SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Telephone: 305.503.5131

Aventura, Florida 33180 Facsimile: 888.270.5549

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

Case No.: _____________________

MILKA CASTELLON, 

Plaintiff,

v.

DORAL SECURITY PATROL LLC f/k/a 

DORAL SECURITY PATROL INC d/b/a 

Blue Knights; BLUE KNIGHTS 

PROTECTIVE SERVICES, LLC f/k/a 

BLUE KNIGHTS PROTECTIVE SERVICE 

INC. d/b/a Blue Knights; 

A.R.C.K. HOLDING INVESTMENTS 

GROUP, INC. d/b/a Blue Knights; 

ROLAND FONGON; and STEVEN 

BALZER.

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

COMPLAINT

(OPT-IN PURSUANT TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT)

Plaintiff MILKA CASTELLON (the “Plaintiff”) sues Defendants DORAL SECURITY 

PATROL LLC f/k/a DORAL SECURITY PATROL INC d/b/a Blue Knights (“Doral”); BLUE 

KNIGHTS PROTECTIVE SERVICES, LLC f/k/a BLUE KNIGHTS PROTECTIVE SERVICE 

INC. d/b/a Blue Knights (“Blue”); A.R.C.K. HOLDING INVESTMENTS GROUP, INC. d/b/a 

Blue Knights (“ARCK”); ROLAND FONGON (“Fongon”); and STEVEN BALZER (“Balzer”) 

(collectively the “Defendants”) and alleges:

Case 1:22-cv-23742-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 1 of 14
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Telephone: 305.503.5131

Aventura, Florida 33180 Facsimile: 888.270.5549

I. 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”).

II. VENUE

2. The Defendants Doral, Blue and ARCK (the “Corporate Defendants”) are 

companies duly authorized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida and conducting 

business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

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

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

4. Forgon and Balzer (the “Individual Defendants”) and the Corporate Defendants are 

Florida residents, having their main place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Plaintiff 

worked for Defendants in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

5. Defendants, at all times material hereto, were and are engaged in interstate 

commerce. 

6. The acts or omissions giving rise to this Complaint occurred in whole or in part in 

Miami-Dade, Florida.

III. JOINT EMPLOYMENT

7. The Corporate Defendants share common ownership, common management, 

centralized control of labor relations, and common offices and interrelated operations. The 

Corporate Defendants are an integrated enterprise under the law. Alternatively, each company is 

an enterprise under the law and each company is an agent of each other.

Case 1:22-cv-23742-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 2 of 14
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Telephone: 305.503.5131

Aventura, Florida 33180 Facsimile: 888.270.5549

8. The Corporate Defendants share employees or interchange employees; work in the 

direct interest of one another; and their employees are in the common control of both companies. 

The Corporate Defendants are joint employers. Alternatively, each company is an enterprise under 

the law and each company is an agent of each other. 

9. Each Corporate Defendant is sued individually, as a joint enterprise, as joint 

employers, and as agent of each other.

IV. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

10. Plaintiff began working as a security guard for the Defendants on or about January 

of 2019. She worked for the Defendants until on or about July 16, 2022. 

11. Defendants paid Plaintiff $11 per hour. 

12. Plaintiff worked for the Defendants, on average 60-70 hours per week. She worked 

through her lunch and generally took no breaks. 

13. Defendants did not pay Plaintiff any overtime when she worked in excess of 40 

hours per week.

COUNT I: UNPAID OVERTIME (CORPORATE DEFENDANTS) – FLSA

14. The Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-

13 above as if set out in full herein. 

15. The Plaintiff is a covered employee for purposes of the Act.

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

the Corporate Defendants 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. Section 207(a)(1) of the Act 

Case 1:22-cv-23742-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 3 of 14
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Telephone: 305.503.5131

Aventura, Florida 33180 Facsimile: 888.270.5549

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 abovespecified at a rate not less than one and a half times the regular rate at which he is employed.”

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

U.S.C. § 216(b). The Corporate Defendants are and, at all times pertinent to this Complaint, were

engaged in interstate commerce. 

18. At all times pertinent to this Complaint, the Corporate Defendants operated as 

organizations which sold and/or marketed their services and/or goods to customers from 

throughout the United States and also provided their services for goods sold and transported from 

across state lines of other states, and the Corporate Defendants obtained and solicited funds from 

non-Florida sources, accepted funds from non-Florida sources, used telephonic transmissions 

going over state lines to do its business, transmitted funds outside the State of Florida, and 

otherwise regularly engaged in interstate commerce, particularly with respect to their employees. 

19. The combined annual gross revenue of the Corporate Defendants was, at all times 

material hereto, in excess of $500,000 per annum.

20. Upon information and belief, the annual gross revenue of Doral was, at all times 

material hereto, in excess of $500,000 per annum.

21. Upon information and belief, the annual gross revenue of Blue was, at all times 

material hereto, in excess of $500,000 per annum.

22. Upon information and belief, the annual gross revenue of ARCK was, at all times 

material hereto, in excess of $500,000 per annum.

Case 1:22-cv-23742-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 4 of 14
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Telephone: 305.503.5131

Aventura, Florida 33180 Facsimile: 888.270.5549

23. Alternatively, the Plaintiff and those similarly situated, by virtue of working in 

interstate commerce, otherwise satisfy the Act’s requirements. 

24. By reason of the foregoing, the Corporate Defendants are and were, during all times 

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

as defined in §§ 3(r) and 3(s) of the Act and/or the Plaintiff and those similarly situated were and/or 

are engaged in interstate commerce for the Corporate Defendants. The Corporate Defendants’ 

business activities involve those to which the Act applies. The Corporate Defendants are

companies engaged in providing security-related services and, through their business activity, 

affect interstate commerce. The Plaintiff’s work for the Corporate Defendants likewise affects 

interstate commerce. Plaintiff was employed by the Corporate Defendants as a security guard for 

the Corporate Defendants’ business.

25. While employed by the Corporate Defendant, the Plaintiff worked approximately 

an average of 60-70 hours per week without being compensated at the rate of not less than oneand one-half times the regular rate at which he was employed. 

26. The Plaintiff was employed as a security guard performing the same or similar 

duties as that of those other similarly situated security guards whom the Plaintiff observed working 

in excess of 40 hours per week without overtime compensation.

27. The Plaintiff worked for the Corporate Defendants from approximately January of 

2019 to July 16, 2022. In total, the Plaintiff worked approximately 140 compensable weeks under 

the Act, or 140 compensable weeks if counted 3 years back from the filing of the instant action.

28. The Corporate Defendants paid the Plaintiff on average approximately $11 per 

hour. 

Case 1:22-cv-23742-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 5 of 14
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Telephone: 305.503.5131

Aventura, Florida 33180 Facsimile: 888.270.5549

29. However, the Corporate Defendants did not properly compensate the Plaintiff for 

hours that the Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 per week.

30. The 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.

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

the time of the filing of this Complaint, the Plaintiff’s good faith estimate of her unpaid overtime 

wages is as follows:

a. Actual Damages: $19,250.

i. Calculation: $11 (hourly pay) x .5 (overtime rate) x 25 (approximate number of 

overtime hours) x 140 (compensable weeks) = $19,250.

b. Liquidated Damages: $19,250.

c. Total Damages: $38,500 plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit.

32. At all times material hereto, the Corporate 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 the 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 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 persons who may become plaintiffs in this action are weekly-paid 

employees and/or former employees of the Corporate Defendants 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. 

Case 1:22-cv-23742-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 6 of 14
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Telephone: 305.503.5131

Aventura, Florida 33180 Facsimile: 888.270.5549

33. The Corporate Defendants knew and/or showed reckless disregard of the provisions 

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

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

similarly situated employees’ employment with the Corporate Defendants as set forth above, and 

the Plaintiff and those similarly situated are entitled to recover double damages. 

34. Upon information and belief, Corporate Defendants never posted any notice, as 

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

wage payments. 

35. The Corporate Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay the Plaintiff 

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

the Plaintiff these overtime wages since the commencement of the Plaintiff’s employment with the 

Corporate Defendants as set forth above.

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

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

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff and those similarly situated request that this Honorable 

Court: 

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

Defendants on the basis of the Corporate Defendants’ willful violations of the Fair 

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

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

d. Award the 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-23742-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 7 of 14
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Telephone: 305.503.5131

Aventura, Florida 33180 Facsimile: 888.270.5549

COUNT II: UNPAID OVERTIME (INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANT) – FLSA

37. The Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-

13 above as if set out in full herein. 

38. The Plaintiff is a covered employee for purposes of the Act.

39. This count is against the Individual Defendants only.

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

the Individual Defendants 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. Section 207(a)(1) of the Act 

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 abovespecified at a rate not less than one and a half times the regular rate at which he is employed.”

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

U.S.C. § 216(b). The Corporate Defendants are and, at all times pertinent to this Complaint, were

engaged in interstate commerce. 

42. At all times pertinent to this Complaint, the Corporate Defendants operated as 

organizations which sold and/or marketed their services and/or goods to customers from 

throughout the United States and also provided their services for goods sold and transported from 

across state lines of other states, and the Corporate Defendants obtained and solicited funds from 

non-Florida sources, accepted funds from non-Florida sources, used telephonic transmissions 

going over state lines to do its business, transmitted funds outside the State of Florida, and 

otherwise regularly engaged in interstate commerce, particularly with respect to their employees. 

Case 1:22-cv-23742-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 8 of 14
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Telephone: 305.503.5131

Aventura, Florida 33180 Facsimile: 888.270.5549

43. The combined annual gross revenue of the Corporate Defendants was, at all times 

material hereto, in excess of $500,000 per annum.

44. Upon information and belief, the annual gross revenue of Doral was, at all times 

material hereto, in excess of $500,000 per annum.

45. Upon information and belief, the annual gross revenue of Blue was, at all times 

material hereto, in excess of $500,000 per annum.

46. Upon information and belief, the annual gross revenue of ARCK was, at all times 

material hereto, in excess of $500,000 per annum.

47. Alternatively, the Plaintiff and those similarly situated, by virtue of working in 

interstate commerce, otherwise satisfy the Act’s requirements. 

48. By reason of the foregoing, the Corporate Defendants are and were, during all times 

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

as defined in §§ 3(r) and 3(s) of the Act and/or the Plaintiff and those similarly situated were and/or 

are engaged in interstate commerce for the Corporate Defendants. The Corporate Defendants’ 

business activities involve those to which the Act applies. The Corporate Defendants are

companies engaged in providing security-related services and, through their business activity, 

affect interstate commerce. The Plaintiff’s work for the Corporate Defendants likewise affects 

interstate commerce. Plaintiff was employed by the Corporate Defendants as a security guard for 

the Corporate Defendants’ business.

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

of 60-70 hours per week without being compensated at the rate of not less than one- and one-half 

times the regular rate at which she was employed. 

Case 1:22-cv-23742-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 9 of 14
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Telephone: 305.503.5131

Aventura, Florida 33180 Facsimile: 888.270.5549

50. The Plaintiff was employed as a security guard performing the same or similar 

duties as that of those other similarly situated security guards whom the Plaintiff observed working 

in excess of 40 hours per week without overtime compensation.

51. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from approximately January of 2019 to 

July 16, 2022. In total, the Plaintiff worked approximately 140 compensable weeks under the Act, 

or 140 compensable weeks if counted 3 years back from the filing of the instant action.

52. Defendants paid the Plaintiff on average approximately $11 per hour. 

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

Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 per week.

54. The 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.

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

the time of the filing of this Complaint, the Plaintiff’s good faith estimate of her unpaid overtime 

wages is as follows:

a. Actual Damages: $19,250.

i. Calculation: $11 (hourly pay) x .5 (overtime rate) x 25 (approximate 

number of overtime hours) x 140 (compensable weeks) = $19,250.

b. Liquidated Damages: $19,250.

c. Total Damages: $38,500 plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit.

56. 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 the Plaintiff and those similarly 

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

Case 1:22-cv-23742-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 10 of 14
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Telephone: 305.503.5131

Aventura, Florida 33180 Facsimile: 888.270.5549

no provision was made by 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 

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

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

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

overtime hours worked in excess of forty. 

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

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

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

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

similarly situated are entitled to recover double damages. 

58. Upon information and belief, Defendants never posted any notice, as required by 

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

payments. 

59. Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay the Plaintiff overtime wages 

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

these overtime wages since the commencement of the Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants as 

set forth above.

60. The Plaintiff seeks to recover from the Individual Defendants 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.

Case 1:22-cv-23742-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 11 of 14
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Telephone: 305.503.5131

Aventura, Florida 33180 Facsimile: 888.270.5549

61. The Individual Defendants knew and/or showed reckless disregard of the 

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

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

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

Plaintiff and those similarly situated are entitled to recover double damages. 

62. At the times mentioned, the Individual Defendant Fongon was, and is now, an 

owner, officer and/or director of the Corporate Defendants. The Individual Defendant Fongon was 

an employer of the Plaintiff and others similarly situated within the meaning of Section 3(d) of the 

Act in that Fongon acted directly or indirectly in the interests of the Corporate Defendants in 

relation to the employees of the Corporate Defendants, including the Plaintiff and others similarly 

situated. 

63. Fongon had operational control of the Corporate Defendants, was involved in the 

day-to-day functions of the Corporate Defendants, provided the Plaintiff with her work schedule,

personally supervised Plaintiff’s work, and is jointly liable for the Plaintiff’s damages.

64. Fongon is and was at all times relevant a person in control of the Corporate 

Defendants’ financial affairs and could cause the Corporate Defendants to compensate (or not to 

compensate) their employees in accordance with the Act. Fongon decided how much each of the 

employees of the Corporate Defendants was paid and when.

65. Fongon willfully and intentionally caused the Plaintiff not to receive overtime 

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

the Plaintiff these overtime wages since the commencement of the Plaintiff’s employment with the 

Corporate Defendants as set forth above. 

Case 1:22-cv-23742-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 12 of 14
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Telephone: 305.503.5131

Aventura, Florida 33180 Facsimile: 888.270.5549

66. At the times mentioned, the Individual Defendant Balzer was, and is now, an 

officer, manager, supervisor and/or director of the Corporate Defendants. The Individual 

Defendant Balzer was an employer of the Plaintiff and others similarly situated within the meaning 

of Section 3(d) of the Act in that Balzer acted directly or indirectly in the interests of the Corporate 

Defendants in relation to the employees of the Corporate Defendants, including the Plaintiff and 

others similarly situated. 

67. Balzer had operational control of the Corporate Defendants, was involved in the 

day-to-day functions of the Corporate Defendants, provided the Plaintiff with her work schedule,

personally supervised Plaintiff’s work and the work of Plaintiff’s similarly situated co-workers,

and is jointly liable for the Plaintiff’s damages.

68. Balzer decided how many hours Plaintiff had to work and when she was going to 

get paid.

69. Balzer willfully and intentionally caused the Plaintiff not to receive overtime 

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

the Plaintiff these overtime wages since the commencement of the Plaintiff’s employment with the 

Corporate Defendants as set forth above. 

70. The Plaintiff has retained the law offices of the undersigned attorney to represent 

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

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff and those similarly situated request that this Honorable 

Court: 

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

Defendants 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

Case 1:22-cv-23742-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 13 of 14
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Telephone: 305.503.5131

Aventura, Florida 33180 Facsimile: 888.270.5549

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

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

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

Dated: November 15, 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-23742-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 14 of 14