UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-22671-ALTONAGA/TORRES

DELIO BATISTA,

CARLOS LOPEZ,

MARIANA LOPEZ and

RAFAELA VALIENTE,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

AVANT ASSURANCE INC., 

REINIER CORTES, AND 

ANDREA GONZALEZ QUINTERO,

Defendants.

______________________________/

JOINT PRETRIAL STIPULATION

Plaintiffs, Delio Batista, Carlos Lopez, Mariana Lopez, and Rafaela Valiente, and 

Defendants, Avant Assurance Inc., Reinier Cortes, and Andrea Gonzalez Quintero, through their 

respective counsel, pursuant to this Court’s Order Setting Trial and Local Rule 16.1.E, file their 

Joint Pretrial Stipulation.

1. STATEMENT OF THE CASE: 

Plaintiffs’ Statement of the Case

The Plaintiffs, Delio Batista, Carlos Lopez, Mariana Lopez, and Rafaela Valiente, all

worked as insurance agents for Defendant, Avant Assurance Inc., selling health insurance policies. 

They claim that Avant Assurance Inc., and its owners, Reinier Cortes, and Andrea Gonzalez 

Quintero, misclassified and paid Plaintiffs as independent contractors instead of as employees. 

Additionally, the Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act 

(“FLSA”) by not paying overtime when they worked more than 40 hours in one or more 

Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2023 Page 1 of 9
2

workweeks. The Plaintiffs also claim that although the Defendant, Avant Assurance Inc., offered 

to pay Mr. Batista, Mr. Lopez, Mrs. Lopez, and Ms. Valiente non-discretionary bonuses and 

commissions based on the insurance policies they sold, it violated Florida law by not paying them 

all the bonuses and commissions they earned.

Defendants’ Statement of the Case

The Defendants hired all Plaintiffs as 1099 independent contractors insurance ‘sales” 

agents who were never misclassified. The Plaintiffs are exempt from the FLSA and not covered 

“employees” under the Independent Contractor, Outside sales Exemption, Retail Sales exemption 

amd the Administrative exemption. Therefore, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to any overtime 

payments. That Reinier Cortes and Andrea Quintero Gonzalez never willfully or recklessly failed 

to violate any FLSA provision and they relied on the DOL opinion FLSA letters 2009-28 and 

FLSA WHD-2022-0003 which they relied on and would ask the court to take judicial notice of.1 

All due and owing Bonuses and/or commissions were paid to plaintiffs who are not owed any of 

same. 

2. BASIS FOR FEDERAL JURISDICTION: 

Federal jurisdiction in this matter is premised on 29 U.S.C. §216(b) and 28 U.S.C. §§1331

and 1367.

3. PLEADINGS RAISING THE ISSUES: 

a. Plaintiffs’ Complaint [ECF No. 1]; and

b. Defendants’ Answer & Affirmative Defenses [ECF No. 14].

1 Plaintiffs object to the language proposed by Defendants as factually and legally improper. The suggestion 

that Defendants relied on any opinion letter is an inappropriate attempt to backdoor in documents that are hearsay. 

Plus, there is no reference in any Rule 26 Disclosure, any deposition, or in discovery that Defendants at all relied on 

any opinion letter. The inclusion of a reference to these opinion letters that do not deal with insurance agents who 

perform inside sales and are paid by commission only would also be confusing and more prejudicial than probative.

Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2023 Page 2 of 9
3

4. UNDISPOSED OF MOTIONS AND OTHER MATTERS REQUIRING ACTION BY 

THE COURT: 

a. Plaintiffs’ Motion In Limine and Defendants' Motion in Limine, if any.

5. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS WHICH SHOULD REQUIRE NO PROOF 

AT TRIAL: 

a. Reinier Cortes is the President and CEO of Avant Assurance Inc.

b. Andrea Gonzalez Quintero is the Vice President of Avant Assurance Inc.

c. Mr. Cortes and Mrs. Gonzalez Quintero are married.

d. Avant Assurance Inc. is a health insurance agency.

e. Avant Assurance Inc. has its office at 3470 Northwest 82nd Avenue, Suite·700, 

Doral, Florida 33122.

f. The parties do not dispute that Avant Assurance Inc. is subject to the FLSA for 

2020 through 2022, even if it was not an employer.*2

g. The parties do not dispute that the Plaintiffs engaged in interstate commerce at all 

times material to this action.

h. Avant Assurance Inc. had over $500,000 in gross annual revenues in 2021.

i. Avant Assurance Inc. had over $500,000 in gross annual revenues in 2022.

j. Avant Assurance Inc. engaged in interstate commerce in 2020.

k. Avant Assurance Inc. engaged in interstate commerce in 2021.

l. Avant Assurance Inc. engaged in interstate commerce in 2022.

m. Avant Assurance Inc. did not pay any of its insurance agents as employees until 

after all of the Plaintiffs were terminated from Avant. 

#2. Defendant Objects to this language because at all times hereto Defendants have asserted that this is not a 

FLSA case/matter.

Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2023 Page 3 of 9
4

n. Defendants did not record when Mr. Batista, Mr. Lopez, Mrs. Lopez, and Ms. 

Valiente started and stopped working each day.

o. Delio Batista worked for Avant Assurance Inc. from approximately September 18, 

2020, to June 20, 2022.

p. Carlos Lopez worked for Avant Assurance Inc. from approximately 

November/December 2021 to June 16, 2022. 

q. Mariana Lopez worked for Avant Assurance Inc. from November 1, 2021, to July 

11, 2022. 

r. Rafaela Valiente worked for Avant Assurance Inc. from November 1, 2021, to June 

23, 2022. 

6. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES OF FACT WHICH REMAIN TO BE LITIGATED AT 

TRIAL:

a. Whether, Defendant, Avant Assurance Inc., was Plaintiff Delio Batista’s 

“employer” under the FLSA and/or Florida law.

b. Whether Defendant, Reinier Cortes, was Plaintiff Delio Batista’s “employer” under

the FLSA.

c. Whether Defendant, Andrea Gonzalez Quintero, was Plaintiff Delio Batista’s

“employer” under the FLSA.

d. Whether, Defendant, Avant Assurance Inc., was Plaintiff Carlos Lopez’s

“employer” under the FLSA and/or Florida law.

e. Whether Defendant, Reinier Cortes, was Plaintiff Carlos Lopez’s “employer” under

the FLSA.

f. Whether Defendant, Andrea Gonzalez Quintero, was Plaintiff Carlos Lopez’s 

“employer” under the FLSA.

Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2023 Page 4 of 9
5

g. Whether, Defendant, Avant Assurance Inc., was Plaintiff Mariana Lopez’s

“employer” under the FLSA and/or Florida law.

h. Whether Defendant, Reinier Cortes, was Plaintiff Mariana Lopez’s “employer” 

under the FLSA.

i. Whether Defendant, Andrea Gonzalez Quintero, was Plaintiff Mariana Lopez’s

“employer” under the FLSA.

j. Whether, Defendant, Avant Assurance Inc., was Plaintiff Rafaela Valiente's

“employer” under the FLSA and/or Florida law.

k. Whether Defendant, Reinier Cortes, was Plaintiff Rafaela Valiente’s “employer” 

under the FLSA.

l. Whether Defendant, Andrea Gonzalez Quintero, was Plaintiff Rafaela Valiente’s

“employer” under the FLSA.

m. Whether Plaintiff, Delio Batista, worked over 40 hours in one or more workweeks

for Defendants.

n. Whether Plaintiff, Carlos Lopez, worked over 40 hours in one or more workweeks

for Defendants.

o. Whether Plaintiff, Mariana Lopez, worked over 40 hours in one or more workweeks

for Defendants.

p. Whether Plaintiff, Rafaela Valiente, worked over 40 hours in one or more 

workweeks for Defendants.

q. Whether Defendant Reinier Cortes is jointly and severally liable for any overtime 

owed under the FLSA as an “employer.”

Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2023 Page 5 of 9
6

r. Whether Defendant Andrea Gonzalez Quintero is jointly and severally liable for 

any overtime owed under the FLSA as an “employer.”

s. The amount of overtime wages owed to Plaintiff Delio Batista, if any.

t. The amount of overtime wages owed to Plaintiff Carlos Lopez, if any.

u. The amount of overtime wages owed to Plaintiff Mariana Lopez, if any.

v. The amount of overtime wages owed to Plaintiff Rafaela Valiente, if any.

w. Whether Defendants intentionally or willfully failed to pay Plaintiffs the overtime 

wages that they earned.

x. Whether Defendants knew or reasonably should have known of the hours that 

Plaintiffs claim to have worked.

y. Whether Avant Assurance Inc. agreed to pay bonuses and/or commissions to 

Plaintiffs.

z. Whether Defendant, Avant Assurance Inc., failed to pay any bonuses or 

commissions to Plaintiff Delio Batista.

aa. Whether Defendant, Avant Assurance Inc., failed to pay any bonuses or

commissions to Plaintiff Carlos Lopez.

bb. Whether Defendant, Avant Assurance Inc., failed to pay any bonuses or 

commissions to Plaintiff Mariana Lopez.

cc. Whether Defendant, Avant Assurance Inc., failed to pay any bonuses or 

commissions to Plaintiff Rafaela Valiente.

dd. The total amount of bonuses and/or commissions that Defendant, Avant Assurance 

Inc., failed to pay to Plaintiff Delio Batista, if any.

Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2023 Page 6 of 9
7

ee. The total amount of bonuses and/or commissions that Defendant, Avant Assurance 

Inc., failed to pay to Plaintiff Carlos Lopez, if any.

ff. The total amount of bonuses and/or commissions that Defendant, Avant Assurance 

Inc., failed to pay to Plaintiff Mariana Lopez, if any.

gg. The total amount of bonuses and/or commissions that Defendant, Avant Assurance 

Inc., failed to pay to Plaintiff Rafaela Valiente, if any.

7. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES OF LAW ON WHICH THERE IS AGREEMENT:

a. That there will be no reference at trial to attorneys’ fees and/or to liquidated 

damages.

b. That there will be no evidence, argument, or inferences at trial regarding 

Defendants’ (in)ability to satisfy a judgment.

c. All Plaintiffs were engaged in interstate commerce for the purposes of individual 

coverage under the FLSA (i.e commerce & revenue factors)- (however, the 

Defendants are not stipulating that the Plaintiffs were employees).

d. Enterprise coverage exists under the FLSA for the years 2021 and 2022. 

8. ISSUES OF LAW REMAINING FOR DETERMINATION BY THE COURT:

a. The disputed issues identified in Defendants’ Motion in Limine.

b. Whether the bonuses and commissions awarded by the jury, if any, are to be 

considered “wages” under Fla. Stat. §448.08 for purposes of an award of attorneys’ 

fees after trial. 

c. If Plaintiff, Delio Batista, prevails at trial, should the Court award him liquidated 

damages and the amount?

Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2023 Page 7 of 9
8

d. If Plaintiff, Carlos Lopez, prevails at trial, should the Court award him liquidated 

damages and the amount?

e. If Plaintiff, Mariana Lopez, prevails at trial, should the Court award her liquidated 

damages and the amount?

f. If Plaintiff, Rafaela Valiente, prevails at trial, should the Court award her liquidated 

damages and the amount?

g. If one or more Plaintiffs prevail at trial on Count I, the attorneys’ fees and costs to 

be awarded to Plaintiffs against the Defendants under the FLSA.

h. If one or more Plaintiffs prevail at trial on Count II, the attorneys’ fees and costs to 

be awarded to Plaintiffs against Defendant Avant Assurance Inc., under Fla. Stat. 

§448.08.

9. TRIAL EXHIBITS AND WITNESSES:

a. For Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs’ Witness List is appended hereto as Exhibit “A”

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit List is appended hereto as Exhibit “B”

b. For Defendants.

Defendants’ Witness List is appended hereto as Exhibits “C.”

Defendants’ Exhibit List is appended hereto as “D.”

10. PRETRIAL STIPULATION:

The parties stipulate that during the trial of the case, including during voir dire, there will 

be no evidence or argument regarding:

A. Attorneys’ fees;

B. Liquidated damages;

Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2023 Page 8 of 9
9

C. Any claimed inability by Defendants to pay or that Defendants are a small business

and small business owners. 

11. ESTIMATED TRIAL TIME:

4-5 days.

12. EXPERT WITNESSES:

Neither the Plaintiffs nor the Defendants disclosed any expert witnesses.

13. ATTORNEYS’ FEES:

A. Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs anticipate they will have incurred over $95,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs 

through trial and pre-trial motions. 

B. Defendants.

 Defendants assert that all plaintiffs are not covered employees under the FLSA and that 

no fees are owed to Plaintiffs and that any amounts found to be owed for commissions or 

bonuses would be based on their Breach of Contract related counts that would not involve 

or invoke the FLSA attorney fees provision or penalties. 

Dated this 12th day of June 2023.

s/Brian H. Pollock, Esq.

Brian H. Pollock, Esq. (174742)

brian@fairlawattorney.com

Toussaint Cummings (119877)

toussaint@fairlawattorney.com

FAIRLAW FIRM

135 San Lorenzo Avenue

Suite 770

Coral Gables, FL 33156

Tel: 305.230.4884

Counsel for Plaintiffs

By: Daniel Tropp, Esq. 

DANIEL E. TROPP, ESQ.

Fla. Bar Lic. #948128

CUETO LAW GROUP P.L.

Attorneys for Defendants

4000 Ponce de Leon Blvd.,

Suite 470 Coral Gables, Florida 33146

Tel.: (305) 777-0377

By: Isl Daniel E. Tropp, Esq. 

Fla. Bar #948128

Tel.: (direct line) (786) 306-1293 

Email: dantroppesq@gmail.com

Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2023 Page 9 of 9