7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450, Miami, Florida 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:20-CV-22725

ELMY ALONSO,

Plaintiff,

vs.

AVENTURA WORLDWIDE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, INC.,

AVENTURA LIMOUSINE & TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, INC.,

SRT WORLDWIDE LLC,

SCOTT TINKLER, and

NICHOLAS M. SORCI,

Defendants.

______________________________/

COMPLAINT FOR FLSA VIOLATION(S)

Plaintiff, Elmy Alonso, sues Defendants, Aventura Worldwide Transportation Service, 

Inc., Aventura Limousine & Transportation Service, Inc., SRT Worldwide LLC, Scott Tinkler, 

and Nicholas Sorci, as follows:

Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue

1. Plaintiff, Elmy Alonso, is over 18 years old and has been a sui juris resident of 

Miami-Dade County, Florida, at all times material. 

2. Plaintiff was an hourly employee of Defendants, as the term “employee” is defined 

by 29 U.S.C. §203(e).

3. Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee of Defendants.

4. Plaintiff consents to participate in this lawsuit.

5. Defendant, Aventura Worldwide Transportation Service, Inc., is a sui 

juris Florida for-profit corporation that conducted its for-profit private transportation business in 

Case 1:20-cv-22725-KMM Document 2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 1 of 9
7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450, Miami, Florida 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

2

Miami-Dade, Broward, and surrounding Counties in Florida, at all times material. It maintained 

its principal place of business in this District.

6. Defendant, Aventura Limousine & Transportation Service, Inc., is a sui 

juris Florida for-profit corporation that conducted its for-profit private transportation business in 

Miami-Dade, Broward, and surrounding Counties in Florida, at all times material. It maintained 

its principal place of business in this District.

7. Defendant, SRT Worldwide LLC (“SRT”), is a sui juris Florida for-profit 

corporation that conducted its for-profit private transportation business in Miami-Dade, 

Broward, and surrounding Counties in Florida, at all times material. It maintained its principal 

place of business in this District. 

8. Defendants, Aventura Worldwide Transportation Service, Inc., Aventura 

Limousine & Transportation Service, Inc., SRT Worldwide LLC, utilized the same dispatchers, 

kept the keys to their vehicles in the same bucket, operated out of the same office, and did not 

distinguish between one another to the public in their operations, which were conducted from a 

unified workforce, through unified operations, and under direction/control of the same 

individuals.

9. Defendants, Aventura Worldwide Transportation Service, Inc., Aventura 

Limousine & Transportation Service, Inc., and SRT Worldwide LLC, also utilized the same 

website (www.aventuralimo.com) to attract clients. 

10. Defendant, Scott Tinkler, was at all times material an owner/officer/director 

of Aventura Worldwide Transportation Service, Inc. and Aventura Limousine & Transportation 

Service, Inc., for the time period relevant to this lawsuit. He ran their day-to-day operations, 

supervised Plaintiff, was responsible for all operational decisions, and was partially or totally 

Case 1:20-cv-22725-KMM Document 2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 2 of 9
7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450, Miami, Florida 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

3

responsible for paying Plaintiff’s wages.

11. Defendant, Nicholas Sorci, was at all times material the general manager for 

Aventura Limo and received a salary and car allowance from Aventura Worldwide 

Transportation Service, Inc. and/or Aventura Limousine & Transportation Service, Inc. for the 

time period relevant to this lawsuit. At all times material, he also the day-to-day operations of 

Aventura Worldwide Transportation Service, Inc., Aventura Limousine & Transportation 

Service, Inc., and SRT, supervised Plaintiff, was responsible for all operational decisions, and was 

partially or totally responsible for paying Plaintiff’s wages.

12. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(ii) because Defendants transact 

business in this District, because Defendants, maintained their principal places of business in this 

District, because Plaintiff worked and was due to be paid in Miami-Dade County, and because 

most if not all of the operational decisions were made in this District.

13. This Court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s federal question claims 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 and 26 U.S.C. §201, et seq.

14. Any/all condition(s) precedent to filing this lawsuit occurred and/or was satisfied 

by Plaintiff.

15. Plaintiff retained the undersigned counsel and agreed to pay a reasonable fee for 

all services rendered.

Background Facts

16. Defendants were Plaintiff’s direct employers, joint employers and co-employers 

for purposes of the FLSA, as the term “employer” is defined by 29 U.S.C. §203(d). 

17. Defendants regularly employed two or more employees for the relevant time 

period that handled goods or materials that travelled through interstate commerce, or used 

Case 1:20-cv-22725-KMM Document 2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 3 of 9
7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450, Miami, Florida 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

4

instrumentalities of interstate commerce, thus making Defendants’ business an enterprise covered 

by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

18. Defendants have been at all times material engaged in interstate commerce in the 

course of their transportation of people to and from locations within South Florida which, 

traditionally, cannot be performed without using computers, monitors, computer networking 

equipment, phones, fuel, tires, vehicles, goods, fluids, materials, supplies, and equipment that 

have all moved through interstate commerce. 

19. Defendants also engage in interstate commerce in the course of their submission 

of billings and receipt of payment involving out-of-state payors. 

20. Furthermore, Defendants obtain, solicit, exchange and send funds to and from 

outside of the State of Florida, regularly and recurrently use telephonic transmissions going 

outside of the State of Florida to conduct business, and regularly and recurrently transmit 

electronic information through computers, the internet, via email, and otherwise outside of the 

State of Florida in the course of their business.

21. Defendants’ annual gross revenues derived from this interstate commerce are 

believed to be in excess of $500,000.00 and/or in excess of $125,000.00 for each fiscal quarter 

during the relevant time period.

22. During this time, Plaintiff regularly and routinely utilized vehicles, cellular 

telephones, fuel, and other goods and supplies that moved through interstate commerce.

23. Plaintiff worked as an employee of Defendants from 2015 to October 2018. 

24. To the extent that records exist regarding the exact dates of Plaintiff’s 

employment exist, such records are believed to be in Defendants’ custody.

25. Defendants established Plaintiff’s schedule.

Case 1:20-cv-22725-KMM Document 2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 4 of 9
7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450, Miami, Florida 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

5

26. Defendants provided Plaintiff with the vehicle(s) he drove.

27. Defendants paid to maintain (such as for tires, oil changes, and brakes) for the 

vehicles that Plaintiff drove.

28. Defendants paid Plaintiff a flat (“piece”) rate for each trip that he performed for 

them, which trip rate varied depending on the trip he performed.

29. Defendants did not pay Plaintiff for any of the time that he spent engaged to wait 

for them.

30. Defendants did not pay Plaintiff for the time he spent maintaining the vehicle(s) 

they provided to him, such as washing/cleaning the interior or exterior of the vehicle.

31. Although Defendants’ customers would pay tips to Defendants for the work 

performed by Plaintiff, Defendants would not remit those tips to Plaintiff, and would instead 

retain those tips for themselves.

32. Plaintiff retained the undersigned counsel and agreed to pay a reasonable fee for 

all services rendered.

COUNT I – FLSA MINIMUM WAGE VIOLATION(S)

Plaintiff, Elmy Alonso, reincorporates and re-alleges all preceding paragraphs as though 

set forth fully herein and further alleges as follows:

33. Defendants failed and refused to pay Plaintiff the tips that he earned and/or that 

were required to be tendered to him.

34. Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff minimum wages 

(tips) that he earned and/or that were required to be tendered to him.

35. Defendants have been the subject of multiple prior lawsuits (and arbitrations) 

involving the FLSA.

Case 1:20-cv-22725-KMM Document 2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 5 of 9
7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450, Miami, Florida 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

6

36. Defendants either recklessly failed to investigate whether their failure to pay 

Plaintiff an overtime wage for the hours he worked during the relevant time period violated the 

Federal Wage Laws of the United States, they intentionally misled Plaintiff to believe that 

Defendants were not required to tender the tips to him, and/or Defendants concocted a scheme 

pursuant to which the deprived Plaintiff of the minimum wage pay (tips) he earned.

37. Plaintiff is entitled to a backpay award of minimum wages (tips) for all tips earned 

by and/or that should have been distributed to Plaintiff, plus an equal amount as a penalty, plus 

all attorneys’ fees and costs.

WHEREFORE Plaintiff, Elmy Alonso, demands the entry of a judgment in his favor and 

against Defendants, Aventura Worldwide Transportation Service, Inc., Aventura Limousine & 

Transportation Service, Inc., SRT Worldwide LLC, Scott Tinkler, and Nicholas Sorci, jointly 

and severally after trial by jury, and as follows:

a. That Plaintiff recover compensatory minimum wage damages (tips) and an 

equal amount of liquidated damages as provided under the law and in 29 

U.S.C. § 216(b);

b. That Plaintiff recover pre-judgment interest on all unpaid minimum wages 

(tips) if the Court does not award liquidated damages;

c. That Plaintiff recover an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and 

expenses pursuant to the FLSA;

d. That Plaintiff recover all interest allowed by law;

e. That Defendants be Ordered to make Plaintiff whole by providing 

appropriate minimum wage pay (tips) and other benefits wrongly denied in 

an amount to be shown at trial and other affirmative relief; 

Case 1:20-cv-22725-KMM Document 2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 6 of 9
7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450, Miami, Florida 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

7

f. That the Court declare Defendants to be in willful violation of the 

overtime provisions of the FLSA; and 

g. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

COUNT II – FLSA OVERTIME VIOLATION(S)

Plaintiff, Elmy Alonso, reincorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 32 as though 

set forth fully herein and further alleges as follows:

38. Plaintiff would regularly and routinely work more than 40 hours in a workweek 

for Defendants.

39. Defendants failed and refused to pay Plaintiff overtime wages calculated at time 

and one-half times his regular hourly rate(s) of pay for all of the hours that he worked over 40 

hours in a given workweek by improperly deducting overtime hours he worked from his 

compensable time / paychecks.

40. Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff wages at a rate of 

time and one-half times his regular rate of pay for each of the overtime hours he worked during 

the relevant time period by paying Plaintiff for up to 40 hours each week without paying him 

overtime wages for all of the overtime hours he worked.

41. Defendants either recklessly failed to investigate whether their failure to pay 

Plaintiff an overtime wage for the hours he worked during the relevant time period violated the 

Federal Wage Laws of the United States, they intentionally misled Plaintiff to believe that 

Defendants were not required to pay an overtime rate, and/or Defendants concocted a scheme 

pursuant to which the deprived Plaintiff the overtime pay earned.

42. Plaintiff is entitled to a backpay award of overtime wages for all overtime hours he 

worked, plus an equal amount as a penalty, plus all attorneys’ fees and costs.

Case 1:20-cv-22725-KMM Document 2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 7 of 9
7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450, Miami, Florida 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

8

WHEREFORE Plaintiff, Elmy Alonso, demands the entry of a judgment in his favor and 

against Defendants, Aventura Worldwide Transportation Service, Inc., Aventura Limousine & 

Transportation Service, Inc., SRT Worldwide LLC, Scott Tinkler, and Nicholas Sorci, jointly 

and severally after trial by jury, and as follows:

a. That Plaintiff recover compensatory overtime wage damages and an equal 

amount of liquidated damages as provided under the law and in 29 U.S.C. 

§ 216(b);

b. That Plaintiff recover pre-judgment interest on all unpaid overtime wages 

if the Court does not award liquidated damages;

c. That Plaintiff recover an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and 

expenses pursuant to the FLSA;

d. That Plaintiff recover all interest allowed by law;

e. That Defendants be Ordered to make Plaintiff whole by providing 

appropriate overtime pay and other benefits wrongly denied in an amount 

to be shown at trial and other affirmative relief; 

f. That the Court declare Defendants to be in willful violation of the 

overtime provisions of the FLSA; and 

g. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Case 1:20-cv-22725-KMM Document 2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 8 of 9
7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450, Miami, Florida 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

9

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, Elmy Alonso, demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable.

Respectfully submitted this 1st day of July 2020,

s/Brian H. Pollock, Esq.

Brian H. Pollock, Esq. (174742)

brian@fairlawattorney.com

FAIRLAW FIRM

7300 North Kendall Drive

Suite 450

Miami, FL 33156

Tel: 305.230.4884

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 1:20-cv-22725-KMM Document 2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 9 of 9