EXHIBIT 1 

Case 1:22-cv-22879-RNS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022 Page 1 of 7
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND

FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION

ALEX NAVARRO, CASE NO.:

Plaintiff, 

v.

THE KEYES COMPANY,

Defendant.

__________________________________/

COMPLAINT UNDER 29 U.S.C. 201-216 OVERTIME 

VIOLATIONS

Plaintiff, ALEX NAVARRO, (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of himself and all others similarly

situated as permitted by 29 U.S.C. 216(b), sues the Defendant, THE KEYES COMPANY,

(“Defendant”), and alleges:

JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS

1. This is an action to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages, as well as

an additional amount as liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorney’s fees against the

Defendant under the laws of the United States arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act 29

U.S.C.§201-216 (“FLSA”). 

2. Jurisdiction is conferred by Title 28 U.S.C. § 1337 and by Title 29 U.S.C. §216(b)

and because this action is for damages in an amount in excess of $30,000.00. 

3. Plaintiff is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida, and within the jurisdiction of

this Court.

4. Defendant is duly registered with their principal place of business in Miami-Dade

1

Filing # 154801684 E-Filed 08/05/2022 04:35:58 PM Case 1:22-cv-22879-RNS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022 Page 2 of 7
Navarro v. Keyes Company.

Page No. 2

County, Florida. 

5. Venue is proper in Miami-Dade County pursuant to §47.041, Fla. Stat. because the

cause of action arose there. 

6. All conditions precedent to the maintenance of this matter have been met or waived. 

FLSA COVERAGE

7. Defendant is a companythatregularlytransacts business within Miami-Dade County,

where Plaintiff is employed, and at all times material was and is engaged in interstate commerce. 

8. Plaintiff's work duties for the Defendant affected interstate commerce. Specifically,

Plaintiff worked (and indeed still works) in the job title “Accountant - Property Management” and 

handles non-exempt office duties for Defendant. 

9. Defendant is an enterprise covered by the FLSA, as defined by 29 U.S.C. §203(r) and

203(s). More specifically, Defendant was, during all times material hereto, an enterprises engaged

in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce as defined in §3(r) and 3(s) of the FLSA, 

29 U.S.C. §203(r) and 203(s) and/or Plaintiff’s was within interstate commerce.

10. Upon information and belief, it was the FLSA employer for Plaintiff during the entire

period of Plaintiff’s employment (“the relevant time period”). 

11. Upon information and belief, the annual gross revenues of Defendant were in

excess of $500,000.00 per annum.

12. The additional persons or people who may become Plaintiffs in this action are

employees and/or former employees of Defendant who, like Plaintiff, performed more than (40)

hours of work per week without receiving the compensation required under the FLSA for the hours

they worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week. All such similarly situated employees and

2

Case 1:22-cv-22879-RNS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022 Page 3 of 7
Navarro v. Keyes Company.

Page No. 3

former employees of Defendant are owed the compensation required under the FLSA for the hours

that they work in excess of forty (40) hours per week.

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

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

PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT

14. Plaintiff is employed as a salaried employee working as an “Accountant - Property

Management” for Defendant for approximately the last eight years. As relevant to this action, during

the relevant time period, Plaintiff worked overtime on innumerable occasions. Plaintiff was paid a

salary and was never paid overtime for the hours he worked for the Defendant in excess of 40 per

week. Therefore, Plaintiff claims the difference between Plaintiff’s average hourly rate and the

applicable minimum wage rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week. Plaintiff is also owed

overtime wages at the rate of time-and-one-half of his hourly-rate for the hours that went

uncompensated and which were untimely paid. 

FEDERAL OVERTIME WAGE VIOLATION

15. 29 U.S.C. §207(a)(1) states, “Except as otherwise provided in this section, no

employer shall employ any of his employees who in any workweek is engaged in commerce or in

the production of goods for commerce, or is employed in an enterprise in commerce or in the

production of goods for commerce, for his employment in excess of the hours above specified at a

rate not less than one and one half times the regular rate at which he is employed.”

16. Plaintiff worked in excess of forty hours per week during the relevant time

period . Plaintiff was never compensated for the overtime hours that he worked. Plaintiff is entitled 

to be paid overtime wages at a rate of time-and-one-half the regular rate as required by the

3

Case 1:22-cv-22879-RNS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022 Page 4 of 7
Navarro v. Keyes Company.

Page No. 4

FLSA for those hours in which he worked more than forty hours per week, but received no

compensation. 

17. At all times material hereto, 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 performed services and worked

in excess of the maximum hours provided by the FLSA but no provision was made by Defendant

to properly pay Plaintiff at the rate of time and one-half for all hours worked in excess of forty (40)

per workweek as provided in the FLSA.

18. Defendant’s business activities involve those to which the FLSA applies. Both the

Defendant’s business and the Plaintiff’s work for the Defendant affected interstate commerce for the

relevant time period. Plaintiff’s work for theDefendant affected interstate commerce for the relevant

time period because the materials and goods that Plaintiff used on a constant and/or continual basis

and/or that were supplied to him by the Defendant to use on the job moved through interstate

commerce prior to and/or subsequent to Plaintiff’s use of the same. The Plaintiff’s work for the

Defendant was actually in and/or so closely related to the movement of commerce while he worked

for the Defendant that the FLSA applies to Plaintiff’s work for the Defendant.

19. Additionally, Defendant regularly employed two or more or more employees for the

relevant time period who handled goods or materials that traveled through interstate commerce, or

used instrumentalities of interstate commerce, thus making Defendant’s business an enterprise

covered under the FLSA.

20. Defendant knew and/or showed reckless disregard of the provisions of the

FLSA concerning the payment of overtime wages as required by the FLSA. Defendant had 

knowledge of Plaintiff’s work schedule and the amount of hours he worked. Defendant had 

4

Case 1:22-cv-22879-RNS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022 Page 5 of 7
Navarro v. Keyes Company.

Page No. 5

knowledge that Plaintiff worked over 40 hours weekly. Defendant knew or should have known

the hours over 40 weekly were required to be paid at a rate of time-and-one-half. No valid reason

exists for the denial of paying overtime wages. In fact, Defendant told Plaintiff to stop recording his

hours so that it could claim ignorance of the fact that he was working overtime. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff ALEX NAVARRO requests compensatory and liquidated 

damages and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs from the Defendant THE KEYES COMPANY

pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act as cited above, to be proven at the time of trial for 

overtime owing from Plaintiff’s employment during the relevant time period with Defendants, 

or as much as allowed by the Fair Labor Standards Act, whichever is greater, along with court

costs. In the event that Plaintiff does not recover liquidated damages, then Plaintiff will seek an

award of prejudgment interest for the unpaid overtime, and any and all other relief which this Court

deems reasonable under the circumstances, after trial by jury, which is hereby demanded for all

issues so triable of right by jury. 

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiff demands trial by jury for all issues so triable of right by jury.

Dated this August 5, 2022.

Respectfully submitted,

5

Case 1:22-cv-22879-RNS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022 Page 6 of 7
Navarro v. Keyes Company.

Page No. 6

FEILER & LEACH, P.L.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

The American Airlines Building

901 Ponce de Leon Boulevard

Suite # 300

Coral Gables, Florida 33134

Telephone (305) 441-8818

Facsimile (305) 441-8081

mel@flmlegal.com

erodriguez@flmlegal.com

By:_/s/ Martin E. Leach________

Martin E. Leach

Florida Bar No. 0037990

6

Case 1:22-cv-22879-RNS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022 Page 7 of 7