UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

 

CASE NO: 22-cv-23177

MACK NASCIMIENTO,

Plaintiff,

vs.

LABALLE CONCRETE CORP, and

PABLO FERNANDEZ,

Defendants.

_________________________________/

COMPLAINT FOR FLSA WAGE VIOLATIONS AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, MACK NACIMIENTO, by and through undersigned 

counsel, sues the Defendants, LABELLE CONCRETE CORP, and PABLO FERNANDEZ, based 

on the following good cause: 

PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Plaintiff, MACK NACIMIENTO is over the age of 18 years old and is a sui juris resident of 

Miami-Dade County, Florida, at all times material hereto. 

2. Defendant, LABALLE CONCRETE CORP. (hereinafter “LABALLE”), is a sui juris Florida 

for-profit corporation with its principal place of business and registered agent in, Florida. 

3. Defendant, PABLO FERNANDEZ (hereinafter “FERNANDEZ”), was and is the owner and 

operator of the corporate Defendant for the relevant time period. Defendant runs the dayto-day operations of the corporate Defendant and was responsible for paying Plaintiff’s 

wages at all times material.

4. Defendants were Plaintiff’s direct employers, joint employers and co-employers for purposes 

of the FLSA, as the term “employer” is defined by 29 U.S.C. §203 (d). Both Defendants 

employed Plaintiff.

Case 1:22-cv-23177-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 1 of 6
2

5. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(ii) because Defendants transacts business in 

this District, because Plaintiff worked as a truck driver delivering a concrete cutter to several 

locations in the State of Florida and is due overtime payment for wages earned for work 

performed in the State of Florida. 

6. This is an action to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages, interest, costs and 

attorney’s fees for willful violations of overtime and minimum wage pay under the laws of the 

United States, the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 (“the FLSA”). 

7. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this action 

involves the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq.

8. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 

U.S.C. §201, et seq., (hereinafter "Act" or "FLSA") to recover overtime, and an additional 

equal amount as liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

9. LABELLE was, during all times mentioned, an enterprise engaged in commerce as defined in 

Section 3(r) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. §203(r) and 203(s). 

10. Upon information and belief, the annual gross revenue of Defendant was at all times material 

hereto and is expected to be for the current year in excess of $500,000 per annum.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

11. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from May 16, 2022 through June 3, 2022. 

12. Plaintiff is an "employee" within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §203(e).

13. Plaintiff is not an exempt employee. 

14. Plaintiff did not possess any supervisory authority, did not possess an advanced degree and did

not oversee any employees. 

15. Defendant controlled Plaintiff’s work hours, work location, and duties to be performed. 

Case 1:22-cv-23177-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 2 of 6
3

16. Defendants have at all times material hereto engaged in interstate commerce as they used 

Federal Interstates and roadways to move their concrete cutting truck through the State of 

Florida

17. LABALLE engages in interstate commerce by virtue of the fact that its business affects 

interstate commerce because the truck they used on a constant basis moved through the 

instrumentality/channels of interstate commerce. Plaintiff also used, handled and worked with 

materials and goods that moved in interstate commerce which include but may not be limited 

to; vehicles, uniforms, firearms, badges, telephone, etc. 

18. Further, LABALLE regularly employed two (2) or more employees for the relevant time 

period, who handled the same or similar goods and materials handled by Plaintiff, or used the 

instrumentalities of interstate commerce and as such, Defendant is an enterprise covered by 

the FLSA. 

19. In addition, Defendants’ annual gross revenues are believed to be in excess of $500,000.00 for 

the relevant time period.

20. Defendants hired Plaintiff as an hourly truck driver. 

21. Defendants paid Plaintiff $20.00 per hour.

22. Plaintiff’s work for Defendants did not require an advanced degree.

23. During all time periods material hereto, Defendants supervised Plaintiff’s work and ordered 

Plaintiff where and when to work and how to perform his job. Defendants also created 

Plaintiff’s schedule and required her to wear a uniform.

COUNT I

FEDERAL OVERTIME WAGE VIOLATIONS - 29 U.S.C. § 207

24. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and re-avers Paragraphs 1 through 23 as though set forth fully 

herein.

Case 1:22-cv-23177-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 3 of 6
4

25. Plaintiff alleges this action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 

216(b).

26. During all time periods material hereto, Plaintiff was a non-exempt, hourly employee.

27. Plaintiff works an average of 70 hours per week. 

28. Plaintiff performed work for Defendants during his employment for which he should have 

received time-and-one-half his regular hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) 

in one or more work weeks.

29. Defendants refused to pay Plaintiff one-and-one-half times his regular hourly rate for all hours 

of work performed over forty (40). 

30. Plaintiff therefore claims the applicable federal overtime wage rate for each hour worked in 

excess of forty (40) per week during her employment for which she was not properly 

compensated.

31. Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff the applicable federal overtime 

wages as required by the FLSA, as Defendant knew or should have known of the FLSA’s 

overtime wage requirements.

32. Defendants’ willful and/or intentional violations of federal wage law entitle Plaintiff to an 

additional amount of liquidated, or double damages. 

33. As a result of the violations alleged herein, Plaintiff was required to retain the undersigned 

counsel and is therefore entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, MACK NACIMIENTO, respectfully requests that this Honorable 

Court enter judgment in his favor and against Defendants, and award Plaintiff: (a) unliquidated 

damages; (b) liquidated damages; (c) all reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs; and any 

and all further relief as this Court deems equitable under the circumstances.

Case 1:22-cv-23177-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 4 of 6
5

COUNT II

VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA MINIMUM WAGE ACT

34. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 - 23, above, are repeated as if full rewritten herein.

35. Defendants failed to pay all of Plaintiff’s wages for the week commencing on May 30, 2022 

and ending June 3, 2022, when it failed to pay the Plaintiff all the wages earned. 

36. Under the FLORIDA MINIMUM WAGE ACT (hereinafter “FMWA”), if the employer failed 

to pay wages on the regular payment date, it is the equivalent of having failed altogether to 

pay. Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to be paid for all hours worked at the agreed upon hourly rate. 

37. Plaintiff endured considerable hardships without his earned pay checks and was required to 

wait to receive his wages long after said wages were due to be paid.

38. Defendants knew or showed a reckless disregard for the provisions of the FMWA concerning 

the payment of wages and remains owing the named Plaintiff for every hour of he worked and 

liquidated damages accrued as of the time the wages first became due.

39. Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff, wages in a timely manner is in violation of the FMWA. 

All these violations are intentional, willful and in reckless disregard, within the meaning of the 

Act, and Plaintiff is further entitled to liquidated damages in an amount equal to the amount of 

unpaid wages due Plaintiff. 

40. By all of Defendants’ actions shown above, the Defendants have violated the Act by its willful 

and intentional conduct, and, accordingly, the controlling time period governing this action 

should be thee three (3) years preceding the date this action was initiated.

41. By reason of Defendants’ refusal to pay Plaintiff his wages, it has been necessary for Plaintiff 

to hire labor and employment attorneys to prosecute this action and Plaintiff is entitled to tax 

a reasonable charge as attorneys' fees and costs against Defendants. 

Case 1:22-cv-23177-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 5 of 6
6

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests double damages and reasonable attorney's fees and costs 

pursuant to the FMWA as cited above to be proven at the time of trial for all unpaid wages and 

untimely paid wages owing including liquidated damages accrued for the entire applicable 

employment period with Defendants or as much as is allowed by FMWA, whichever is greater, 

plus prejudgment interest and any and all other relief which this Court may deem reasonable under 

the circumstances.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable. 

Angulo Diaz Law Group, P.A.

780 NW 42 Avenue

Ste 426

Miami, Florida 33126

(305) 468-9564 - Telephone

Email: service@angulodiazlaw.com

By: _/s/Yelina Angulo

Yelina Angulo, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 111339

 

Case 1:22-cv-23177-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 6 of 6