Page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 

MIGUEL MUNIZ

 Plaintiff,

vs.

FORNOS CORP, a Florida Profit Corporation

d/b/a EL GALLEGAZO RESTAURANT,

2367 UNIVERSAL INVESTMENTS, INC, a

Florida Profit Corporation and

MARTA YEE, Individually

 Defendant(s).

________________________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff MIGUEL MUNIZ (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) by and through his undersigned 

attorney, hereby sues Defendants FORNOS CORP, d/b/a EL GALLEGAZO RESTAURANT, a 

Florida for Profit Corporation (hereinafter "FORNOS CORP”), 2367 UNIVERSAL 

INVESTMENTS, INC, a Florida Profit Corporation (hereinafter “2367 UNIVERSAL 

INVESTMENTS), and MARTA YEE, individually (hereinafter “YEE”) (collectively 

“Defendants”) and states as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is an action for damages and other relief for unpaid overtime committed by Defendants 

pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq. (hereinafter the “Fair 

Labor Standards Act”, the “FLSA” or the “Act”).

2. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 

and 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Case 1:22-cv-23165-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2022 Page 1 of 11
Page 2

3. Venue is proper for the United States Court for the Southern District of Florida because 

Plaintiff was employed in the Southern District of Florida by Defendants, which at all material 

times conducted, and continues to conduct, business in the Southern District of Florida, and 

because the acts that give rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred within the Southern District of 

Florida and because Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction there.

4. Plaintiff at all times pertinent to this complaint resided within the Southern District of Florida. 

Plaintiff is over the age of eighteen and otherwise sui juris. 

PARTIES

5. During all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a chef. 

Specifically, Plaintiff performed work for Defendants from on or about October 1, 2021, until 

on or about July 26, 2022. Plaintiff was therefore an employee as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 

203(e).

6. FORNOS CORP is a Florida profit corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of 

the laws of Florida and was registered to do business within Florida. FORNOS CORP has its 

principal place of business in Miami, Florida. FORNOS CORP had, at all times material 

hereto, conducted substantial and continuous business within the Southern District of Florida, 

and is subject to the laws of the United States and the State of Florida.

7. FORNOS CORP is an “employer” as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d) and (s)(1), in that it has 

employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce or that has 

employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that have been 

moved in or produced for commerce by any person.

8. At all times material to this Complaint, FORNOS CORP has had two (2) or more employees 

who have regularly sold, handled, or otherwise worked on goods and/or material that have 

Case 1:22-cv-23165-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2022 Page 2 of 11
Page 3

been moved in or produced for commerce such as unloading merchandise, cooking food, 

ordering and buying ingredients, and serving the customers. 

9. 2367 UNIVERSAL INVESTMENTS is a Florida for profit corporation organized and 

existing under and by virtue of the laws of Florida and was registered to do business within 

Florida. 2367 UNIVERSAL INVESTMENTS has its principal place of business in Miami, 

Florida. 2367 UNIVERSAL INVESTMENTS had, at all times material hereto, conducted 

substantial and continuous business within the Southern District of Florida, and is subject to 

the laws of the United States and the State of Florida.

10. 2367 UNIVERSAL INVESTMENTS is an “employer” as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d) and 

(s)(1), in that it has employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for

commerce or that has employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or 

materials that have been moved in or produced for commerce by any person.

11. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendants 2367 UNIVERSAL INVESTMENTS and 

FORNOS CORP were joint “employers” of Plaintiff as that term is defined under 29 U.S.C. 

§ 203(d) in that 2367 UNIVERSAL INVESTMENTS and FORNOS CORP. were both doing 

business as EL GALLEGAZO.

12. 2367 UNIVERSAL INVESTMENTS and FORNOS CORP upon knowledge and belief, 

separately and/or in combination has had gross revenue which exceeds $500,000 for each of 

the past three (3) years and utilizes goods in the flow of commerce across state lines.

13. Defendant YEE, is the owner and manager of 2367 UNIVERSAL INVESTMENTS, and 

exercised operational control over the activities of, corporate Defendants, 2367 UNIVERSAL 

INVESTMENTS and FORNOS CORP.

Case 1:22-cv-23165-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2022 Page 3 of 11
Page 4

14. Defendant YEE, acted directly in the interest of her company, 2367 UNIVERSAL 

INVESTMENTS. Upon all available information, YEE, controlled the manner in which 

Plaintiff performed his work, and the pay he was to receive. 

15. All Defendants were “employers” of Plaintiff as the term is defined under 29 U.S.C. § 203(d). 

16. All other conditions precedent to this action have been performed or have been waived. 

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

17. Plaintiff is a non-exempt employee of Defendants and is subject to the payroll practices and 

procedures set forth hereinafter, and who worked more than forty (40) hours during one of 

more workweeks within three (3) years of the filing of this complaint.

18. Plaintiff began working for Defendants on or about September 1, 2021, through July 26, 2022, 

as a chef. His primary duties were cooking food and cleaning the kitchen. Plaintiff did not have 

independent decision-making authority. 

19. Throughout his employment, Plaintiff was misclassified as an exempt employee of Defendants 

and was not paid for his overtime. 

20. At all times pertinent to this action, Defendants failed to comply with 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 – 219 

in that Plaintiff performed services for Defendants for which no provision was made to 

properly pay for those hours worked over forty (40) in a given workweek. 

21. Based on the information currently available to Plaintiff, he was paid a weekly salary of 

$700.00/week. 

22. During the course of his employment, Plaintiff regularly worked around 11-12 hours per day

and 6 days a week. 

Case 1:22-cv-23165-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2022 Page 4 of 11
Page 5

23. At all times pertinent to this action, Defendants failed to comply with 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 – 219 

in that Plaintiff performed services for Defendants for which no provision was made to 

properly pay for those hours worked over forty (40) in a given workweek.

24. Defendants and their representatives knew that Plaintiff was working overtime, and that federal 

law requires employees to be compensated at time and one-half per hour for overtime pay.

25. Defendants maintained complete control over the hours Plaintiff worked and the pay he was 

to receive. 

26. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned firm to prosecute this action on his behalf and has agreed 

to pay it a reasonable fee for its services.

27. Plaintiff is entitled to his reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs if he is the prevailing party in 

this action.

COUNT I

VIOLATION OF FLSA/OVERTIME against FORNOS CORP

28. Plaintiff, re-alleges and reaffirms paragraphs 1 through 27 as if fully set forth herein.

29. This action is brought by Plaintiff to recover from Defendant FORNOS CORP unpaid overtime 

compensation, as well as an additional amount as liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable 

attorney’s fees under the provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., 29 U.S.C. § 207 (a)(1) states 

“[n]o 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.”

30. Since the commencement of Plaintiff’s employment FORNOS CORP has willfully violated 

the provisions of § 7 of the FLSA [29 U.S.C. § 207] by having employees working for longer 

than forty (40) hours without properly compensating them for all hours overtime hours at a 

rate not less than one- and one-half times their regular rate.

Case 1:22-cv-23165-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2022 Page 5 of 11
Page 6

31. Specifically, throughout his employment Plaintiff regularly worked over forty (40) hours 

during some of the workweeks in which he was employed. 

32. FORNOS CORP 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 

FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(r) and 203(s). FORNOS CORP’s business activities involve those to 

which the Fair Labor Standards Act applies. 

33. Specifically, FORNOS CORP 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 

FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(r) and 203(s). FORNOS CORP’s business activities involve those to 

which the Fair Labor Standards Act applies. 

34. Plaintiff was not exempted from the overtime provision of the Act pursuant to the provisions 

of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 213(a), in that he was neither a bona fide executive, administrative, or 

professional employee. Plaintiff performed duties such as cooking food, cleaning his 

workspace, and did not have decision-making authority.

35. FORNOS CORP has knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff at time and one half of his

regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per week between the relevant 

time period.

36. By reason of the said intentional, willful, and unlawful acts of FORNOS CORP, Plaintiff has 

suffered damages plus incurring costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.

37. Plaintiff seeks to recover for unpaid wages accumulated within three (3) years of the filing of 

this complaint.

38. As a result of FORNOS CORP’s willful violations of the Act, Plaintiff is entitled to liquidated 

damages.

Case 1:22-cv-23165-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2022 Page 6 of 11
Page 7

39. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned counsel to represent he in this action, and pursuant to 

29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Plaintiff is entitled to recover all reasonable attorneys' fees and costs 

incurred in this action from FORNOS CORP.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for the following relief against FORNOS CORP:

A. Adjudge and decree that Defendant has violated the FLSA and has done so willfully, 

intentionally and with reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights;

B. Award Plaintiff actual damages in the amount shown to be due for overtime 

compensation for hours worked in excess of forty (40) weekly, with interest; and

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

D. Award Plaintiff the costs of this action, together with a reasonable attorneys' fees; and

E. Grant Plaintiff such additional relief as the Court deems just and proper under the 

circumstances.

COUNT II

VIOLATION OF FLSA/OVERTIME against 2367 UNIVERSAL INVESTMENTS

40. Plaintiff, re-alleges and reaffirms paragraphs 1 through 27 as if fully set forth herein.

41. This action is brought by Plaintiff to recover from Defendant 2367 UNIVERSAL 

INVESTMENTS unpaid overtime compensation, as well as an additional amount as liquidated 

damages, costs, and reasonable attorney’s fees under the provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., 

29 U.S.C. § 207 (a)(1) states “[n]o 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.”

42. Since the commencement of Plaintiff’s employment 2367 UNIVERSAL INVESTMENTS has 

willfully violated the provisions of § 7 of the FLSA [29 U.S.C. § 207] by having employees

Case 1:22-cv-23165-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2022 Page 7 of 11
Page 8

working for longer than forty (40) hours without properly compensating them for all overtime 

hours at a rate not less than one- and one-half times their regular rate.

43. Specifically, throughout his employment Plaintiff regularly worked over forty (40) hours 

during some of the workweeks in which he was employed. 

44. 2367 UNIVERSAL INVESTMENTS 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 FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(r) and 203(s). 2367 UNIVERSAL 

INVESTMENTS’s business activities involve those to which the Fair Labor Standards Act 

applies. 

45. Specifically, 2367 UNIVERSAL INVESTMENTS 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 FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(r) and 203(s). 2367 UNIVERSAL 

INVESTMENTS’s business activities involve those to which the Fair Labor Standards Act 

applies. 

46. Plaintiff was not exempted from the overtime provision of the Act pursuant to the provisions 

of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 213(a), in that he was neither a bona fide executive, administrative, or 

professional employee. Plaintiff performed duties such as cooking food and pastries, unloading 

merchandise, washing the dishes, and did not have decision-making authority.

47. 2367 UNIVERSAL INVESTMENTS has knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff at 

time and one half of his regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per 

week between the relevant time period.

Case 1:22-cv-23165-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2022 Page 8 of 11
Page 9

48. By reason of the said intentional, willful, and unlawful acts of 2367 UNIVERSAL 

INVESTMENTS, Plaintiff has suffered damages plus incurring costs and reasonable attorneys' 

fees.

49. Plaintiff seeks to recover for unpaid wages accumulated within three (3) years of the filing of 

this complaint.

50. As a result of 2367 UNIVERSAL INVESTMENTS’ willful violations of the Act, Plaintiff is 

entitled to liquidated damages.

51. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned counsel to represent he in this action, and pursuant to 

29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Plaintiff is entitled to recover all reasonable attorneys' fees and costs 

incurred in this action from 2367 UNIVERSAL INVESTMENTS.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for the following relief against 2367 UNIVERSAL 

INVESTMENTS:

A. Adjudge and decree that Defendant has violated the FLSA and has done so willfully, 

intentionally and with reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights;

B. Award Plaintiff actual damages in the amount shown to be due for overtime compensation 

for hours worked in excess of forty (40) weekly, with interest; and

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

D. Award Plaintiff the costs of this action, together with a reasonable attorneys' fees; and

E. Grant Plaintiff such additional relief as the Court deems just and proper under the 

circumstances.

COUNT III

VIOLATION OF FLSA/OVERTIME against YEE

52. Plaintiff, re-alleges and reaffirms paragraphs 1 through 27 as if fully set forth herein.

53. At the times mentioned, Defendant YEE was, and is now, a corporate officer of corporate 

Case 1:22-cv-23165-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2022 Page 9 of 11
Page 10

Defendant, 2367 UNIVERSAL INVESTMENTS.

54. YEE was an employer of Plaintiff within the meaning of Section 3(d) of the Fair Labor 

Standards Act [29 U.S.C. § 203(d)], in that YEE acted directly in the interests of 2367 

UNIVERSAL INVESTMENTS and FORNOS CORP. in relation to its employees including 

Plaintiff. 

55. Specifically, YEE is the owner of 2367 UNIVERSAL INVESTMENTS and was in charge of 

hiring and paying the employees of EL GALLEGAZO, including the Plaintiff. YEE supervised 

Plaintiff, determined company payroll decisions, and maintained the right to hire and fire 

Plaintiff during all pertinent times hereto. 

56. YEE had operational control of the businesses and is thus jointly liable for Plaintiff’s damages.

57. Defendant YEE willfully and intentionally refused to properly pay Plaintiff overtime wages as 

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

wages since the commencement of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants as set forth above. 

58. By reason of the said intentional, willful and unlawful acts of YEE, Plaintiff has suffered 

damages plus incurring costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.

59. As a result of YEE’s willful violations of the Act, Plaintiff is entitled to liquidated damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for the following relief against Defendant YEE: 

A. Adjudge and decree that YEE has violated the FLSA and has done so willfully, 

intentionally and with reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights;

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

compensation for hours worked in excess of forty (40) weekly, with interest; and

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

D. Award Plaintiff the costs of this action, together with a reasonable attorneys' fees; and

Case 1:22-cv-23165-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2022 Page 10 of 11
Page 11

E. Grant Plaintiff such additional relief as the Court deems just and proper under the 

circumstances.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, MIGUEL MUNIZ demands trial by jury on all issues and all counts of this Complaint so 

triable as a matter of right.

Dated: September 29, 2022

PEREGONZA THE ATTORNEYS, PLLC

5201 Blue Lagoon Drive, 

Suite 290

Miami, FL 33126

Tel. (786) 650-0202

Fax. (786) 650-0200

By: /s/ Nathaly Saavedra

Nathaly Saavedra, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No. 118315

Email: nathaly@peregonza.com

By: /s/ Juan J. Perez

Juan J. Perez, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No. 115784

Email: juan@peregonza.com

Case 1:22-cv-23165-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2022 Page 11 of 11