UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

RENA COLEMAN-CHERRY,

Plaintiff, 

v.

ALINA COMMUNITY CENTER AT 

MOUNT DORA, LLC., a Florida 

Limited Liability Company

Defendant.

____________________________________/

CASE NO:

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff RENA COLEMAN’CHERRY by and through her undersigned 

counsel, hereby files this Complaint against Defendant ALINA COMMUNITY 

CENTER AT MOUNT DORA, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company 

(“ALINA”), for unpaid compensation, overtime compensation, and other relief 

under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (the 

“FLSA”), and in support thereof states the following: 

NATURE OF SUIT

The FLSA was passed by Congress in 1938. The principal congressional 

purpose in enacting the FLSA was to protect all covered workers from 

substandard wages and oppressive working hours, labor conditions that are 

detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for 

Case 0:22-cv-62339-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 1 of 8
2

health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers. Barrentine v. ArkansasBest Freight System, Inc., 450 U.S. 728, 739 (1981). The liquidated damage 

provision of the FLSA constitutes a Congressional recognition that failure to pay

the statutory minimum on time may be so detrimental to the maintenance of the 

minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general wellbeing of workers and to the free flow of commerce, that double payment must be 

made in the event of delay in order to ensure restoration of the worker to that 

minimum standard of well-being. Brooklyn Sav. Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U.S. 697, 

707 (1945).

1. This action is brought under the FLSA to recover unpaid labor 

wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys’ 

fees and costs from Defendant.

PARTIES

2. Defendant hired Plaintiff as a Receptionist for its office located in 

Lauderdale Lakes, Florida. 

3. Defendant is a medical facility which provides mental health 

services.

4. Defendant’s principal place of business is located in Broward

County, Florida.

5. Defendant is a Florida for profit corporation and operates its 

business within Broward County, Florida. 

Case 0:22-cv-62339-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 2 of 8
3

6. Defendant is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this court.

JURISDICION AND VENUE

7. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331, 28 U.S.C. §1337, and the FLSA.

8. Venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida, Fort 

Lauderdale Division, Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) & (c).

FLSA ENTERPRISE COVERAGE

9. At all material times relevant to this action (2020-2022), 

Defendant was an enterprise covered by the FLSA, as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 

203(r) and 203 (s). 

10. At all material times relevant to this action (2020-2022), 

Defendant made gross earnings of at least $500,000.00 annually.

11. At all material times relevant to this action (2020-2022), 

Defendant accepted payments from customers based on credit cards issued by 

out of state banks.

12. At all material times relevant to this action (2020-2022), 

Defendant routinely ordered materials and supplies from out of state (i.e. 

telephones, office supplies, and medical equipment). 

13. At all material times relevant to this action (2020-2022), 

Defendant had two (2) or more employees, including Plaintiff, engaged in 

interstate commerce, handling, or otherwise working on materials that have 

Case 0:22-cv-62339-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 3 of 8
4

been moved in or produced for interstate commerce (i.e. office supplies, 

ophthalmological supplies, and other medical equipment). 

14. At all material times relevant to this action (2020-2022), 

Defendant used U.S. mail to send and receive letters and packages to and from 

other states. 

15. At all times relevant to this action (2020-2022), Defendant failed 

to comply with 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-209, because Plaintiff performed services for 

Defendant for which no provisions were made by Defendant to properly pay 

Plaintiff for those hours worked in excess of forty (40) within a work week. 

16. Plaintiff worked in the state of Florida without being paid at least 

the time and a half minimum hourly wage for all hours worked over forty (40) 

per week.

17. Defendant controlled and/or was responsible for the work of 

Plaintiff.

18. Defendant improperly paid Plaintiff for all hours worked over forty 

(40) hours in a work week.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

19. Defendant initially hired Plaintiff on February 28, 2022, where she 

worked as a Receptionist until the end of her employment on or about April 22, 

2022. 

20. In her capacity as an employee, Plaintiff earned an hourly wage of 

Case 0:22-cv-62339-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 4 of 8
5

$14.00. 

21. Plaintiff’s chief responsibilities included interfacing with the 

Company’s clients, calendaring and scheduling, and invoice collection. 

22. When initially offered the position, Defendant made certain 

assurances to Plaintiff regarding pay and hours. 

23. Specifically, her terms included an eight (8) hour workday, a thirty 

(30) minute lunch break, and two midday breaks lasting fifteen (15) minutes 

each. 

24. Plaintiff consistently worked in excess of forty (40) hours per work 

week and was not adequately paid for her time. 

25. Plaintiff was not relieved for short breaks and would often be forced 

to work during her lunch break. 

26. Additionally, Plaintiff often stayed beyond her shift’s designated end 

time. 

27. Ultimately, Plaintiff worked regularly from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., 

without a break of any sort as well as working an additional hour and thirty 

minutes beyond her scheduled shift. 

28. Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff for any overtime hours worked.

29. Defendant knew it was not paying Plaintiff correctly and 

intentionally did so.

30. Plaintiff is owed overtime wages-overtime pay at one and one half 

Case 0:22-cv-62339-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 5 of 8
6

her regular rate of pay for all overtime hours worked.

31. Upon information and belief, the records, to the extent any exist, 

concerning the number of hours worked and amounts paid to Plaintiff are in 

the possession and custody of Defendant.

32. Defendant’s failure and/or refusal to properly compensate Plaintiff 

at the rates and amounts required by the FLSA were willful and/or reckless. 

COUNT I - RECOVERY OF OVERTIME COMPENSATION

33. Plaintiff reincorporates and readopts all allegations contained 

within Paragraphs 1-32 above and further asserts:

34. Plaintiff worked for Defendant from February 2022 until April 2022 

as an hourly paid employee for Defendant’s business located in Lauderdale 

Lakes, Florida. 

35. Defendant is an employer doing business in the state of Florida, 

and at all times during Plaintiff’s employment, was an employer as defined by 

29 U.S.C. §203.

36. Throughout Plaintiff’s employment, Defendant repeatedly and 

willfully violated Section 7 and Section 15 of the FLSA by failing to compensate 

Plaintiff at a rate not less than one and one half the minimum wage for all

hours worked over forty in a workweek. 

Case 0:22-cv-62339-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 6 of 8
7

37. Specifically, Plaintiff worked multiple weeks in excess of forty (40) 

hours a week yet was not compensated for all work in excess of forty (40) hours 

at the proper rate of one and a half times their regular rate of pay. 

38. Upon information and belief, the records, to the extent any exist, 

concerning the number of hours worked and amounts paid to Plaintiff are in 

the possession and custody of Defendant.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands: 

a) judgment against Defendant for the payment of all overtime hours 

at one and one-half the regular rate of pay for the hours worked by 

them for which Defendant did not properly compensate him; 

b) liquidated damages and/or interest;

c) reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this action; 

d) and all further relief that this Court determines to be just and 

appropriate. 

e) trial by a jury of Plaintiff’s peers. 

Dated this 14th day of December, 2022. 

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Julien W. Maynard, Esq. 

Anthony J. Hall, Esq.

FL Bar No. 40924 

Julien W. Maynard, Esq. – LEAD 

COUNSEL

FL Bar No. 1035332

THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.

Case 0:22-cv-62339-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 7 of 8
8

631 S. Orlando Avenue, Suite 300

Winter Park, FL 32789

Telephone: (407) 574-4999

Facsimile: (833) 813-7512

Email: ahall@theleachfirm.com

Email: jmaynard@theleachfirm.com 

Email: yhernandez@theleachfirm.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 0:22-cv-62339-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2022 Page 8 of 8