www.saenzanderson.com

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

Case No.: ________________

ANGEL HERNANDEZ, and other similarly 

situated individuals,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

BUILDING TESTING SERVICES LLC 

a/k/a BUILDING TESTING SERVICES 

WORLDWIDE LLC, and MICHAEL 

CURIALE,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

COMPLAINT

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

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

sue the Defendants, BUILDING TESTING SERVICES LLC a/k/a BUILDING TESTING 

SERVICES WORLDWIDE LLC, and MICHAEL CURIALE (collectively the “Defendants”) and 

allege:

JURISDICTION

1. This is an action to recover money damages for unpaid 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”).

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.

Case 1:22-cv-23081-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2022 Page 1 of 10
www.saenzanderson.com

2

3. BUILDING TESTING SERVICES LLC a/k/a BUILDING TESTING SERVICES 

WORLDWIDE LLC (the “Corporate Defendant”) and MICHAEL CURIALE (the “Individual 

Defendant”), are a Florida limited liability company and a Florida resident, respectively, doing 

business in Miami-Dade County, Florida, where Plaintiff worked for Defendants, and at all times 

material hereto were and are engaged in interstate commerce.

4. 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. 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. 

5. 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. 

Case 1:22-cv-23081-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2022 Page 2 of 10
www.saenzanderson.com

3

6. The Corporate Defendant is a construction company 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 construction 

worker for the Corporate Defendant’s business.

COUNT I: WAGE AND HOUR VIOLATION BY

CORPORATE DEFENDANT (UNPAID OVERTIME)

7. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-6 

above as if set out in full herein. 

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

Corporate Defendant unpaid 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 above-specified at a rate not less 

than one and a half times the regular rate at which he is employed.”

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

average of 76-84 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 construction 

worker performing the same or similar duties as that of those other similarly situated construction 

workers whom Plaintiff observed working in excess of 40 hours per week without overtime 

compensation. 

Case 1:22-cv-23081-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2022 Page 3 of 10
www.saenzanderson.com

4

10. Plaintiff worked for the Corporate Defendant from approximately 10/28/2021 to 

09/03/2022. In total, Plaintiff worked approximately 47 compensable weeks under the Act, or 47 

compensable weeks if we count 3 years back from the filing of the instant action.

11. The Corporate Defendant paid Plaintiff on average approximately $16 per hour. 

12. However, the Corporate Defendant did not properly compensate Plaintiff for hours 

that Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 per week.

13. Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages accumulated from the date of hire 

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

14. 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 overtime wages is as 

follows:

a. Actual Damages: $15,040.00

i. Calculation: $16 (hourly pay) x .5 (overtime rate) x 40 (approximate number of 

overtime hours) x 47 (compensable weeks) = $15,040.00

b. Liquidated Damages: $15,040.00

c. Total Damages: $30,080.00 plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit.

15. 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. 

Case 1:22-cv-23081-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2022 Page 4 of 10
www.saenzanderson.com

5

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. 

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

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

similarly situated these overtime wages since the commencement of 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. 

17. 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 overtime wages since the commencement of Plaintiff’s employment with the 

Corporate Defendant as set forth above.

18. 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 

Case 1:22-cv-23081-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2022 Page 5 of 10
www.saenzanderson.com

6

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 II: WAGE AND HOUR VIOLATION BY

THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANT (OVERTIME)

19. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-6

above as if set out in full herein.

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

Individual Defendant by virtue of 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), unpaid 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 above-specified at a rate not less than one and a half times the regular rate at which 

he is employed.”

21. At the times mentioned, the Individual Defendant was, and is now, the owner and/or

the main officer of the Corporate Defendant. 

22. 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. 

Case 1:22-cv-23081-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2022 Page 6 of 10
www.saenzanderson.com

7

23. 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.

24. The Individual Defendant directly supervised Omar Lopez and gave Mr. Lopez 

specific instructions on getting Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees to sign in when 

they started working. On a daily basis and throughout the relevant time period, Mr. Lopez reported 

directly to the Individual Defendant about all hours worked by Plaintiff and other similarly situated 

individuals.

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 decided exactly how much Plaintiff and other similarly 

situated individuals were to be paid in a specific pay period during all times relevant.

27. 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 wages since the commencement of Plaintiff’s employment with the 

Corporate Defendant as set forth above. 

28. While employed by the Defendants, Plaintiff worked approximately an average of 

76-84 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 construction worker

performing the same or similar duties as that of those other similarly situated construction workers

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

Case 1:22-cv-23081-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2022 Page 7 of 10
www.saenzanderson.com

8

29. Plaintiff worked for Defendants from approximately 10/28/2021 to 09/03/2022. In 

total, Plaintiff worked approximately 47 compensable weeks under the Act, or 47 compensable 

weeks if we count 3 years back from the filing of the instant action.

30. The Defendants paid Plaintiff on average approximately $16 per hour. 

31. However, Defendants did not properly compensate Plaintiff for hours that Plaintiff 

worked in excess of 40 per week.

32. Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages accumulated from the date of hire 

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

33. 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 overtime wages is as 

follows:

a. Actual Damages: $15,040.00

ii. Calculation: $16 (hourly pay) x .5 (overtime rate) x 40 (approximate number of 

overtime hours) x 47 (compensable weeks) = $15,040.00

b. Liquidated Damages: $15,040.00

c. Total Damages: $30,080.00 plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit.

34. At all times material hereto, the 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 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 Defendants 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 

Case 1:22-cv-23081-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2022 Page 8 of 10
www.saenzanderson.com

9

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

employees of the Defendants who are and who were subject to the unlawful payroll practices and 

procedures of the Defendants and were not paid time and one half of their regular rate of pay for 

all overtime hours worked in excess of forty. 

35. The Defendants knew and/or showed reckless disregard of the provisions of the Act 

concerning the payment of overtime wages and remains owing Plaintiff and those similarly 

situated these overtime wages since the commencement of Plaintiff’s and those similarly situated 

employees’ employment with the Defendants as set forth above, and Plaintiff and those similarly 

situated are entitled to recover double damages. The Defendants never posted any notice, as 

required by Federal Law, to inform employees of their federal rights to overtime and minimum 

wage payments. 

36. The Individua 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 overtime wages since the commencement of Plaintiff’s employment with the 

Defendants as set forth above.

37. 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 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 

Case 1:22-cv-23081-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2022 Page 9 of 10
www.saenzanderson.com

10

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. 

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff and those similarly situated demand trial by jury of all issues so triable as of right.

Dated: September 23, 2022.

Respectfully submitted,

By:__/s/ Julisse Jimenez

Julisse Jimenez, Esquire

 Fla. Bar No.: 65387

 Email: julisse@saenzanderson.com

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-23081-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2022 Page 10 of 10