IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH 

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT, IN AND 

FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION

CASE NO. 

WILSON REINOSO, 

 Plaintiffs,

vs.

OCMP GROUP LLC, D/B/A 

SAKEROOM a Florida limited 

liability company, ORLANDO 

SANTANA, and MARIO CICILIA, 

individually,

 Defendants.

___________________________________/

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, Plaintiff, WILSON REINOSO, by and through his undersigned attorney, 

hereby sues Defendants, OCMP GROUP LLC, a Florida limited liability company, ORLANDO 

SANTANA, and MARIO CICILIA, individually (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the 

Employer,” except when referred to individually), and alleges:

JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS AND VENUE

1. Plaintiff seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime and minimum 

wages. This action is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 

(“FLSA”) and pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 448.110.

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

this Honorable Court.

Case 1:22-cv-21667-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 1 of 11
2

3. This is an action for damages more than $30,000.00, and this action is therefore 

within the jurisdiction of this Court. 

4. The corporate Defendant, OCMP GROUP LLC, a Florida limited liability 

company, was at all times material hereto, doing business in Miami-Dade County, Florida, where 

Plaintiff was employed, and at all times material hereto was and is engaged in interstate 

commerce.

5. The individual Defendants, ORLANDO SANTANA, and MARIO CICILIA are 

residents of Miami-Dade County, Florida, where they employed Plaintiff, where this cause of 

action arose.

6. This action is brought by Plaintiff to recover from the Employer claims for unpaid

overtime and minimum wage compensation, as well as an additional amount as liquidated 

damages, costs, and reasonable attorney’s fees under the provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., 

and specifically under the provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 206, Fla. Const. Art. 10 § 24, Fla. Stat. § 

448.110.

7. FLSA coverage is triggered because the corporate Defendant is and, at all times 

pertinent to this Complaint, was engaged in interstate commerce. At all times pertinent to this 

Complaint, the Employer operates as an organization which sells and/or markets its services 

and/or goods and/or materials to customers from throughout the United States and also provides 

its services for goods sold and transported from across state lines of numerous other States, and 

the Employer obtains and solicits funds from non-Florida sources, accepts funds from nonFlorida sources, uses telephonic transmissions going over State lines to do its business, transmits 

funds outside the State of Florida, and otherwise regularly engages in interstate commerce, 

Case 1:22-cv-21667-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 2 of 11
3

particularly with respect to its employees. Upon information and belief, the annual gross revenue 

of the Employer was at all times material hereto in excess of $500,000.00 per annum, and two or 

more employees handled goods or materials that moved in the stream of commerce on a frequent 

and recurrent basis, and/or Plaintiff by virtue of working in interstate commerce, otherwise 

satisfies the FLSA’s requirements.

8. Plaintiff regularly utilized and handled equipment and goods manufactured and 

purchased from outside the state of Florida and regularly used the instrumentalities of interstate 

commerce in his work.

9. By reason of the foregoing, the Employer is and was, during all times hereafter 

mentioned, an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce as

defined in 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(r) and 203(s) and/or Plaintiff is within interstate commerce.

PLAINTIFF'S EMPLOYMENT

10. Plaintiff was dually employed in a single week by Defendants as a sushi chef as 

well as a server. Plaintiff worked from approximately July 2017 until January 31, 2022. By way 

of estimate, Plaintiff worked one day as a server and the other five days as a sushi chef.

Occasionally, when needed, Plaintiff was required to abandon his duties as a server to work as a 

sushi chef.

11. Plaintiff worked an estimated average of 66 hours a week, or less, and was paid at 

a higher hourly-rate when he worked a sushi chef. Although Plaintiff regularly worked more than

40 hours per week, Defendants failed to pay him overtime wages as required by the FLSA. 

12. While employed as a server, Plaintiff was paid of $4.50 per hour, less than the 

required minimum wage. 

Case 1:22-cv-21667-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 3 of 11
4

13. Defendants committed a minimum wage violation when they employed Plaintiff 

as a server and paid a reduced subminimum tip credit wage. Defendants are not entitled to not 

entitled to claim a tip credit because they failed to pay the required tip credit wage, took control 

or deprived Plaintiff of tips and because they failed to inform Plaintiff as required by the FMWA 

and the FLSA.

14. Employers cannot use the "tip credit" if they fail to meet conditions precedent to

the tip credit availability. The two conditions imposed by the FMWA are: (1) employers cannot 

take control over tipped employee's tips, and (2) the employer must inform in advance that it 

intends to claim a tip credit (3) and payment of the specified subminimum tip credit wage.

15. The informational requirements of the FLSA and FMWA are set forth in 29 

C.F.R. § 531.59,

1 which states in relevant part:

1. Pursuant to section 3(m), an employer is not eligible to take the tip credit 

unless it has informed its tipped employees in advance of the employer's use 

of the tip credit of the provisions of section 3(m) of the Act, i.e.: The amount 

of the cash wage that is to be paid to the tipped employee by the employer; 

the additional amount by which the wages of the tipped employee are 

increased on account of the tip credit claimed by the employer, which amount 

may not exceed the value of the tips actually received by the employee; that 

all tips received by the tipped employee must be retained by the employee

. . . and that the tip credit shall not apply to any employee who has not 

been informed of these requirements in this section. 29 C.F.R. § 531.59(b).

COUNT I

FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES, FLSA, ALL DEFENDANS

16. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers paragraphs 1 through 15 as fully set forth herein.

1 The FMWA adopts all regulations interpreting the Fair Labor Standards Act. F.S. 448.110(3) 

states in relevant part: "Only those individuals entitled to receive the federal minimum wage 

under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and its implementing regulations shall be eligible to 

receive the state minimum wage pursuant to s. 24, Art. X of the State Constitution and this 

section. The provisions of ss. 213 and 214 of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, as interpreted 

by applicable federal regulations and implemented by the Secretary of Labor, are incorporated 

herein."

Case 1:22-cv-21667-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 4 of 11
5

17. Plaintiff was employed in two capacities at the Defendant restaurant, one as a 

sushi chef, and the other as a server, and paid two different rates. When employees are paid two 

different rates in a single week at two or more different types of non-overtime rates of pay (of 

not less that the applicable minimum wage) have been established, his regular rate for that week 

is the weighted average of such rates. 29 C.F.R. § 778.115. 

18. At all times material hereto, Defendants 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 

the Employers to properly pay him at the rate of time-and-a-half for all hours worked in excess 

of forty (40) per workweek as provided in the FLSA.

19. Defendants knew of and showed reckless disregard by failing to pay the overtime 

pay required by the FLSA, Plaintiff was paid a flat hourly rate for the hours worked a chef and as 

a server, when he worked in excess of 40 hours per week, rather than the required 1 1⁄2 times 

payment required by the FLSA. Defendants had knowledge of the requirement that employees be 

paid overtime wages. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Defendants failed to keep adequate 

time records for hours that Plaintiff worked. Defendants misclassified Plaintiff as an independent 

contractor and did not make payroll deductions. Defendants knew or should have known of the 

work performed by the Plaintiff and of their obligation to timely pay Plaintiff’s overtime wage 

yet failed to do so. Defendants have been in business for substantial period and failed to pay the 

overtime and minimum wage which they knew or should have known had to be paid. 

20. The Employers remain owing Plaintiff these overtime wages since the 

commencement of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant as set forth above, and Plaintiff is 

Case 1:22-cv-21667-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 5 of 11
6

entitled to an equal amount as liquidated damages.

21. Plaintiff has complied with all conditions precedent to bringing this action or all 

conditions have been otherwise waived.

22. Plaintiffs has retained the law offices of the undersigned attorney to represent 

them in this action and are entitled to recover a reasonable attorney’s fee.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests compensatory and liquidated damages and reasonable 

attorney’s fees and costs from the corporate Defendant OCMP GROUP LLC, jointly and 

severally with the individual Defendants, ORLANDO SANTANA, and MARIO CICILIA, 

pursuant to the FLSA, to be proven at the time of trial, and liquidated damages due to Plaintiff

remain outstanding. If Plaintiff does not recover double damages, then Plaintiff seeks an award 

of prejudgment interest for the unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, and attorney’s fees, 

and all other relief which this Court deems reasonable under the circumstances. Plaintiff 

demands trial by jury. 

COUNT II

MINIMUM WAGE VIOLATION AGAINST

ALL DEFENDANTS 

23. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers paragraphs 1 through 22 as fully set forth herein.

24. Defendants were required to pay Plaintiff the minimum wage required the FMWA 

as well as the FLSA. 

25. Plaintiff was employed with Defendant as a server at least one day a week. When 

employed as a server, Defendants paid Plaintiff a subminimum tip credit wage which was less 

than the required minimum wage. 

Case 1:22-cv-21667-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 6 of 11
7

26. The FLSA as well as Florida Minimum Wage law require that the Employer pay 

Plaintiff a required minimum wage per hour. 29 U.S.C. § 206; F.S. § 448.10. 

27. As a result of the under-payments of wages alleged above, Defendant is indebted 

to Plaintiff in the amount of the unpaid minimum wage compensation. Plaintiff proposes to 

obtain the necessary records and information to determine the amount of the under-payments to 

him by appropriate discovery proceedings to be promptly taken in this cause.

28. Defendant willfully and intentionally failed to pay Plaintiff the statutory minimum 

wage as set forth above and remain owing him back wages. Defendant knew of the failure to pay 

Plaintiff. Defendant showed reckless disregard by failing to pay Plaintiff for his work and failing 

to comply with the FLSA and FMWA. Defendant did not keep proper time records, or other 

payroll records to avoid liability for the legally mandated wages. Defendant misclassified 

Plaintiff and failed to make mandatory payroll Defendants remains owing Plaintiff these 

minimum wages since the commencement of Plaintiff's employment with Defendants as set forth 

above and are entitled to a recovery of double damages. 

29. Plaintiff has complied with all conditions precedent to bringing this action or all 

conditions have been otherwise waived.

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

in this action and is entitled to recover a reasonable attorney’s fee.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests compensatory and liquidated damages and reasonable 

attorney’s fees and costs from the corporate Defendant OCMP GROUP LLC, jointly and 

severally with the individual Defendants, ORLANDO SANTANA, and MARIO CICILIA, 

pursuant to the FLSA, to be proven at the time of trial, and liquidated damages due to Plaintiff

Case 1:22-cv-21667-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 7 of 11
8

remain outstanding. If Plaintiff does not recover double damages, then Plaintiff seeks an award 

of prejudgment interest for the unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, and attorney’s fees, 

and any and all other relief which this Court deems reasonable under the circumstances. Plaintiff 

demands trial by jury. 

COUNT III

INDIVIDUAL LIABLITY

AGAINST ORLANDO SANTANA

31. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers paragraphs 1 through 30 as fully set forth herein.

32. The individual Defendant, ORLANDO SANTANA, is an FLSA and FMWA 

employer, as defined in 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), as he had operational control over the Defendant 

entity and additionally was directly involved in decisions affecting employee compensation, 

supervision of employees and hours worked by employees, such as Plaintiff. ORLANDO 

SANTANA also controlled the purse strings for the Defendant corporation.

33. As an FLSA employer, ORLANDO SANTANA is liable to Plaintiff, together 

with the corporate Defendant. 

34. Defendant willfully and intentionally failed to pay Plaintiff the statutory minimum 

wage as set forth above and remains owing him back wages. Defendant knew of the failure to 

pay Plaintiff. Defendant showed reckless disregard by failing to pay Plaintiff for his work and 

failing to comply with the FLSA and the FMWA requirement for payment of overtime and 

minimum wages. Defendant did not keep time records, or other payroll records to avoid liability 

for the legally mandated wages. Defendant misclassified Plaintiff and failed to make payroll 

deductions from the wage owed. Defendant remains owing Plaintiff these overtime and 

Case 1:22-cv-21667-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 8 of 11
9

minimum wages since the commencement of Plaintiff's employment with Defendant as set forth 

above and is entitled to a recovery of double damages.

35. Plaintiff has complied with all conditions precedent to bringing this action or all 

conditions have been otherwise waived.

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

in this action and is entitled to recover a reasonable attorney’s fee.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests compensatory and liquidated damages and reasonable 

attorney’s fees and costs from the corporate Defendant OCMP GROUP LLC, jointly and 

severally with the individual Defendants, ORLANDO SANTANA, and MARIO CICILIA, 

pursuant to the FLSA, to be proven at the time of trial, and liquidated damages due to Plaintiff

remain outstanding. If Plaintiff does not recover double damages, then Plaintiff seeks an award 

of prejudgment interest for the unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, and attorney’s fees, 

and all other relief which this Court deems reasonable under the circumstances. Plaintiff 

demands trial by jury. 

COUNT IV

INDIVIDUAL LIABLITY

AGAINST MARIO CICILIA

37. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers paragraphs 1 through 36 as fully set forth herein.

38. The individual Defendant, MARIO CICILIA, is an FLSA and FMWA employer, 

as defined in 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), as he had operational control over the Defendant entity and 

additionally was directly involved in decisions affecting employee compensation and hours 

worked by employees, such as Plaintiff. MARIO CICILIA also controlled the purse strings for 

the Defendant corporation.

Case 1:22-cv-21667-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 9 of 11
10

39. As an FLSA employer, MARIO CICILIA is liable to Plaintiff, together with the 

corporate Defendant. 

40. Defendant willfully and intentionally failed to pay Plaintiff the statutory minimum 

wage as set forth above and remains owing him back wages. Defendant knew of the failure to 

pay Plaintiff. Defendant showed reckless disregard by failing to pay Plaintiff for his work and 

failing to comply with the FLSA and the FMWA requirement for payment of overtime and 

minimum wages. Defendant did not keep time records, or other payroll records to avoid liability 

for the legally mandated wages. Defendant misclassified Plaintiff and failed to make payroll 

deductions from the wage owed. Defendant remains owing Plaintiff these overtime and 

minimum wages since the commencement of Plaintiff's employment with Defendant as set forth 

above and is entitled to a recovery of double damages.

41. Plaintiff has complied with all conditions precedent to bringing this action or all 

conditions have been otherwise waived.

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

in this action and is entitled to recover a reasonable attorney’s fee.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests compensatory and liquidated damages and reasonable 

attorney’s fees and costs from the corporate Defendant OCMP GROUP LLC, jointly and 

severally with the individual Defendants, ORLANDO SANTANA, and MARIO CICILIA, 

pursuant to the FLSA, to be proven at the time of trial, and liquidated damages due to Plaintiff

remain outstanding. If Plaintiff does not recover double damages, then Plaintiff seeks an award 

of prejudgment interest for the unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, and attorney’s fees, 

Case 1:22-cv-21667-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 10 of 11
11

and all other relief which this Court deems reasonable under the circumstances. Plaintiff 

demands trial by jury. 

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands trial by jury of all issues triable as of right by jury.

THE LAW OFFICES OF

EDDY O. MARBAN

2655 S. LeJeune Road, Suite 804

Coral Gables, Florida 33134

Telephone (305) 448-9292

E-mail: marbanlaw@gmail.com

By: s/Edilberto O. Marban

 EDDY O. MARBAN, ESQ.

 Fl. Bar No. 435960

Case 1:22-cv-21667-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2022 Page 11 of 11