www.saenzanderson.com

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

Case No.: ________________________

BALTAZAR GONZALEZ, and other 

similarly situated individuals,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

RINCONCITO PERUANO CORP., 

IGNACIO ORDONEZ, and EUREDICE 

ORDONEZ,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

COMPLAINT

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

Plaintiffs BALTAZAR GONZALEZ (“Plaintiff”) and other similarly situated individuals, 

sue the Defendants RINCONCITO PERUANO CORP., IGNACIO ORDONEZ, and EUREDICE 

ORDONEZ (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-22796-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 1 of 8
www.saenzanderson.com

2

3. RINCONCITO PERUANO CORP. (the “Corporate Defendant”), IGNACIO 

ORDONEZ, and EUREDICE ORDONEZ (the “Individual Defendants”), are a Florida company 

and Florida residents, 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 Defendants, upon information and belief, reside 

in Miami-Dade, Florida.

COUNT I: WAGE AND HOUR VIOLATION BY

DATA STREAM TAMPA (OVERTIME)

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 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.”

6. 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 

Case 1:22-cv-22796-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 2 of 8
www.saenzanderson.com

3

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. 

7. 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.

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

interstate commerce, otherwise satisfy the Act’s requirements. 

9. 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 a Peruvian restaurant, selling Peruvian food and using ingredients 

from Peru, 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 cook for the Corporate Defendant’s business.

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

average of 87 hours per week without being compensated at the rate of not less than one- and onehalf times the regular rate at which he was employed. Plaintiff was employed as a cook performing 

the same or similar duties as that of those other similarly situated cooks whom Plaintiff observed 

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

Case 1:22-cv-22796-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 3 of 8
www.saenzanderson.com

4

11. Plaintiff worked for the Corporate Defendant from approximately April 12, 2010,

to November 15, 2021. In total, Plaintiff worked approximately 116 compensable weeks under the 

Act, or 116 compensable weeks if we count 3 years back from the filing of the instant action.

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

approximately $1,400 per week.

13. To make it look like Plaintiff was being properly paid, Corporate Defendant issued 

checks to Plaintiff that suggested that Plaintiff worked 60 hours per week and that Plaintiff’s salary 

was minimum wage. Corporate Defendant used this scheme to make it look like if Plaintiff worked 

overtime, he only worked 20 overtime hours at most and for these hours he was paid at the rate of 

minimum wage times 1.5. This was a farse and plainly a scheme to cheat Plaintiff of his wages.

14. In reality, Plaintiff worked for the Corporate Defendant approximately 87 hours per 

week and was paid (as agreed by Plaintiff and Defendant) by check for 40 hours of work and by 

cash for the remaining 47 hours of work.

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

that Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 per week. In other words, Defendant did not pay Plaintiff 

overtime at time-and-one-half times his regular rate.

16. 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.

17. 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:

Case 1:22-cv-22796-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 4 of 8
www.saenzanderson.com

5

a. Actual Damages: $43,616

b. Calculation: $16 (hourly pay) x .5 (overtime rate) x 47 (approximate number of 

overtime hours) x 116 (compensable weeks) = $43,616

c. Liquidated Damages: $43,616

d. Total Damages: $87,232 plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit.

18. 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. 

19. 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. 

Case 1:22-cv-22796-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 5 of 8
www.saenzanderson.com

6

20. 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.

21. 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. 

COUNT II: WAGE AND HOUR VIOLATION BY

THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS (OVERTIME)

22. Plaintiff re-adopts each and every factual allegation as stated in paragraphs 1-21

above as if set out in full herein.

23. At the times mentioned, the Individual Defendants were, and are now, the owners 

and main officers of the Corporate Defendant. The Individual Defendants were employers of 

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

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

Case 1:22-cv-22796-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 6 of 8
www.saenzanderson.com

7

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

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

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

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

24. The Individual Defendants are and were at all times relevant persons in control of 

the Corporate Defendants’ financial affairs and can cause the Corporate Defendant to compensate 

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

25. The Individual Defendants willfully and intentionally caused Plaintiff not to receive 

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

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

Corporate Defendant as set forth above. 

26. 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 

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

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-22796-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 7 of 8
www.saenzanderson.com

8

Dated: September 1, 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-22796-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 8 of 8