1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO.:

LUIS GONZALEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

 

GRANDMA’S PIZZA INC., 

a Florida Profit Corporation, 

Defendant.

___________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT & DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, LUIS GONZALEZ (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Gonzalez”), by and through his 

undersigned counsel, files this Complaint against Defendant, GRANDMA’S PIZZA 

INC. (“Defendant” or “GPI”), and states as follows:

NATURE OF THE SUIT

 1. This action is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) to 

recover from Defendant overtime compensation, liquidated damages, declaratory relief, 

reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and any other damages permitted by law. 

PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

2. Mr. Gonzalez was an employee who performed services on behalf of 

Defendant in Royal Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. 

3. GPI is a Florida profit corporation located in Delray Beach, Palm Beach

County, Florida, and which, at all times relevant, performed work in Palm Beach County, 

Florida. 

Case 9:22-cv-81355-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 1 of 9
2 

4. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court, as the claims are brought pursuant to 

the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., hereinafter “FLSA”), 

to recover unpaid overtime wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, to 

obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

5. Venue is proper in this Court, as the actions giving rise to this lawsuit 

occurred in Palm Beach County, Florida.

FLSA COVERAGE

6. At all times material hereto, Defendant was, and continues to be an 

“employer” within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).

7. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was a resident of Palm Beach

County, Florida.

8. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was an “employee” within the 

meaning of the FLSA. 

9. At all times material hereto, Defendant was Plaintiff’s “employer” within 

the meaning of the FLSA. 

10. At all times material hereto, Defendant was, and continues to be, an 

“enterprise engaged in commerce” or in the production of goods for commerce as defined 

by the FLSA. 

11. Based upon information and belief, the annual gross revenue of 

Defendant was in excess of $500,000.00 per annum during the relevant time periods. 

12. At all times material hereto, Defendant was primarily engaged in 

operating a pizza parlor in Royal Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida.

13. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was “engaged in commerce” within 

Case 9:22-cv-81355-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 2 of 9
3 

the meaning of § 6 and § 7 of the FLSA, but not for purposes of the Motor Carrier Act. 

14. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was engaged in the “production of 

goods for commerce” and subject to the individual coverage of the FLSA, but not for 

purposes of the Motor Carrier Act. 

15. At all times material hereto, Defendant had two (2) or more employees 

handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that had been moved in or 

produced for commerce, such as foodstuffs, beverages, telephones, etc., but which had 

come to rest within its headquarterssite and pizza parlor in Palm Beach County, Florida. 

16. At all times material hereto, the work performed by Plaintiff was directly 

essential to the business performed by Defendant, in that Defendant could not operate its 

business without Managers like Plaintiff.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

17. Mr. Gonzalez worked for Defendant as General Manager of Defendant’s 

Grandma’s Brooklyn Pizza restaurant in Royal Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, 

Florida, from September 16, 2020, until his separation from Defendant on July 11, 2021. 

18. Throughout his time with GPI, Mr. Gonzalez was paid a fixed hourly rate 

of $15.00 per hour, and was not paid any overtime premium no matter how many hours 

in excess of forty (40) he worked in a given week, and was instead paid for those hours 

at his regular fixed hourly rate of $15.00 per hour. 

19. Mr. Gonzalez always worked in Palm Beach County, Florida, and his

activities were at all times controlled and closely supervised by Defendant’s managers 

and supervisors.

20. Mr. Gonzalez had no authority to hire or fire employees of GPI. 

Case 9:22-cv-81355-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 3 of 9
4

21. Mr. Gonzalez had no authority to discipline employees of GPI.

22. Mr. Gonzalez had no authority to set rates of pay for other employees or 

agents of GPI.

23. Mr. Gonzalez had no input into performance reviews of other employees 

or agents of GPI.

24. All of Mr. Gonzalez’s major decisions had to be cleared in advance by 

one of GPI’s supervisors.

25. Mr. Gonzalez was closely monitored by GPI’s managers and supervisors 

at all times.

26. Mr. Gonzalez followed procedures established by GPI and did exactly as 

he was instructed to do.

27. Mr. Gonzalez’s primary duties were to prepare food for GPI’s patrons, 

deliver food and beverages to patrons’ tables, and provide guidance to GPI employees at 

times.

28. Throughout Plaintiff’s employment, Defendant regularly required 

Plaintiff to work in excess of forty (40) hours per week.

29. Plaintiff regularly worked sixty-five (65) or more hours per week for 

Defendant during his employment with Defendant.

30. From November of 2020 through February of 2021, Plaintiff regularly 

worked seventy-two (72) or more hours per week for Defendant.

31. Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff full and proper overtime compensation

for all hours worked over forty (40) per week during his employment with Defendant.

Case 9:22-cv-81355-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 4 of 9
5 

32. When Plaintiff worked more than forty (40) hours in a given work week, 

Defendant failed to properly pay him for all overtime hours worked. 

33. Defendant consistently failed to pay Plaintiff any overtime premium at 

all for overtime hours that he worked during his employment. 

34. Plaintiff should have been compensated at the rate of one-and-one-half 

times Plaintiff’s regular rate for all hours that Plaintiff worked in excess of forty (40) 

hours per week, as required by the FLSA, throughout his employment. 

35. Defendant violated Title 29 U.S.C. §207 in that: 

(a) Plaintiff worked in excess of forty (40) hours in one or more workweeks for 

his period of employment with Defendant; 

(b) No payments or provisions for payment have been made by Defendant to 

properly compensate Plaintiff at the statutory rate of one-and-one-half times 

Plaintiff’s regular rate for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per 

work week, as provided by the FLSA; and

(c) Defendant failed to maintain proper time records as mandated by the FLSA.

36. Prior to violating the FLSA, Defendant did not consult with an attorney 

to evaluate whether Plaintiff’s actual job duties and pay structure rendered him exempt 

from recovering payment for all overtime worked under the FLSA.

37. Prior to violating the FLSA, Defendant did not consult with the 

Department of Labor to evaluate whether Plaintiff’s actual job duties and pay structure 

rendered him exempt from recovering payment for all overtime worked under the FLSA.

Case 9:22-cv-81355-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 5 of 9
6 

38. Prior to violating the FLSA, Defendant did not consult with an accountant 

to evaluate whether Plaintiff’s actual job duties and pay structure rendered him exempt 

from recovering payment for all overtime worked under the FLSA.

39. While Plaintiff does not have all of his time records, Plaintiff estimates 

his FLSA damages to be:

September 16, 2020 through November 1, 2020 (approximately 7 weeks): 

Based on a time-and-a-half method, Plaintiff calculates his damages as follows:

25 hours (approximate overtime hours per week) X $7.50 (unpaid overtime 

premium based on $15.00 per hour rate of pay) = $ 187.50 unpaid overtime 

compensation per week. 

$187.50 (unpaid overtime compensation per week) X 7 weeks = $1,312.50 

November 1, 2020 through February 28, 2021 (approximately 17 weeks): 

Based on a time-and-a-half method, Plaintiff calculates his damages as follows:

32 hours (approximate overtime hours per week) X $7.50 (unpaid overtime 

premium based on $15.00 per hour rate of pay) = $ 240.000 unpaid overtime 

compensation per week. 

$240.00 (unpaid overtime compensation per week) X 17 weeks = $4,080.00 

March 1, 2021 through July 11, 2021 (approximately 19 weeks): 

Based on a time-and-a-half method, Plaintiff calculates his damages as follows:

25 hours (approximate overtime hours per week) X $7.50 (unpaid overtime 

premium based on $15.00 per hour rate of pay) = $ 187.50 unpaid overtime 

compensation per week. 

$187.50 (unpaid overtime compensation per week) X 19 weeks = $3,562.50 

Case 9:22-cv-81355-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 6 of 9
7 

TOTAL: $8,955.00 (unliquidated) and, if liquidated, $17,910.00 

40. Based on the allegations in Paragraphs 36-38, above, Plaintiff is entitled 

to liquidated damages, as Defendant has no objective or subjective good faith belief that 

its pay practices were in compliance with the FLSA.

41. Plaintiff has retained the law firm of RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A. 

to represent him in the litigation and has agreed to pay the firm a reasonable fee for its 

services.

COUNT I

VIOLATION OF 29 U.S.C. §207 OVERTIME COMPENSATION

42. Plaintiff reincorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 40 of the 

Complaint as though set forth fully herein, and further alleges as follows: 

43. Plaintiff is entitled to be paid time-and-one-half his regular rate of pay for 

each hour worked in excess of forty (40) per work week. 

44. During Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant, Plaintiff regularly 

worked overtime hours, but was not paid full and proper time-and-one-half

compensation for all hours worked. 

45. Plaintiff was not an exempt employee as defined by the FLSA, and was 

instead a non-exempt employee as defined by the FLSA. 

46. As a result of Defendant’s intentional, willful, and unlawful acts in 

refusing to pay Plaintiff time-and-one-half his regular rate of pay for each hour worked 

in excess of forty (40) per work week in one or more work weeks, Plaintiff has suffered 

damages, in addition to incurring reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 

Case 9:22-cv-81355-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 7 of 9
8

47. As a result of Defendant’s willful violation of the FLSA, Plaintiff is 

entitled to liquidated damages. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that judgment be entered in his

favor against Defendant, and that this Court:

a. Declare, pursuant to the FLSA,that the acts and practices complained 

of herein are in violation of the maximum hour provisions of the 

FLSA;

b. Award Plaintiff overtime compensation in the amount due to him for 

time worked in excess of forty (40) hours per work week;

c. Award Plaintiff liquidated damages in an amount equal to the 

overtime award; 

d. Award Plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees and costs and expenses of 

the litigation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b);

e. Award Plaintiff pre-judgment interest; and order any other and further 

relief that this Court deems just and proper.

Case 9:22-cv-81355-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 8 of 9
9 

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues so triable as a matter of right. 

DATED this 2nd day of September, 2022. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 By: /s/Noah E. Storch

 Noah E. Storch, Esq. 

 Florida Bar No. 0085476 

 RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.

 10368 W. SR 84, Suite 103 

 Davie, Florida 33324 

 Telephone: (866) 344-9243 

Facsimile: (954) 337-2771 

 E-mail:noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com 

 Trial Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 9:22-cv-81355-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 9 of 9