UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-22671

DELIO BATISTA,

CARLOS LOPEZ,

MARIANA LOPEZ, and

RAFAELA VALIENTE,

Plaintiffs,

vs. 

AVANT ASSURANCE INC.,

REINIER CORTES, and

ANDREA GONZALEZ QUINTERO,

Defendants.

/

DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

COMES NOW the Defendants, AVANT ASSURANCE INC., and REINIER CORTES, and

ANDREA GONZALEZ QUINTERO, by and through their undersigned counsel and pursuant to

Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 56 and Local Rule 56.1, Defendants hereby submits the following

facts in support of herMotion for Partial Summary Judgment: 

FACTS NOT GENUINELY DISPUTED

1. The four (4) collective Plaintiffs, DELIO BATISTA CARLOS LOPEZ, 

MARIANA LOPEZ, and RAFAELA VALIENTE [hereinafter referred to “Plaintiffs”] allege 

in their complaint that “Plaintiffs were each engaged in interstate commerce for Defendants 

in their course of their regular and recurrent sales of health insurance policies to 

customers...” (ECF No. 1, Complaint ¶¶ 32)

Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 69-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2023 Page 1 of 5
2. The Plaintiff’s lawsuit alleges Defendant, AVANT ASSURANCE INC., A Florida 

Corporation, [hereinafter referred to as “AVANT”] and the company’s owner/officer director, Reiner

Cortes, individually [hereinafter referred to as ‘CORTES”] and its owner/officer/director , 

ANDREA GONZALES QUINTERO. [hereinafter referred to as “ANDREA’]” (ECF No. 1, 

Complaint ¶¶’s 17-19)

3. The Defendants are in the business of “marketing, sales, and service of health and other 

insurance services...” (ECF No. 1 Complaint ¶¶ 25) 

4. Count one (1) of Plaintiff’s complaint alleges Plaintiffs are entitled to and seeking

unpaid and owed overtime wages in violation of FLSA. (ECF No. 1, Complaint, pg. 3, ¶¶

21). 

5. The Plaintiffs FLSA overtime violation claim is based on the allegation that “plaintiffs 

regularly and routinely worked for Defendants more than 40 hours per week during the 

“open enrollment” period that runs from November 1 to January 15”. (ECF No. 1 

Complaint, ¶¶ 42).

6. More precisely, each of the plaintiffs FLSA overtime violation claim seeks unpaid 

overtime during open enrollment period from “November 1, 2021-January 31, 2022=13 

weeks” (ECF No. 32, Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim Page 2-4).

7. The Plaintiffs complaint’s remaining counts II & III consist of Breach of Contract 

pursuant to Fla. Stat. §448.08 and Unjust Enrichment, respectively, for work “Plaintiffs 

performed under the parties’ contract/agreement by performing work for Defendants. (ECF 

No. 1 Complaint, ¶¶ 50). 

8. The Plaintiffs allege that they provided services on behalf of its business, as requested , 

they submitted insurance policies through Defendant for which Defendant was paid, and 

Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 69-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2023 Page 2 of 5
Defendant received and accepted the benefits of the work, efforts, and labor that Plaintiffs 

provided. (ECF No. 1, Complaint ¶¶ 56).

9. Furthermore, Plaintiffs allege Defendant was unjustly enriched in that it failed and 

refused to make payment in the appropriate amount to Plaintiff’s for the benefits they 

conferred upon it selling insurance policies for Defendant” (ECF No. 1 Complaint ¶¶ 57). 

10. Interestingly, of the Plaintiff’s 53 paragraph complaint, about 46 said paragraphs all 

relate to or involve the FLSA Count for overtime with only three (3) paragraphs generally 

alleging “Defendants acted “willfully’ and “recklessly” [ECF No. 1, Complaint ¶¶’s 43 & 

44]. 

11. The remaining 3-5 paragraphs referring to Count II contract and unjust Enrichment, are not 

pled in the alternative, and allege “Plaintiffs seek recovery of the “pure gap time” wages that

they worked and earned, but did not receive’(ECF No. 1 Complaint, ¶¶’s 47 & 53)

12. The Plaintiff’s lawsuit alleges that the Jurisdictional Basis of Plaintiff’s action is based on

Defendants were Plaintiffs’ direct employers, joint employers, and co-employers, as that term

“employer” is defined by 29 U.S.C. §203 and (2) and that, “this Court has jurisdiction over the

subject matter of this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and

supplemental/pendent jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s related state law claim. ( ECF No. 1 Complaint

¶¶’s 20-21). 

13. At all times material to this action as it pertains to each of the Plaintiff’s, each of the 

Plaintiffs worked solely in their capacity as Independent Contractors who, at their own 

insistence and request, would be paid with a W-9 and listed as 1099 independent 

contractors. (Defendant RENIER CORTES deposition P. 66, L. 16-20; P. 68, L. 10-20).

14. Plaintiff MARIANA LOPEZ was engaged and involved with Avant Assurance Inc solely 

Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 69-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2023 Page 3 of 5
performing her duties as an independent contractor and before “open enrollment” from 

November 1, 2021- July 11, 2022. (Defendant Reiner Cortes’ Affidavit Section II. )

15. Plaintiff MARIANA LOPEZ requested her individual status as a 1099, agreed to be paid 

via w-9, and on March 8th, 2022, requested that Avant pay her company Suprani Service 

LLC. (Defendant Reiner Cortes’ Affidavit Section II. )

16. Plaintiff CARLOS LOPEZ was engaged and involved with Avant Assurance Inc solely 

performing his duties as an independent contractor from December 8, 2021-June 16, 2022. 

(Defendant Reiner Cortes’ Affidavit Section III. )

17. Plaintiff CARLOS LOPEZ requested his individual status as a 1099, agreed to be paid via 

W-9, and on may 18th, 2022, requested Avant pay his company Carlos Eduardo Lopez PA. 

(Defendant Reinier Cortes’ Affidavit Section III)

18. Plaintiff RAFAELA VALIENTE was engaged and involved with Avant Assurance Inc 

solely performing her duties as an independent contractor and before “open enrollment” 

from November 1, 2020- July 11, 2022. (Defendant Reiner Cortes’ Affidavit Section IV. )

19. Plaintiff RAFAELA VALIENTE requested her individual status as a 1099, agreed to be 

paid via W-9, and on March 4th, 2021, requested Avant pay her company Valiente Insurance 

LLC. (Defendant REINIER CORTES’ Affidavit Section IV)

20. Plaintiff DELIO BATISTA was engaged and involved with Avant Assurance Inc solely 

performing his duties as an independent contractor at all relevant times to this action from 

September 18, 2020-June 20, 2022. (Defendant REINER CORTES’ Affidavit Section V. )

21. Plaintiff DELIO BATISTA, requested his individual status as a 1099, agreed to be paid via 

W-9 at all relevant times to this action by Avant. (Defendant RENIER CORTES’ 

Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 69-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2023 Page 4 of 5
Affidavit Section V)

19. Each of the Plaintiffs, in their Plaintiffs Statement of Claim, seek entitlement to minimum 

wages not pled in the complaint (ECF No. 32-Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim) 

20. Plaintiff Mariana Lopez’s Statement of Claim indicates she was paid a total of $82,495.00 in 

commissions in 2021 and 2022. (ECF No. 32 P’s statement of Claim Pg. 3). 

21. Plaintiff Carlos Lopez was paid $53,455.00 in commissions in 2022.( ECF No. 32, P’s Statement of 

Claim , Pg. . 3). 

22. Plaintiff Rafaela Valiente was paid $58,630.00.00 in commissions in 2022.(CMF No. 32 page 

3,4). 

23. Plaintiff Delio Batista was paid $72,845.00 in commissions in 2022.(CMF No. 32 page 4-5). 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been filed via electronic

communication this 19TH DAY OF May, 2023 with the Clerk of Court and served upon all Counsel 

of Record.

 Daniel E. Tropp

Daniel E. Tropp, Esq. 

Florida Bar No.: 948128 

CUETO LAW GROUP P.L.

Attorneys for Defendants 

4000 Ponce de Leon Blvd. Ste 470

Coral Gables, FL 33146 

Tel.: (305) 777 0377 

Primary Email: dantropp@cuetolawgroup.com

Secondary email dantroppesq@gmail.com

Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 69-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2023 Page 5 of 5