UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-cv-23050-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

EDUARDO SANCHEZ,

 Plaintiff,

v. 

ACES ACEROTECH INDUSTRIES INC., 

and JORGE A. SANDERS, 

 Defendants.

________________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING DEFAULT JUDGMENT

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Eduardo Sanchez’s Motion for Default 

Final Judgment, ECF No. [15] (“Motion”), filed on December 20, 2022. The Court has carefully 

considered the evidence presented, the record as a whole, and the applicable law. For the reasons 

stated below, Plaintiff’s Motion is granted in part and denied in part. 

I. INTRODUCTION

On September 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for unpaid minimum wages and 

overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. (the “FLSA”) 

and the Florida Minimum Wage Act against Defendants Aces Acerotech industries, Inc. and Jorge

A. Sanders. ECF No. [1]. Service of the summonses and Complaint was effectuated on Defendants 

on October 5, 2022, setting a response deadline of October 26, 2022. ECF Nos. [5], [6]. Upon 

Defendants’ request, the Court extended that deadline to November 4, 2022. ECF No. [10]. 

Defendants failed to comply with that deadline, so the Clerk entered Default as to Defendants on 

November 18, 2022. ECF No. [13]. 

Case 1:22-cv-23050-BB Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2023 Page 1 of 5
Case No. 22-cv-23050-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

On December 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Default Final Judgment. ECF 

No. [15]. Therein, Plaintiff requested $16,785.00 in unpaid minimum wages and $4,860.00 in 

overtime wages, plus liquidated damages and attorneys’ fees. Id. Plaintiff’s calculations were 

based on the assumption that Plaintiff had worked sixty hours during each week of his employment 

with Defendants – an assumption that was inconsistent with the Complaint’s allegations that 

Plaintiff worked “between 45-50 hours a week” for Defendants and only “[d]uring some weeks of 

his employment.” ECF No. [16]. Accordingly, the Court set a damages hearing to determine the 

amount of damages Plaintiff should recover from Defendants. Id. The Court held that hearing on 

January 4, 2023, at which Plaintiff Eduardo Sanchez testified. ECF No. [17]. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A court may enter a default judgment against a defendant who has failed to plead or 

otherwise defend against the lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). Before it may do so, the Court 

must determine that there is “a sufficient basis in the pleadings for the judgment entered,” a 

determination that is “akin to that necessary to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a 

claim.” Surtain v. Hamlin Terrace Foundation, 789 F.3d 1239, 1245 (11th Cir. 2015) (quotation 

marks omitted). Moreover, “[a] court has an obligation to assure that there is a legitimate basis for 

any damage award it enters[.]” Anheuser Busch, Inc. v. Philpot, 317 F.3d 1264, 1266 (11th Cir. 

2003).

III. DISCUSSION

To establish a claim for unpaid wages under the FLSA, a plaintiff must show (1) “she was 

employed by an employer covered by the FLSA during the period involved,” (2) “that she was 

engaged in commerce or employed by an enterprise engaged in commerce,” and (3) “that the 

Case 1:22-cv-23050-BB Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2023 Page 2 of 5
Case No. 22-cv-23050-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

employer failed to pay her the required minimum wage or overtime compensation.” Holtz v. Bagel 

Market, Inc., No. 12- 62040-CIV, 2013 WL 12141515, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 29, 2013).

Here, Plaintiff has set forth a valid claim under the FLSA because he sufficiently alleged 

that he was an employee for Defendants, Defendants were employers engaging in commerce and

covered by the FLSA, Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiff $20.00/hour, and Defendants failed to 

pay Plaintiff for all the hours he worked. ECF No. [1] ¶¶ 3, 6-15.

At the hearing on January 4, 2023, Plaintiff Eduardo Sanchez testified that he worked the 

following number of hours and, based on his $20.00/hour wage, earned the following amounts:

Week

Worked

Hours 

Worked

Earnings from 

Regular Wages 

($20/hr)

Earnings from Overtime 

Wages ($30/hr for hours in 

excess of 40)

Total 

Nov. 1-5, 

2021

42.5 $800 $75 $875

Nov. 8-12 51 $800 $330 $1130

Nov. 15-19 42.5 $800 $75 $875

Nov. 22-26 51 $800 $330 $1130

Nov. 29-

Dec. 3

55 $800 $450 $1250

Dec. 6-10 65 $800 $750 $1550

Dec. 13-17 55 $800 $450 $1250

Dec. 20-24 65 $800 $750 $1550

Dec. 27-31 40 $800 $0 $800

Jan. 3-7, 

2022

47.5 $800 $225 $1025

Jan. 10-14 57 $800 $510 $1310

Jan. 17-21 47.5 $800 $225 $1025

Jan. 24-28 57 $800 $510 $1310

Case 1:22-cv-23050-BB Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2023 Page 3 of 5
Case No. 22-cv-23050-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

Jan. 31 –

Feb. 4 

50 $800 $300 $1100

Feb. 7-11 50 $800 $300 $1100

Feb. 14-18 50 $800 $300 $1100

Feb. 21-25 50 $800 $300 $1100

Feb. 28 –

Mar. 4

50 $800 $300 $1100

Mar. 7-11 50 $800 $300 $1100

Mar. 14-18 50 $800 $300 $1100

Mar. 21-23 30 $600 $0 $600

Total Wages Earned: $23,380

As set forth above, Plaintiff has demonstrated that he earned $23,380.00 in regular and 

overtime wages. He further showed that he only received $12,130.00 in compensation. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff has established unliquidated damages of $23,380.00 - $12,130.00 = 

$11,250.00. The FLSA entitles Plaintiff to receive that same amount in additional liquidated 

damages, thus doubling Plaintiff’s award to $22,500.00. See 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Lastly, Plaintiff 

is entitled to “a reasonable attorney’s fee” and “costs of the action.” Id.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED, as follows: 

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Default Judgment, ECF No. [15], is GRANTED IN PART 

AND DENIED IN PART. 

2. Default judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff, Eduardo Sanchez, and against Defendants, 

Aces Acerotech industries, Inc. and Jorge A. Sanders, jointly and severally, in the amount 

of $22,500.00. 

3. The Court will enter final default judgment in favor of Plaintiff by separate order. 

Case 1:22-cv-23050-BB Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2023 Page 4 of 5
Case No. 22-cv-23050-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

4. This judgment shall bear interest at the rate prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1961.

5. The Court retains jurisdiction over this case and over the parties for the purpose of entering 

post-judgment orders, including the reasonable fees and costs recoverable to Plaintiff.

6. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on February 1, 2023.

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: 

Counsel of Record

Jorge A. Sanders and Aces Acerotech Industries Inc.

20200 Northwest 2nd Ave.,

Unit 408

Miami, FL 33169

Case 1:22-cv-23050-BB Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2023 Page 5 of 5