135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, FL 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 0:22-CV-61553

CRUZ VALDIVIESO FIGUERA, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

VIP CARE, INC., 

ALL VIP CARE INC., 

JOHN CORRIGAN, AND 

LEIGH-ANN FIGUEIRA, 

 Defendants. 

______________________________/ 

COMPLAINT 

 

Plaintiff, Cruz Valdivieso Figuera, sues Defendants, VIP Care, Inc., All VIP Care Inc., John 

Corrigan, and Leigh-Ann Figueira, as follows:

Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue 

1. Plaintiff, Cruz Valdivieso Figuera, is over 18 years old and has been a sui juris resident 

of Broward County, Florida, at all times material. 

2. Defendant, VIP Care, Inc., is a sui juris Florida for-profit corporation that was 

authorized to conduct and actually conducted its for-profit business in Broward and Palm Beach

Counties, Florida, at all times material, where it maintains its principal place of business. 

3. Defendant, All VIP Care Inc., is a sui juris Florida for-profit corporation that was 

authorized to conduct and actually conducted its for-profit business in Broward and Palm Beach

Counties, Florida, at all times material, where it maintains its principal place of business 

4. Defendant, John Corrigan, was at all times material an 

Case 0:22-cv-61553-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/22/2022 Page 1 of 11
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, FL 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

2

owner/officer/director/manager of the corporate Defendants, for the time period relevant to this 

lawsuit. He ran its day-to-day operations, directly/indirectly supervised Plaintiff, was responsible for 

all operational decisions, and/or was partially or totally responsible for paying Plaintiff’s wages.

5. Defendant, Leigh-Ann Figueira, was at all times material an 

owner/officer/director/manager of the corporate Defendants, for the time period relevant to this 

lawsuit. She also ran their day-to-day operations, directly/indirectly supervised Plaintiff, was 

responsible for all operational decisions, and/or was partially or totally responsible for paying 

Plaintiff’s wages.

6. Defendants cooperated/coordinated to manage Plaintiff and her work, to pay 

Plaintiff for her work, and they collectively manage their workforce, including the hiring and firing 

of workers, setting work schedules for their workers, providing the clients, time sheets, and providing 

work assignments for their workers. 

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

to 28 U.S.C. §1331, 26 U.S.C. §201, et seq., and pendent/supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 

related Florida state law claims. 

8. 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 this District, and because most if not all 

of the operational decisions were made in this District. 

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

Plaintiff. 

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

services rendered. 

Case 0:22-cv-61553-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/22/2022 Page 2 of 11
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, FL 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

3

COUNT I – FLSA MINIMUM WAGE VIOLATION(S)

Plaintiff, Cruz Valdivieso Figuera, reincorporates and re-alleges all preceding paragraphs as 

though set forth fully herein and further alleges as follows:

11. 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). 

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

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

of interstate commerce, thus making Defendants’ business an enterprise covered by the Fair Labor 

Standards Act.

13. Defendants have been, at all times material, an enterprise engaged in interstate 

commerce in the course of their marketing, sales, transacting of mortgage home health services

which, traditionally, cannot be performed without using goods, materials, supplies, and equipment 

that have all moved through interstate commerce. 

14. In particular, Defendants own and operate an home healthcare business that 

provides services to clients, which would be paid by out-of-state payors – such as insurers and/or 

governmental agencies – while using toner, printers, pens, paper, furniture, phone systems 

computers, computer networking equipment, computer software, telephones, telephone equipment, 

food, produce, ovens, etc., goods and materials that also have moved through interstate commerce, 

and other materials and supplies that were previously placed in the stream of commerce from outside 

of the State of Florida before being received in this District to engage in interstate commerce. 

15. Defendants also communicate with their workers and with others by regularly and 

routinely using telephones and transmitting information through email and the Internet, and which 

transmissions regularly and routinely traveled outside of the State of Florida.

Case 0:22-cv-61553-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/22/2022 Page 3 of 11
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, FL 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

4

16. Defendants engage in interstate commerce in the course of their submission of 

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

17. Defendant’s corporate annual gross revenues derived from this interstate commerce 

are believed to be in excess of $500,000.00 for the relevant time period and/or exceeded 

$125,000.00 for each relevant fiscal quarter. 

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

by 29 U.S.C. §203(e).

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

20. Plaintiff consents to participate in this lawsuit.

21. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a “Home Health Aide” from approximately 

March 2020 to July 27, 2022. 

22. Plaintiff’s job duties involved providing . 

23. Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiff at a rate of $13.00 per hour.

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

exist, such records are believed to be in the exclusive custody of Defendants. 

25. Defendants controlled all job-related activities of Plaintiff.

26. Defendants coordinated all job-related activities of Plaintiff.

27. Defendants supervised Plaintiff’s work.

28. Plaintiff’s work for Defendants was actually in or so closely related to the movement 

of commerce while she worked for Defendants that the Fair Labor Standards Act applies to 

Plaintiff’s work for Defendants in the course of her regularly and routinely providing services to 

elderly and/or informed persons who are and who were unable to care for themselves at their homes. 

See 29 U.S.C. §202.

Case 0:22-cv-61553-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/22/2022 Page 4 of 11
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, FL 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

5

29. Defendants failed and refused to pay Plaintiff even a minimum wage of $7.25 per 

hour for each of the hours that she worked by failing to timely pay her for all the hours that she 

worked for Defendants from May 2022 to July 27, 2022. 

30. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations of the FLSA, as set forth 

above, Plaintiff is entitled to payment of the applicable minimum wage for all unpaid hours worked. 

31. Defendants either recklessly failed to investigate whether their failure to pay Plaintiff 

at least a minimum wage for the hours Plaintiff 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 at least the minimum wage, and/or Defendants concocted a 

scheme pursuant to which they deprived Plaintiff the minimum wage pay earned.

32. Plaintiff is entitled to a backpay award of minimum wages for all unpaid/underpaid 

hours worked, plus an equal amount as a liquidated damages, plus all attorneys’ fees and costs. 

WHEREFORE Plaintiff, Cruz Valdivieso Figuera, demands the entry of a judgment in 

Plaintiff’s favor and against Defendants, VIP Care, Inc., All VIP Care, Inc., John Corrigan, and 

Leigh-Ann Figueira, jointly and severally, after trial by jury and as follows:

a. That Plaintiff recover compensatory minimum 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 minimum 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;

Case 0:22-cv-61553-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/22/2022 Page 5 of 11
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, FL 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

6

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

appropriate minimum wage 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. 

COUNT II - FLSA OVERTIME WAGE VIOLATION(S) 

Plaintiff, Cruz Valdivieso Figuera, reincorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 28 as 

though set forth fully herein and further alleges as follows: 

33. Defendants required that Plaintiff travel to different work locations (clients) during 

the day but did not pay Plaintiff for the time that she spent traveling. 

34. Defendants explained to Plaintiff that they were not going to pay her for, and that she 

could not include in the time records that she submitted to them, the time that she spent traveling 

between clients because Defendants would not be paid for that time by the insurers and/or medical 

payors.

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

Defendants. 

36. Plaintiff regularly and routinely submitted time records indicating that she worked 

107 hours each week for Defendants, and then spent approximately another 120 minutes driving 

between the two clients’ homes each week for which time she was not paid at all.

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

one-half times of Plaintiff’s regular hourly rate(s) of pay for all the hours she worked beyond 40 

hours in a given workweek.

Case 0:22-cv-61553-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/22/2022 Page 6 of 11
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, FL 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

7

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

and one-half times of Plaintiff’s regular rate of pay for each of the overtime hours worked during the 

relevant time period.

39. Defendants either recklessly failed to investigate whether their failure to pay Plaintiff 

an overtime wage for the hours 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 they 

deprived Plaintiff the overtime pay earned.

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

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

WHEREFORE Plaintiff, Cruz Valdivieso Figuera, demands the entry of a judgment in 

Plaintiff’s favor and against Defendants, VIP Care, Inc., All VIP Care, Inc., John Corrigan, and 

Leigh-Ann Figueira, 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;

Case 0:22-cv-61553-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/22/2022 Page 7 of 11
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, FL 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

8

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.

COUNT III – BREACH OF CONTRACT 

(Against VIP Care, Inc. and All VIP Care Inc.) 

 

Plaintiff, Cruz Valdivieso Figuera, reincorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 10 as 

though set forth fully herein and further alleges as follows:

41. Through this claim, Plaintiff seeks recover of the “pure gap time” wages that she 

worked and earned, but did not receive.1See e.g., Jernigan v. 1st Stop Recovery, Inc., 2017 WL 

3682332 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 25, 2017) (citing Davis v. Abington Memorial Hosp., 765 F.3d 236, 244 

(3d Cir. 2014); Botting v. Goldstein, 2015 WL 10324134 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 21, 2015); Lundy v. 

Catholic Health Sys. of Long Island, Inc., 711 F. 3d 106 (2d Cir. 2013); and Monahan v. Cty. Of 

Chesterfield, Va., 95 F.3d 1263, 1280 (4th Cir. 1996).)

42. Plaintiff and Defendants, VIP Care, Inc., All VIP Care Inc., agreed that in exchange 

for Plaintiff expending time and effort on their behalf, they would compensate her at a rate of $13.00 

for each hour that worked for them.

43. Plaintiff performed under the parties’ contract/agreement by performing work for 

Defendants as aforesaid.

 

1 Thrower v. Peach County, Georgia, Bd. of Educ., 2010 WL 4536997, at *4 (M.D. Ga. Nov. 2, 2010) 

(“In the wage and hour world, this time between scheduled hours and overtime hours is known as ‘pure gap 

time’.”)

Case 0:22-cv-61553-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/22/2022 Page 8 of 11
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, FL 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

9

44. Defendants, VIP Care, Inc. and All VIP Care Inc., however, failed and refused to 

perform its obligation to timely pay Plaintiff at the rate of $13.00 for each of hour work performed 

for Defendant from May 2022 to July 27, 2022. 

45. Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of this Defendants’ failure to pay her for the 

work she performed from May 2022 to July 27, 2022, in a timely manner.

WHEREFORE Plaintiff, Cruz Valdivieso Figuera, demands the entry of a judgment in her 

favor and against Defendants, VIP Care, Inc. and All VIP Care Inc., after trial by jury, for all breach 

of contract damages suffered, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs and attorneys’ fees 

incurred in this matter pursuant to Fla. Stat. §448.08, and to award such other and further relief as 

this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT IV – UNJUST ENRICHMENT 

(Against VIP Care, Inc., All VIP Care, Inc.) 

 

Plaintiff, Cruz Valdivieso Figuera, reincorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 10 as 

though set forth fully herein and further alleges as follows:

46. Through this claim, Plaintiff seeks recover of the “pure gap time” wages that she 

worked and earned, but did not receive.2See e.g., Jernigan v. 1st Stop Recovery, Inc., 2017 WL 

3682332 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 25, 2017) (citing Davis v. Abington Memorial Hosp., 765 F.3d 236, 244 

(3d Cir. 2014); Botting v. Goldstein, 2015 WL 10324134 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 21, 2015); Lundy v. 

Catholic Health Sys. of Long Island, Inc., 711 F. 3d 106 (2d Cir. 2013); and Monahan v. Cty. Of 

Chesterfield, Va., 95 F.3d 1263, 1280 (4th Cir. 1996).)

 

2 Thrower v. Peach County, Georgia, Bd. of Educ., 2010 WL 4536997, at *4 (M.D. Ga. Nov. 2, 2010) 

(“In the wage and hour world, this time between scheduled hours and overtime hours is known as ‘pure gap 

time’.”)

Case 0:22-cv-61553-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/22/2022 Page 9 of 11
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, FL 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

10

47. Plaintiff provided labor and services for Defendants, VIP Care, Inc. and All VIP 

Care Inc., and it received and accepted the benefits of the labor and services supplied by Plaintiff. 

48. Plaintiff expected to be paid a reasonable value for the labor and services provided 

to this Defendant. 

49. Plaintiff provided services on behalf of Defendants, VIP Care, Inc. and All VIP Care, 

Inc., for its business, as requested, and it received and accepted the benefits of the work, efforts, and 

labor that Plaintiff provided. 

50. Defendants, VIP Care, Inc. and All VIP Care Inc., was unjustly enriched in that it

failed and refused to make payment to Plaintiff for the benefits conferred upon it from May 2022 to 

July 27, 2022. 

WHEREFORE Plaintiff, Cruz Valdivieso Figuera, demands the entry of a judgment in her 

favor and against Defendants, VIP Care, Inc. and All VIP Care Inc., after trial by jury, for all breach 

of contract damages suffered, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs and attorneys’ fees 

incurred in this matter pursuant to Fla. Stat. §448.08, and to award such other and further relief as 

this Court deems just and proper.

 

Case 0:22-cv-61553-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/22/2022 Page 10 of 11
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, FL 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

11

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, Cruz Valdivieso Figuera, demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable.

Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of August 2022, 

 s/Brian H. Pollock, Esq.

Brian H. Pollock, Esq.

Fla. Bar No. 174742

 brian@fairlawattorney.com

 FAIRLAW FIRM

 135 San Lorenzo Avenue

 Suite 770

Coral Gables, FL 33146

 Tel: 305.230.4884

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 0:22-cv-61553-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/22/2022 Page 11 of 11