page 10 of 10