EXHIBIT A 

Case 1:20-cv-22922-DPG Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2020 Page 1 of 27
6/4/2020 

CLERK DATE 

(BY) DEPUT LERK 

Filing # 108365640 E-Filed 06/04/2020 09:25:52 AM 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 

11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR 

MIAMI DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA 

CARMEN VALDES 

Plaintiff, 

VS. Case No. 2020-011705-CA 

WALMART INC, a foreign Corporation 

Defendant. 

6' 'is .0?000e 

s,a /43 

: 5.5104r1 /4 

SUMMONS IN A CIV ASE 

TO: WALMART INC, through its Registered Agent: 

C T CORPORATION SYSTEM 

1200 SOUTH PINE ISLAND ROAD 

PLANTATION, FL 33324 

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve upon PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY 

NATHALY SAAVEDRA, ESQ. 

PEREGONZA LAW GROUP, PLLC. 

1414 NW 107TH AVE 

SUITE 302 

DORAL, FL 33172 

an answer to the complaint which is herewith served upon you, within 20 days after service of this 

summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will 

be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You must also file your answer 

with the Clerk of this Court within a reasonable period of time after service. 

Case 1:20-cv-22922-DPG Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2020 Page 2 of 27
Filing # 108333832 E-Filed 06/03/2020 02:27:09 PM 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 

11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR 

MIAMI DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA 

CARMEN VALDES 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

WALMART INC, a foreign Corporation 

Defendant. 

Case No. 

COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff CARMEN VALDES, (hereinafter "Plaintiff„ or "VALDES„) by and through her 

undersigned attorney hereby sues defendant WALMART INC, a foreign Corporation (hereinafter, 

"Defendant"), a corporation, and says: 

XI IR ISEUCTION AND VENUE 

I. This is an action for damages and other relief based on unlawful employment practices 

committed by Defendant and jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to the provisions of 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706(f) (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)), the Florida Civil 

Rights Act ("FCRA„), §§ 760.01-760.11 and Florida workers' compensation laws under 

Florida Statutes § 440.205. 

2. This Court has jurisdiction of the claims herein pursuant to the FCRA. 

3. The claims asserted in this Complaint arose in Miami Dade County, Florida during the course 

of Plaintiff's employment with Defendant. 

4. Venue is proper in this Court since Plaintiff was employed by Defendant in Miami-Dade, 

Florida. 

1 

Case 1:20-cv-22922-DPG Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2020 Page 3 of 27
PARTIES 

5. Plaintiff is a citizen of the United States and at all times pertinent to this complaint resided 

within Miami-Dade Florida. Plaintiff is over the age of eighteen. 

6. Plaintiff is a female_ She is therefore a member of a class protected under Title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964 (hereinafter "Title VII") and the Florida Civil Rights Act (Fla. Stat. § 

760.01 et seq., and hereinafter "FCRA") because the terms, conditions, and privileges of her 

employment were altered because of her gender. 

7. Further, Plaintiff was retaliated against for her complaints of discriminatory conduct on behalf 

of Defendant which places her within a class protected under Title VII and the FCRA. 

8. Defendant is a foreign corporation organized and existing in Delaware with its principal place 

of business in Arizona and authorized to do business in Florida. Defendant operates several 

stores nationwide. Specifically, Plaintiff worked in store #5945 located in Hialeah, Florida. 

9. Defendant has, at all times material, employed 15 or more employees for each working day in 

each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding year in accordance with 

Title VII and the FCRA (42 U.S.C. §2000e(b); Fla. Stat. §760.02(7)). 

10. Plaintiff was, at all times relevant, an employee of Defendant as that term is defined in Florida 

Statutes § 440.02(15)(a). 

I. Defendant was, at all times relevant, an employer as that term is defined in Fla. Stat. § 440.02 

(16)(a). 

12. Plaintiff has exhausted her administrative remedies by filing a timely charge of discrimination 

("Charge") against the Defendant with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission which 

was dually filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. 

2 

Case 1:20-cv-22922-DPG Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2020 Page 4 of 27
13. Plaintiffs Charge was filed on or about August 13, 2019. The actions complained of herein 

occurred within 300 days thereof and/or continued from that date stemming from the same 

actions set forth in the Charge. 

14. Plaintiff was terminated from her position on July 22, 2019. Her Charge was therefore timely 

filed. 

15. Plaintiff was issued a Notice of Right to Sue on May 29, 2020. This suit is filed in accordance 

with that Notice and within the applicable 90-day time limitation. 

16. The Florida Commission on Human Relations did not issue a finding on Plaintiff's charge 

within 180 days of the filing of said charges. 

17. All other conditions precedent to this action have been performed or have been waived. 

GENERAL Al I F.GATI OBS 

18. Plaintiff was hired by Defendant in February 11, 2012 as cashier. 

19. Throughout her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff performed her duties in an exemplary 

fashion. 

20. In 2016, Plaintiff had a work-related accident. As a result, Plaintiff sought workers' 

compensation benefits for reimbursement of medical bills in accordance with the provisions 

of the Workers' Compensation Law. 

21. In retaliation for seeking benefits, Plaintiff was transferred to the Produce Department by her 

manager Pavel Aragon (hereinafter "Aragon„). With the transfer Plaintiff's hours were 

dramatically reduced, putting her full-time status in danger. 

22. During her time in this new department, Plaintiff discovered that the male employees in the 

department were paid more than her. 

3 

Case 1:20-cv-22922-DPG Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2020 Page 5 of 27
23. Plaintiff complained about the disparate treatment. Specifically, in September 2018, Plaintiff's 

workers' compensation attorney notified the Defendant of the retaliation. 

24. Furthermore, Plaintiff complained to Aragon about the disparate pay between male employees 

and female employees in the produce department. 

25. In March 2019, after Plaintiffs complaints, Plaintiff was transferred to another position 

wherein her hours were drastically reduced from forty (40) hours per week to 6-12 hours a 

week. This drastic reduction in hours, affected Plaintiffs status of full-time employee which 

in turn affected her eligibility for benefits. 

26. On July 4, 2019, Plaintiff met with Rick Gonzalez, Human Resources Coordinator (hereinafter 

"Gonzalez„) to file a formal complaint regarding the discriminatory and retaliatory treatment 

she was being subjected to. 

27. On or about July 22, 2019, within a few weeks of her meeting with Human Resources, Plaintiff 

was terminated. 

28. Defendant acted with intentional disregard for Plaintiff's rights under Title VII, the FCRA, and 

the Fla. § 440.205. 

29. At all times relevant, Plaintiff was qualified for her position with Defendant in that she worked 

for the Defendant for nearly six (6) years without disciplinary action. 

30. Defendant's justification(s) for its treatment of Plaintiff, if any, are a mere pretext for unlawful 

discrimination and retaliation. 

31. If, however, the reason(s) proffered by Defendant are found to be with merit, Plaintiff's sex, 

or complaints of discrimination, and/or her seeking benefits for workers' compensation were 

motivating factor(s) in the decision for the adverse employment action(s). 

4 

Case 1:20-cv-22922-DPG Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2020 Page 6 of 27
32. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned firm to prosecute this action on her behalf and has agreed 

to pay it a reasonable fee for its services. 

33. Plaintiff is entitled to her reasonable attorneys' fees and costs if she is the prevailing party in 

this action. 

.COIINT I 

VIOLATION OF THE CLYIL_RLGHTS_ACT 

(DISCRIMINATION BASED ONSEX) 

34. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-33 of this 

complaint as if set out in full herein. 

35. Plaintiff brings this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, §§706(a) and 706(g) 

for damages caused by Defendant's unlawful employment practices committed against 

Plaintiff. 

36. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class, to wit, female. 

37. Defendant, by and through its owner and managers, did not treat Plaintiff the same as other 

male employees as alleged above. 

38. Aragon and Gonzalez acted on behalf of Defendant and acted within the scope of their duties. 

39. At all times material hereto, the Defendant failed to comply with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 

[42 U.S.C. 2000 e-2 (a)], which states, "It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an 

employer to: (1) fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or 'otherwise to 

discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or 

privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or 

national origin; or (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for 

employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment 

5 

Case 1:20-cv-22922-DPG Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2020 Page 7 of 27
opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such 

individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.„ 

40. The Plaintiff was subjected to disparate treatment in the workplace, in that similarly situated, 

male employees were allowed better work opportunities by not being subjected to unfair 

treatment. 

41. At the time of this treatment from employment, the Plaintiff did perform and excel at the 

performance of the essential functions assigned to her by Defendant. 

42. The Plaintiff was qualified for the position apart from being a female. 

43. The Defendant is a sophisticated employer who has actual knowledge of the requirements of 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. 

44. The failure of Defendant to adhere to the mandates of the Act was willful and its violations of 

the provisions of the Act were willful. 

45. Defendant, through its practices and policies as an employer, willfully, and with malicious or 

reckless disregard of Plaintiffs federally protected rights, discriminated against Plaintiff on 

account of her race in violation of Act with respect to its decision to treat Plaintiff different 

from other employees. 

46. Defendant's disparate treatment of Plaintiff including but not limited to Plaintiff's termination 

from employment was directly and proximately caused by the Defendant's unjustified 

discrimination against Plaintiff because of the fact that she was a female, in violation of the 

Act. 

47. If, however, the reason(s) proffered by Defendant are found to be with merit, Plaintiff's gender, 

was a motivating factor in the decision for the adverse employment action(s). 

48. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's intentional conduct, Plaintiff suffered 

6 

Case 1:20-cv-22922-DPG Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2020 Page 8 of 27
serious economic losses as well as mental pain and suffering. 

49. Plaintiff is entitled to such affirmative relief as may be appropriate, including, but not limited 

to, lost wages, benefits, and compensation for emotional distress, pursuant to the provisions of 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, §706(g). 

50. Plaintiff, based on information and belief, alleges that Defendant's actions were done with 

malice, and with intentional disregard for her protected rights under Title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964. Defendant, by and through their officers, and/or supervisors, authorized, 

condoned, and/or ratified the unlawful conduct of Aragon, Gonzalez and/or other employees. 

Therefore, Plaintiff is also entitled to punitive damages from Defendant in a sum according to 

proof at trial. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that: 

A. The Court grant Plaintiff judgment award Plaintiff judgment against Defendant to 

compensate her for past and future pecuniary losses, including injury to her professional 

reputation, and emotional pain and suffering caused by Defendant's discriminatory 

treatment in an amount to be determined at trial and in accordance with the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964, §706(g); 

B. The Court award punitive damages as permitted under the law; 

C. The Court award Plaintiff the costs of this action together with her reasonable attorney's 

fees incurred herein, pursuant to contract and/or statute; and 

D. Require Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff to the position at the rate of pay and with the full 

benefits Plaintiff would have had Plaintiff not been discriminated against by Defendant, 

or in lieu of reinstatement, award front pay; 

E. The Court award Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate. 

7 

Case 1:20-cv-22922-DPG Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2020 Page 9 of 27
COI AT IT 

Y_LOI,ATION_OFTHF,CILVIL_RIGHTS_A.C1 

(RETALIATION 

51. Plaintiff incorporates herein the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-33, inclusive, as though 

same were fully re-written, and says: 

52. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class under Title V11, to wit she complained of 

discriminatory treatment. 

53. Since Aragon became Plaintiffs supervisor, Plaintiff made several complaints of disparate 

treatment to both Aragon and Gonzalez as previously stated. 

54. Among other complaints, on July 4, 2019, Plaintiff met with Gonzalez to report the disparate 

treatment she was being subjected to by Aragon. 

55. On or about July 22, 2019, as a direct result of Plaintiffs complaints of discrimination, Plaintiff 

was terminated by Defendant. 

56. The conduct of Defendant, by and through the conduct of its agents, employees, and/or 

representatives, and the Defendant's failure to make prompt remedial action to prevent 

continued discrimination against the Plaintiff, deprived the Plaintiff of statutory rights under 

federal law. 

57. Plaintiff, based on information and belief, alleges that Defendant's actions were done with 

malice, and with disregard for her protected rights under the Title Vii. Defendant, by and 

through its officers, and/or supervisors, authorized, condoned, and/or ratified the unlawful 

conduct of Aragon, Gonzalez and/or other employees. Therefore, Plaintiff is also entitled to 

punitive damages from Defendant in a sum according to proof at trial. 

8 

Case 1:20-cv-22922-DPG Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2020 Page 10 of 27
58. Defendant's disparate treatment of Plaintiff including but not limited to Plaintiff's termination 

from employment was directly and proximately caused by the Defendant's unjustified 

retaliation against Plaintiff for her complaints of disparate treatment. 

59.1f, however, the reason(s) proffered by Defendant are found to be with merit, Plaintiff's 

complaints of discrimination, were a motivating factor in the decision for the adverse 

employment action(s). 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that: 

A. The Court grant Plaintiff judgment award Plaintiff judgment against Defendant to 

compensate her for past and future pecuniary losses, including appropriate back pay, 

benefits' adjustment, injury to her professional reputation, and emotional pain and 

suffering caused by Defendant's discriminatory treatment in an amount to be determined 

at trial and in accordance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, §706(g); 

B. The Court award punitive damages as permitted under the law; 

C. The Court award Plaintiff the costs of this action together with her reasonable attorney's 

fees incurred herein, pursuant to contract and/or statute; and 

D. Require Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff to the position at the rate of pay and with the full 

benefits Plaintiff would have had Plaintiff not been discriminated against by Defendant, 

or in lieu of reinstatement, award front pay; 

E. The Court award Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate. 

COUNT 111 

WOLATION_OF THE FIDRIDA_CIYIL_RIGHTS ACT 

(DISCRIMINATION_BASEILOISLSEX) 

60. Plaintiff re-avers and re-states paragraphs 1-33 above, as though the same were fully re-written 

herein, and says: 

Case 1:20-cv-22922-DPG Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2020 Page 11 of 27
61. Plaintiff brings this action under the Florida Civil Rights Act ("FCRA„), §§ 760.01-760.11 for 

damages caused by Defendant's unlawful employment practices committed against Plaintiff 

because Plaintiff was terminated on the basis of her gender, Female. 

62. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class, to wit, female. 

63. Defendant, by and through its supervisors, by the conduct describe above, Defendant has 

engaged in discrimination against Plaintiff because of Plaintiffs gender and subjected the 

Plaintiff to animosity based on her gender. 

64. Defendant's managers acted with intentional disregard for Plaintiffs rights as a woman under 

the FCRA. 

65. Defendant's disparate treatment of Plaintiff including but not limited to Plaintiffs termination 

from employment was directly and proximately caused by the Defendant's unjustified 

discrimination against Plaintiff. 

66. Defendant did not provide Plaintiff with a reason for the disparate treatment she was subjected 

to. 

67. If, however, the reason(s) proffered by Defendant are found to be with merit, Plaintiff's gender, 

was a motivating factor in the decision for the adverse employment action(s). 

68. At all times material hereto, the employees exhibiting discriminatory conduct towards Plaintiff 

possessed the authority to affect the terms, conditions, and privileges of Plaintiffs employment 

with the Defendant. 

69. Specifically, Aragon and Gonzalez as manager and HR representative, at all material times, 

acted on behalf of Defendant and acted within the scope of their duties. 

70. Defendant retained all employees who exhibited discriminatory conduct toward the Plaintiff 

and did so despite the knowledge of said employees engaging in discriminatory actions. 

10 

Case 1:20-cv-22922-DPG Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2020 Page 12 of 27
71. Plaintiff is entitled to such affirmative relief as may be appropriate, including, but not limited 

to, lost wages, benefits, and compensation for emotional distress, pursuant to the provisions of 

Florida Civil Rights Act §§ 760.01-760.11. 

72. Plaintiff, based on information and belief, alleges that Defendant's actions were done with 

malice, and with intentional disregard for her protected rights under the FCRA. Defendant, by 

and through their officers, and/or supervisors, authorized, condoned, and/or ratified the 

unlawful conduct of Aragon and Gonzalez and/or other employees. Therefore, Plaintiff is also 

entitled to punitive damages from Defendant in a sum according to proof at trial. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that: 

A. The Court grant Plaintiff judgment award Plaintiff judgment against Defendant to 

compensate her for past and future pecuniary losses, including appropriate back pay, 

benefits' adjustment, injury to her professional reputation, and emotional pain and suffering 

caused by Defendant's discriminatory treatment in an amount to be determined at trial and 

in accordance with the Florida Civil Rights Act, §§ 760.01-760.11. 

B. The Court award punitive damages as permitted under the law; 

C. Require Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff to the position at the rate of pay and with the full 

benefits Plaintiff would have had Plaintiff not been discriminated against by Defendant, or 

in lieu of reinstatement, award front pay; 

D. The Court award Plaintiff the costs of this action together with her reasonable attorney's 

fees incurred herein, pursuant to contract and/or statute; and 

E. The Court award Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate. 

11 

Case 1:20-cv-22922-DPG Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2020 Page 13 of 27
COUNT Iv 

yf of A TIOhLOF THE FLORIDA_CIYIL_RLG HTS_A_CT 

(RFT A I-lATIO_N) 

73. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers paragraphs 1-33 as though full set forth herein. 

74. Plaintiff brings this claim under the Florida Civil Rights Act, Florida Statutes § 760.01 et seq. 

for Defendant's retaliatory conduct. 

75. Plaintiff made several complaints of disparate treatment to both Aragon and Gonzalez. 

76. Among other complaints, on July 4, 2019, Plaintiff met with Gonzalez to report the disparate 

treatment she was being subjected to by Aragon. 

77. Plaintiffs complaints of disparate treatment as stated above, were protected activity under the 

FCRA. 

78. By the conduct describe above, Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff for exercising rights 

protected under the FCRA. 

79. As a result of Defendant's actions, as alleged herein, Plaintiff has been deprived of rights, has 

been exposed to ridicule and embarrassment, and has suffered emotional distress and damage. 

80. The conduct of Defendant, by and through the conduct of its agents, employees, and/or 

representatives, and the Defendant's failure to make prompt remedial action to prevent 

continued discrimination against the Plaintiff, deprived the Plaintiff of statutory rights under 

state law. 

81. Plaintiff, based on information and belief, alleges that Defendant's actions were done with 

malice, and with disregard for her protected rights under FCRA. Defendant, by and through its 

officers, and/or supervisors, authorized, condoned, and/or ratified the unlawful conduct of 

Aragon, Gonzalez and/or other employees. Therefore, Plaintiff is also entitled to punitive 

damages from Defendant in a sum according to proof at trial. 

12 

Case 1:20-cv-22922-DPG Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2020 Page 14 of 27
82. Defendant's disparate treatment of Plaintiff including but not limited to Plaintiff's termination 

from employment was directly and proximately caused by the Defendant's unjustified 

retaliation against Plaintiff for her complaints of disparate treatment. 

83.1f, however, the reason(s) proffered by Defendant are found to be with merit, Plaintiff's 

complaint(s) of discrimination, were a motivating factor in the decision for the adverse 

employment action(s). 

84. Plaintiff further seeks her attorney's fees and costs as permitted by law. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests judgment against Defendant as follows: 

A. The Court grant Plaintiff judgment award Plaintiff judgment against Defendant to 

compensate her for past and future pecuniary losses, including appropriate back pay, 

benefits' adjustment, injury to her professional reputation, and emotional pain and suffering 

caused by Defendant's discriminatory treatment in an amount to be determined at trial and 

in accordance with the Florida Civil Rights Act, §§ 760.01-760.11. 

B. The Court award punitive damages as permitted under the law; 

C. Require Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff to the position at the rate of pay and with the full 

benefits Plaintiff would have had Plaintiff not been discriminated against by Defendant, or 

in lieu of reinstatement, award front pay; 

D. The Court award Plaintiff the costs of this action together with her reasonable attorney's 

fees incurred herein, pursuant to contract and/or statute; and 

E. The Court award Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate. 

COUNT V 

Y_IOLATION OF WO_RKERS' COMPENSATION LAWS 

85. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers paragraphs 1-33 as though fully set forth herein. 

13 

Case 1:20-cv-22922-DPG Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2020 Page 15 of 27
86. Plaintiff brings this action under Florida Law prohibiting retaliation for filing or attempting to 

file a valid workers' compensation claim under Florida Statutes § 440.205. 

87. Plaintiff sought workers' compensation benefits for reimbursement of medical bills in 

accordance with the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law. 

88. Thereafter, Plaintiff's hours were drastically reduced. 

89. It is clear that Defendant took adverse employment actions against Plaintiff because of her 

valid claim for compensation under the Workers' Compensation Law. 

90. Plaintiffs compensation claim was a motivating factor in Defendant's decision to reduce 

Plaintiff's hours and ultimately terminate Plaintiff, in violation of Florida Statutes § 440.205, 

as evidenced by the lack of disciplinary action or prior warning of work-performance related 

issues. 

91. Plaintiffs work record with Defendant prior to her termination was satisfactory. 

92. Plaintiff, based on information and belief, alleges that Defendant's actions were done with 

malice, and with disregard for her rights under Florida Statutes § 440.205. Defendant, by and 

through its officers, and/or supervisors, authorized, condoned, and/or ratified the unlawful 

conduct of Aragon, Gonzalez and/or other employees. Therefore, Plaintiff is also entitled to 

punitive damages from Defendant in a sum according to proof at trial. 

93. Any purported reason for Plaintiffs discharge given by Defendant is pretextual. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for: 

A. Plaintiffs lost wages and/or benefits as a result of her termination; 

B. Compensatory, liquidated, and punitive damages as allowed by law and upon a 

record showing proof thereof; 

C. Interest on all monies owed; 

14 

Case 1:20-cv-22922-DPG Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2020 Page 16 of 27
D. Assessment against Defendant for those reasonable attorney's fees and costs 

incurred as a result of bringing this action as permitted by Florida statutes; 

E. A trial by jury; and 

F. Any other relief this Court deems proper. 

D_KMAND_EOILIURITRIAL 

Plaintiff CARMEN VALDES demands trial by jury on all issues and all counts of this 

Complaint so triable as a matter of right. 

Dated: June 3, 2020 

PEREGONZA LAW GROUP, PLLC 

1414 NW 107th Ave, 

Suite 302 

Dora!, FL 33172 

Tel. (786) 650-0202 

Fax. (786) 650-0200 

By/s/Ilathaly Saa_v_edra 

Nathaly Saavedra, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No. 118315 

Email: nathaly.®peregonza.cons 

By./s/Juan .1 Perez 

Juan J. Perez, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No. 115784 

Email: ivang.peregonza.co.m. 

15 

Case 1:20-cv-22922-DPG Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2020 Page 17 of 27
FORM 1.997. CIVIL COVER SHEET

The civil cover sheet and the information contained in it neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of

pleadings or other documents as required by law. This form must be filed by the plaintiff or petitioner with the

Clerk of Court for the purpose of reporting data pursuant to section 25.075, Florida Statutes. (See instructions

for completion.)

I. CASE STYLE

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

Case No.: _________________

Judge: ____________________

Carmen Valdes

Plaintiff

 vs.

Walmart Inc.,

Defendant

II. AMOUNT OF CLAIM

Please indicate the estimated amount of the claim rounded to the nearest dollar $200,000

III. TYPE OF CASE (If the case fits more than one type of case, select the most definitive category.) If the

most descriptive label is a subcategory (is indented under a broader category), place an x on both the main

category and subcategory lines.

☐ Condominium

☐ Contracts and indebtedness

☐ Eminent domain

☐ Auto negligence

☐ Negligence – other

 ☐ Business governance

 ☐ Business torts

 ☐ Environmental/Toxic tort

 ☐ Third party indemnification

 ☐ Construction defect

 ☐ Mass tort

 ☐ Negligent security

 ☐ Nursing home negligence

 ☐ Premises liability – commercial

 ☐ Premises liability – residential

☐ Products liability

☐ Real Property/Mortgage foreclosure

 ☐ Commercial foreclosure

 ☐ Homestead residential foreclosure

 ☐ Non-homestead residential foreclosure

 ☐ Other real property actions

 ☐ Professional malpractice

 ☐ Malpractice – business

 ☐ Malpractice – medical

 ☐ Malpractice – other professional

 ☒ Other

 ☐ Antitrust/Trade Regulation

 ☐ Business Transaction

 ☐ Circuit Civil - Not Applicable

 ☐ Constitutional challenge-statute or ordinance

 ☐ Constitutional challenge-proposed amendment

 ☐ Corporate Trusts

 ☒ Discrimination-employment or other

 ☐ Insurance claims

 ☐ Intellectual property

 ☐ Libel/Slander

 ☐ Shareholder derivative action

 ☐ Securities litigation

 ☐ Trade secrets

 ☐ Trust litigation

 ☐ County Civil

 ☐ Small Claims up to $8,000 

 ☐ Civil 

 ☐ Replevins

 ☐ Evictions

 ☐ Other civil (non-monetary)

 

Filing # 108333832 E-Filed 06/03/2020 02:27:09 PM Case 1:20-cv-22922-DPG Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2020 Page 18 of 27
COMPLEX BUSINESS COURT

This action is appropriate for assignment to Complex Business Court as delineated and mandated by the

Administrative Order. Yes ☐ No ☒

IV. REMEDIES SOUGHT (check all that apply):

☒ Monetary;

☒ Non-monetary declaratory or injunctive relief;

☒ Punitive

V. NUMBER OF CAUSES OF ACTION: 

(Specify)

5

VI. IS THIS CASE A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT?

☐ Yes

☒ No

VII. HAS NOTICE OF ANY KNOWN RELATED CASE BEEN FILED?

☒ No

☐ Yes – If “yes” list all related cases by name, case number and court:

VIII. IS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN COMPLAINT?

 ☒ Yes

 ☐ No

I CERTIFY that the information I have provided in this cover sheet is accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief, and

that I have read and will comply with the requirements of Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.425.

Signature: s/ Juan J. Perez 

Attorney or party

FL Bar No.: 115784 

(Bar number, if attorney)

 Juan J. Perez

 (Type or print name)

 Date: 06/03/2020

Case 1:20-cv-22922-DPG Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2020 Page 19 of 27
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR 

MIAMI DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CARMEN VALDES

 Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 2020-011705-CA

WALMART INC, a foreign Corporation

 Defendant.

________________________________________/

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL CASE

TO: WALMART INC, through its Registered Agent: 

C T CORPORATION SYSTEM

1200 SOUTH PINE ISLAND ROAD

PLANTATION, FL 33324

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve upon PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY

NATHALY SAAVEDRA, ESQ.

PEREGONZA LAW GROUP, PLLC.

1414 NW 107TH AVE

SUITE 302

DORAL, FL 33172

an answer to the complaint which is herewith served upon you, within 20 days after service of this 

summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will 

be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You must also file your answer 

with the Clerk of this Court within a reasonable period of time after service.

______________________ ____________________

CLERK DATE

_____________________________________ 

(BY) DEPUTY CLERK

Filing # 108365640 E-Filed 06/04/2020 09:25:52 AM Case 1:20-cv-22922-DPG Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2020 Page 20 of 27
Case 1:20-cv-22922-DPG Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2020 Page 21 of 27
Filing # 109048504 E-Filed 06/18/2020 11:25:33 AM Case 1:20-cv-22922-DPG Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2020 Page 22 of 27
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR MIAMI DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CARMEN VALDES,

Plaintiff,

v.

WALMART INC.,

Defendant.

 Case No.: 2020-011705-CA

DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION

OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090, Defendant, Walmart Inc.

(“Defendant”), by and through its undersigned attorney, hereby moves for an enlargement of 

time of eleven (11) days, up to and including July 17, 2020, to respond to the Complaint filed in 

this cause by the Plaintiff, Carmen Valdes (“Plaintiff”), and in support thereof state as follows: 

1. On June 4, 2020, Plaintiff filed her Complaint against Defendant.

2. Defendant’s registered agent was served with the Complaint on June 15, 2020. As a 

result, Defendant’s responsive pleading is due to be filed on or before July 6, 2020. 

3. Defendant requests that this court grant it an eleven (11) day extension of time to file a 

response to Plaintiff’s Complaint, up to, and including, July 17, 2020. 

4. This court may enlarge any period of time for cause shown. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.090. 

5. Cause exists for granting Defendant an extension of time based upon the following. 

Undersigned counsel was recently retained by Defendant in this action, and undersigned counsel 

needs additional time to obtain the information needed to prepare a response to Plaintiff’s 

Complaint. This Motion is filed within the deadline for responding to the Complaint, and is not 

filed for the purpose of delaying these proceedings.

Filing # 109842220 E-Filed 07/06/2020 06:21:11 PM Case 1:20-cv-22922-DPG Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2020 Page 23 of 27
2

6. Plaintiff’s counsel has no objection to the relief sought in this Motion.

WHEREFORE, Walmart Inc., respectfully requests that this Court grant an extension for 

Defendant to file a Response to Plaintiff’s Complaint, up to, and including, July 17, 2020.

Dated: July 6, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

FORDHARRISON LLP

/s/ Fabian A. Ruiz

Amy R. Turci

Florida Bar No.: 349630

aturci@fordharrison.com

225 Water Street Ste 710 

Jacksonville, FL, 33202

Tel: (904) 357-2000

Fax: (904) 357-2001

Fabian A. Ruiz

Florida Bar No.: 117928

fruiz@fordharrison.com

1 SE 3rd Avenue, Ste 2130

Miami, FL, 33130

Tel: (305) 808-2100

Fax: (305) 808-2101

Attorneys for Defendant

WALMART INC.

Case 1:20-cv-22922-DPG Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2020 Page 24 of 27
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 6th day of July, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of the Court using the Florida e-Filing Portal Electronic Docketing 

System. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of 

record or pro se parties identified on the attached Service List in a manner specified, either via 

transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by Florida’s e-Filing Portal Electronic 

Docketing System or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not 

authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.

SERVICE LIST

Nathaly Saavedra

nathaly@peregonza.com

Juan J. Perez

juan@peregonza.com

PEREGONZA LAW GROUP, PLLC

1414 NW 107th Avenue, Suite 302

Doral, Florida 33172

Tel: (786) 650-0202

Fax: (786) 650-0200

Attorneys for Plaintiff

FORDHARRISON LLP

/s/ Fabian A. Ruiz 

Fabian A. Ruiz

Case 1:20-cv-22922-DPG Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2020 Page 25 of 27
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL

CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO: 2020-011705-CA-01

SECTION: CA31

JUDGE: Spencer Eig

Carmen Valdes

Plaintiff(s)

vs.

Walmart Inc.,

Defendant(s)

____________________________/

AGREED ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

THIS CAUSE having come before the Court upon Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for Extension

of Time to Respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint, and the Court having been informed of the

agreement of counsel, it is hereby:

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion is Granted. Defendant shall file a

response to Plaintiff’s Complaint on or before July 17, 2020. 

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Miami-Dade County, Florida on this 14th day of July,

2020.

2020-011705-CA-01 07-14-2020 5:06 PM

Hon. Spencer Eig

CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

Electronically Signed

Case No: 2020-011705-CA-01 Page 1 of 2

Filing # 110238208 E-Filed 07/14/2020 05:15:17 PM Case 1:20-cv-22922-DPG Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2020 Page 26 of 27
No Further Judicial Action Required on THIS MOTION

CLERK TO RECLOSE CASE IF POST JUDGMENT

Electronically Served:

Fabian A. Ruiz, fruiz@fordharrison.com

Juan J. Perez, juan@peregonza.com

Juan J. Perez, eservice@peregonza.com

Juan J. Perez, office@peregonza.com

Martha Purdy, mpurdy@fordharrison.com

Nathaly Saavedra, nathaly@peregonza.com

Nathaly Saavedra, office@peregonza.com

Physically Served:

Case No: 2020-011705-CA-01 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:20-cv-22922-DPG Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/2020 Page 27 of 27