www.saenzanderson.com

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

Case No. _____________

FERNANDO HERNANDEZ, and other 

similarly situated individuals,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

ALFON PROTECTION GUARD 

SERVICES COMPANY and GUILLERMO 

ALFONSO,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

COMPLAINT

(OPT-IN PURSUANT TO 29 U.S.C § 216(B))

Plaintiffs, FERNANDO HERNANDEZ (“Plaintiff”) and other similarly situated 

individuals, sue the Defendants, ALFON PROTECTION GUARD and GUILLERMO ALFONSO

(collectively the “Defendants”) and allege:

JURISDICTION

1. This is an action to recover money damages for unpaid minimum and overtime 

wages under the laws of the United States. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Fair Labor 

Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201-219 (Section 216 for jurisdictional placement) (“the Act”). This 

Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the related state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1367(a) because those claims form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the 

United States Constitution. Plaintiff’s state law claims share all common operative facts with their 

federal law claims, and the parties are identical. Resolving Plaintiff’s federal and state claims in a 

Case 1:22-cv-22802-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 1 of 10
www.saenzanderson.com

2

single action serves the interests of judicial economy, convenience, consistency, and fairness to 

the parties.

VENUE

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

Honorable Court. Plaintiff is a covered employee for purposes of the Act.

3. ALFON PROTECTION GUARD (the “Corporate Defendant”) and GUILLERMO 

ALFONSO (the “Individual Defendant”), are a Florida company and a Florida resident,

respectively, having their main place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida, where Plaintiff 

worked for Defendants, and at all times material hereto were and are engaged in interstate 

commerce. The Individual Defendant, upon information and belief, resides in Miami-Dade 

County, Florida.

COUNT I: WAGE AND HOUR VIOLATION BY

ALFON PROTECTION GUARD

4. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-3 

above as if set out in full herein. 

5. This action is brought by Plaintiff and those similarly situated to recover from the 

Corporate Defendant unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation, as well as an additional 

amount as liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under the provisions of 29 

U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and specifically under the provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 207. 29 U.S.C. § 207 

(a)(1) states, “No employer shall employ any of his employees . . . for a work week longer than 40 

hours unless such employee receives compensation for his employment in excess of the hours 

Case 1:22-cv-22802-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 2 of 10
www.saenzanderson.com

3

above-specified at a rate not less than one and a half times the regular rate at which he is 

employed.”

6. 29 U.S.C. § 206 (a) (1) states "... an employer must pay a minimum wage of 

$5.15/hr to an employee who is engaged in commerce...” [29 U.S.C. § 206 (a) (1)]". On July 24, 

2007 Federal minimum wage was raised to $5.85/hr. On July 24, 2008, Federal minimum wage 

was raised to $6.55/hr. On July 24, 2009, Federal minimum wage was raised to $7.25/hr.

7. The Act provides minimum standards that may be exceeded, but cannot be waived 

or reduced. Employers must comply, for example, with any Federal, State or municipal laws, 

regulations or ordinances establishing a higher minimum wage or lower maximum workweek than 

those established under the Act. 29 C.F.R. § 541.4. 

8. In Florida, the minimum wage from January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020,

was $8.56 per hour; from January 1, 2021, through September 29, 2021, was $8.65 per hour; and 

from September 30, 2021, through the present is $10 per hour.

9. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by Title 28 U.S.C. § 1337 and by Title 29 

U.S.C. § 216(b). 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 Corporate Defendant

operates as an organization which sells and/or markets its services and/or goods to customers from 

throughout the United States and also provides its services for goods sold and transported from 

across state lines of other states, and the Corporate Defendant obtains and solicits funds from nonFlorida sources, accepts funds from non-Florida 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, particularly with respect to its employees. 

Case 1:22-cv-22802-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 3 of 10
www.saenzanderson.com

4

10. Upon information and belief, the annual gross revenue of the Corporate Defendant

was at all times material hereto in excess of $500,000 per annum, and/or Plaintiff and those 

similarly situated, by virtue of working in interstate commerce, otherwise satisfy the Act’s 

requirements. 

11. By reason of the foregoing, the Corporate Defendant is and was, during all times 

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

commerce as defined in §§ 3 (r) and 3(s) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 203(r) and 203(s) and/or Plaintiff 

and those similarly situated was and/or is engaged in interstate commerce for the Corporate 

Defendant. The Corporate Defendant’s business activities involve those to which the Act applies. 

The Corporate Defendant is company that provides security guard services and, through its 

business activity, affects interstate commerce. The Plaintiff’s work for the Corporate Defendant

likewise affects interstate commerce. Plaintiff was employed by the Corporate Defendant as a

security guard for the Corporate Defendant’s business.

12. While employed by the Corporate Defendant, Plaintiff worked approximately an 

average of 90-100 hours per week without being compensated at the rate of not less than one- and 

one-half times the regular rate at which he was employed. Plaintiff was employed as a security 

guard performing the same or similar duties as that of those other similarly situated s whom

Plaintiff observed working in excess of 40 hours per week without overtime compensation. 

13. Plaintiff worked for the Corporate Defendant from approximately February 10, 

2020, through November 29, 2021. In total, Plaintiff worked approximately 94 compensable weeks 

under the Act, or 94 compensable weeks if we count 3 years back from the filing of the instant 

action.

Case 1:22-cv-22802-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 4 of 10
www.saenzanderson.com

5

14. The Corporate Defendant paid Plaintiff on average approximately $440 per week.

15. In pre-suit negotiations, Defendants have produced what seem to be receipts for 

payments purportedly made to Plaintiff. These receipts total $23,594 for approximately 94 weeks 

of employment, or $251 per week. 

16. Corporate Defendant did not properly compensate Plaintiff for hours that Plaintiff 

worked in excess of 40 per week. Corporate Defendant did not pay overtime to Plaintiff.

17. Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime and minimum wages accumulated from 

the date of hire and/or from 3 (three) years back from the date of the filing of this Complaint.

18. Prior to the completion of discovery and to the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge, at the 

time of the filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff’s good faith estimate of unpaid minimum and 

overtime wages is as follows:

MINIMUM WAGES

February 10, 2020, through December 31, 2020 (46 weeks @ $8.56)

$440/100 = $4.44 - $8.56 = $4.16 x 100 x 46 = $19,136

January 1, 2021, through September 29, 2021 (39 weeks @ $8.65)

$440/100 = $4.44 - $8.65 = $4.21 x 100 x 39 = $16,419

September 30, 2021, through November 29, 2021 (9 weeks @ $10)

$440/100 = $4.44 - $10 = $5.56 x 100 x 9 = $5,004

Actual Damages: $40,559 

Liquidated Damages: $40,559

Total Unpaid Minimum Wages: $81,118 plus reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

Case 1:22-cv-22802-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 5 of 10
www.saenzanderson.com

6

OVERTIME WAGES

February 10, 2020, through December 31, 2020 (46 weeks @ $4.28)

$4.28 x 60 x 46 = $11,812.80

January 1, 2021, through September 29, 2021 (39 weeks @ $4.33)

$4.33 x 60 x 39 = $10,132.20 

September 30, 2021, through November 29, 2021 (9 weeks @ $5)

$440/100 = $5 x 60 x 9 = $2,700

Actual Damages: $24,645 

Liquidated Damages: $24,645

Total Unpaid Overtime Wages: $49,290 plus reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

19. At all times material hereto, the Corporate Defendant 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 and those similarly

situated performed services and worked in excess of the maximum hours provided by the Act but 

no provision was made by the Corporate Defendant to properly pay them at the rate of time and 

one half for all hours worked in excess of forty hours (40) per workweek as provided in the Act. 

The additional persons who may become Plaintiffs in this action are weekly-paid employees and/or 

former employees of the Corporate Defendant who are and who were subject to the unlawful 

payroll practices and procedures of the Corporate Defendant and were not paid time and one half 

of their regular rate of pay for all overtime hours worked in excess of forty. 

20. The Corporate Defendant knew and/or showed reckless disregard of the provisions 

of the Act concerning the payment of minimum and overtime wages and remains owing Plaintiff 

and those similarly situated these minimum and overtime wages since the commencement of 

Case 1:22-cv-22802-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 6 of 10
www.saenzanderson.com

7

Plaintiff’s and those similarly situated employees’ employment with the Corporate Defendant as 

set forth above, and Plaintiff and those similarly situated are entitled to recover double damages. 

The Corporate Defendant never posted any notice, as required by Federal Law, to inform 

employees of their federal rights to overtime and minimum wage payments. 

21. The Corporate Defendant willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff 

overtime wages as required by the laws of the United States as set forth above and remains owing 

Plaintiff these minimum and overtime wages since the commencement of Plaintiff’s employment 

with the Corporate Defendant as set forth above.

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

in this action and is obligated to pay a reasonable attorneys’ fee.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and those similarly situated request that this Honorable Court: 

A. Enter judgment for Plaintiff and others similarly situated and against the Corporate 

Defendant on the basis of the Corporate Defendant’s willful violations of the Fair Labor 

Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. and other Federal Regulations; and

B. Award Plaintiff actual damages in the amount shown to be due for unpaid wages and 

overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty weekly; and

C. Award Plaintiff an equal amount in double damages/liquidated damages; and

D. Award Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit; and 

E. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems equitable and just. 

Case 1:22-cv-22802-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 7 of 10
www.saenzanderson.com

8

COUNT II: WAGE AND HOUR VIOLATION BY

THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANT

23. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-22

above as if set out in full herein.

24. At the times mentioned, the Individual Defendant was, and is now, the owner and 

or primary officer of the Corporate Defendant. The Individual Defendant was an employer of 

Plaintiff and others similarly situated within the meaning of Section 3(d) of the Act [29 U.S.C. 

§ 203(d)], in that this defendant acted directly or indirectly in the interests of the Corporate 

Defendant in relation to the employees of the Corporate Defendant, including Plaintiff and others 

similarly situated. The Individual Defendant had operational control of the Corporate Defendant, 

was involved in the day-to-day functions of the Corporate Defendant, provided Plaintiff with his 

work schedule, and is jointly liable for Plaintiff’s damages.

25. The Individual Defendant is and was at all times relevant a person in control of the 

Corporate Defendant’s financial affairs and can cause the Corporate Defendant to compensate (or 

not to compensate) its employees in accordance with the Act.

26. The Individual Defendant willfully and intentionally caused Plaintiff not to receive 

overtime compensation as required by the laws of the United States as set forth above and remains 

owing Plaintiff these overtime and minimum wages since the commencement of Plaintiff’s 

employment with the Corporate Defendant as set forth above. 

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

in this action and is obligated to pay a reasonable attorneys’ fee.

Case 1:22-cv-22802-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 8 of 10
www.saenzanderson.com

9

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and those similarly situated request that this Honorable Court: 

A. Enter judgment for Plaintiff and others similarly situated and against the Individual 

Defendant on the basis of the Defendants’ willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards 

Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. and other Federal Regulations; and

B. Award Plaintiff actual damages in the amount shown to be due for unpaid wages and 

overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty weekly; and

C. Award Plaintiff an equal amount in double damages/liquidated damages; and

D. Award Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit; and 

E. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems equitable and just. 

COUNT III: BREACH OF CONTRACT AGAINST CORPORATE DEFENDANT

28. Plaintiff re-states and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 3 as if set forth in full herein.

29. At all times material hereto, the Plaintiff was an employee of the Corporate 

Defendant.

30. The Plaintiff was employed by the Corporate Defendants as a security guard.

31. The Plaintiff worked as a security guard from February of 2020 through November 

of 2021.

32. The Plaintiff and the Corporate Defendant entered into a verbal agreement in which 

Corporate Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff $18 per hour for his work.

33. The Plaintiff fulfilled his end of the verbal agreement by working for the 

Defendant’s benefit approximately 90-100 hours per week for approximately 94 weeks.

34. The Corporate Defendant breached the agreement by paying Plaintiff less than $18 

per hour for his work.

35. As a result, the Plaintiff has been damaged.

Case 1:22-cv-22802-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 9 of 10
www.saenzanderson.com

10

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court:

a. Award the Plaintiff unpaid wages found to be due and owing;

b. Award the Plaintiff prejudgment interest;

c. Award the Plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fee and costs pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 448.08; 

and

d. Order such other relief as this Court deems just and equitable.

Dated: September 2, 2022.

Respectfully submitted,

By: Julisse Jimenez

Julisse Jimenez, Esquire

Fla. Bar No.: 65387

R. Martin Saenz, Esquire

Fla. Bar No.: 0640166

Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com

SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800

Aventura, Florida 33180

Telephone: (305) 503-5131

Facsimile: (888) 270-5549

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 1:22-cv-22802-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 10 of 10