UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 

ALDO MARTINEZ

 Plaintiff,

vs.

ALLIANCE SPINE & JOINT I., INC., 

a Florida corporation, SAGI SHAKED, 

and MICHAEL FRIEDEBERG, 

individually, 

 Defendants.

___________________________________/

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, Plaintiff, ALDO MARTINEZ by and through his undersigned attorney, hereby 

sues Defendants, ALLIANCE SPINE & JOINT I., INC., a Florida corporation, SAGI SHAKED, 

and MICHAEL FRIEDEBERG, individually (collectively referred to as the Employer, except 

when referred to individually), and alleges:

JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS AND VENUE

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 (§ 216 for jurisdictional placement) (“the FLSA”), Title 28 U.S.C. § 1337. 

Plaintiff is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable 

Court.

Case 0:22-cv-61801-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2022 Page 1 of 5
2

2. Plaintiff is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida, within the jurisdiction of this 

Honorable Court.

3. The corporate Defendant, ALLIANCE SPINE & JOINT I., INC., is a Florida 

corporation, having its main place of business in Broward County, Florida. The individual 

Defendants are residents of Broward County, Florida. 

4. This action is brought by Plaintiff to recover from the Employer unpaid overtime 

wages, 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., and specifically under the provisions of 29 

U.S.C. § 207.

5. FLSA coverage is triggered because 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 Employer operates as an organization which sells and/or markets its services and/or 

goods and/or materials to customers from throughout the United States and also provides its 

services for goods sold and transported from across state lines of numerous other States, and the 

Employer obtains and solicits funds from non-Florida 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 

Employer was at all times material hereto in excess of $500,000.00 per annum, and two or more 

employees handled goods or materials that moved in the stream of commerce on a frequent and 

recurrent basis, and/or Plaintiff by virtue of working in interstate commerce, otherwise satisfies

Case 0:22-cv-61801-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2022 Page 2 of 5
3

the FLSA’s requirements. Two or more of Defendant’s employees handled goods that moved in 

commerce, on a frequent and recurring basis. 

6. Plaintiff, as well other employees regularly utilized and handled equipment and 

goods manufactured and purchased from outside the state of Florida and regularly used the 

instrumentalities of interstate commerce in his work.

7. By reason of the foregoing, the Employer is and was, during all times hereafter 

mentioned, an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce as

defined in 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(r) and 203(s) and/or Plaintiff is within interstate commerce.

PLAINTIFF'S EMPLOYMENT

8. Defendant is a surgical and MRI center; they perform orthopedic surgeries. Plaintiff 

was employed by the Defendant Corporation as a driver. His duties included driving and delivering 

check, and other items for the company, and also serving as the chauffeur for the two individual 

Defendants, as well as associates or anyone Plaintiff was instructed to drive for. Plaintiff worked 

for Defendants from approximately October 25, 2021, until approximately September 9, 2022. He 

was paid a bi-weekly salary of $1,400.00 or $700.00 per week. He worked anywhere from five to 

seven days a week. He worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week, however, Defendants failed 

to pay him overtime wages for the hours worked in excess of forty per week. 

9. The individual Defendants, SHAKED and FRIDERBERG are FLSA employers as 

defined in 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), as they had operational control over the Defendant, were directly 

involved in decisions affecting employee compensation, had the right and ability to compensate 

employees, they supervised and controlled employees and hours worked by employees, such as 

Plaintiff. The individual employer also controlled the purse strings for the Defendant corporation.

Case 0:22-cv-61801-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2022 Page 3 of 5
4

COUNT I

FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES, FLSA, ALL DEFENDANTS

10. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers paragraphs 1 through 10 as fully set forth herein.

11. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a driver. 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 Plaintiff performed services and worked in excess of the maximum hours provided 

by the FLSA, but no provision was made by the Employers to properly pay him at the rate of timeand-a-half for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per workweek as provided in the FLSA.

12. Defendants knew of and showed reckless disregard by failing to pay the overtime 

pay required by the FLSA. Defendants ignored the FLSA’s time keeping requirements and failed 

to keep a time record for the hours worked by Plaintiff. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. 

Defendants knew or should have known of the work performed by the Plaintiff and of their 

obligation to timely pay Plaintiff’s overtime wage yet, they required Plaintiff to work early in the 

morning and in the evenings, with knowledge they were not paying overtime wages to Plaintiff. 

Defendants have been in business for a substantial period and failed to pay the overtime which 

they knew or should have known had to be paid. Defendants did nothing to investigate the FLSA’s 

mandate for payment of overtime wages. 

13. The Employers remain owing Plaintiff these overtime wages since the 

commencement of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants as set forth above, and Plaintiff is 

entitled to an equal amount as liquidated damages.

14. Plaintiff has complied with all conditions precedent to bringing this action, or all 

conditions have been otherwise waived.

Case 0:22-cv-61801-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2022 Page 4 of 5
5

15. Plaintiff has retained the law office of the undersigned attorney to represent him in 

this action and is entitled to recover a reasonable attorney’s fee.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests compensatory and liquidated damages and reasonable 

attorney’s fees and costs from the corporate Defendant ALLIANCE SPINE & JOINT I., INC., 

jointly and severally with the individual Defendants, SAGI SHAKED, MICHAEL 

FRIEDEBERG, pursuant to the FLSA, to be proven at the time of trial, and liquidated damages 

due to Plaintiff, which remain outstanding. If Plaintiff does not recover double damages, then 

Plaintiff seeks an award of prejudgment interest for the unpaid minimum wages, liquidated 

damages, and attorney’s fees, and all other relief which this Court deems reasonable under the 

circumstances. Plaintiff demands trial by jury. 

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands trial by jury of all issues triable as of right by jury.

Dated 9-23-22

THE LAW OFFICES OF

EDDY O. MARBAN

2655 S. LeJeune Road, Suite 804

Coral Gables, Florida 33134

Telephone (305) 448-9292

E-mail: marbanlaw@gmail.com

By: s/Edilberto O. Marban

 EDDY O. MARBAN, ESQ.

 Fl. Bar No. 435960

Case 0:22-cv-61801-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2022 Page 5 of 5