Page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 

RAFAEL ANTONIO TORREZ GARCIA

 Plaintiff,

vs.

SLILMA, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation

d/b/a EL GUACALITO RESTAURANT,

AP LOGISTICS FL LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company,

and AP SMART SOLUTIONS LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company,

 

 Defendants.

________________________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, RAFAEL ANTONIO TORREZ GARCIA (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) by and 

through his undersigned attorney, hereby sues Defendants SLILMA, INC. a Florida Profit 

Corporation doing business as EL GUACALITO RESTAURANT (hereinafter “SLILMA, INC”), 

AP LOGISTICS FL LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company (hereinafter “AP LOGISTICS”), 

and AP SMART SOLUTIONS LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company (hereinafter “AP 

SMART SOLUTIONS”) (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.

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 

Case 1:22-cv-24008-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 1 of 11
Page 2

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. 

Specifically, Plaintiff performed work for Defendants as a kitchen manager/chef from on or 

about November 27, 2020, until on or about October 12, 2022. Plaintiff was therefore an 

employee as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(e).

6. SLILMA, INC 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. SLILMA, INC has its 

principal place of business in Miami, Florida. SLILMA, INC 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. AP LOGISTICS is a Florida Limited Liability Company organized and existing under and by 

virtue of the laws of Florida and was registered to do business within Florida. AP LOGISTICS 

has its principal place of business in Miami, Florida. AP LOGISTICS 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.

8. AP SMART SOLUTIONS 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. AP SMART 

SOLUTIONS has its principal place of business in Miami, Florida. AP SMART SOLUTIONS 

Case 1:22-cv-24008-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 2 of 11
Page 3

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.

9. Plaintiff contends that Defendants SLILMA INC., AL LOGISTICS, and AP SMART 

SOLUTIONS own and/or operate EL GUACALITO RESTAURANT located at 13960 SW 

8th St, Miami, FL 33184 as a single integrated enterprise. Plaintiff is informed and believes 

that Entity Defendants are joint employers working as a joint enterprise, and/or are the alter 

egos of one another.

10. Each Defendant is an “employer” as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d) and (s)(1), in that they have 

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 have had two (2) or more employees who 

have regularly sold, handled, or otherwise worked on goods and/or materials that have been 

moved in or produced for commerce. Those goods and/or materials have been moved in or 

produced for commerce which as employees subject to the provisions of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 

§ 207.

12. Specifically, Defendants operate restaurant EL GUACALITO RESTAURANT located at 

13960 SW 8th St, Miami, FL 33184 where the use of goods transported across interstate lines. 

Plaintiff regularly cooked on the line as well as made orders occasionally when needed. These 

orders were made using phones and/or the internet. 

Case 1:22-cv-24008-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 3 of 11
Page 4

13. Defendants upon knowledge and belief, has had individually and or in combination a 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.

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

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

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

16. 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.

17. Plaintiff began working for Defendants on or around November 1, 2020, through October 12, 

2022, as a chef/kitchen manager.

18. Though Plaintiff was titled as a manager, he did not do anything different than the individuals 

he was “managing.” At least 80% of Plaintiff’s day-to-day work in a given week involved 

cooking on the line rather than giving directives to employees. Further, Plaintiff did not have 

any hiring or firing authority, could not set other employee’s pay or discipline employees.

19. The only function Plaintiff did, on occasion, which was different than that of the other cooks 

was that he made orders for the restaurant as necessary. However, Plaintiff did not have 

independent decision-making authority. 

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

and was not paid for his overtime. 

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

$1,200.00/week. 

Case 1:22-cv-24008-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 4 of 11
Page 5

22. When Plaintiff began working for Defendants, there was an understanding between Defendants 

and Plaintiff that his salary was to compensate him for all hours worked.

23. Plaintiff regularly worked between 54-80 hours per week. He was normally scheduled six (6)

days per week.

24. 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.

25. 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.

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

to receive. 

27. 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.

28. 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 SLILMA, INC

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

30. This action is brought by Plaintiff to recover from SLILMA, INC 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.”

Case 1:22-cv-24008-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 5 of 11
Page 6

31. Since the commencement of Plaintiff’s employment, SLILMA, INC 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 overtime hours at a rate not less 

than one- and one-half times their regular rate.

32. Specifically, throughout his employment Plaintiff worked 56-80 hours during each workweek 

he was employed but he was compensated the same salary each week. 

33. SLILMA, INC 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). SLILMA, INC’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 and other manual tasks 

and did not have decision-making authority.

35. SLILMA, INC 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 SLILMA INC., 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 ’s willful violations of the Act, Plaintiff is entitled to liquidated damages.

Case 1:22-cv-24008-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 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 SLILMA, INC

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for the following relief against SLILMA, INC:

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 AP LOGISTICS

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

41. This action is brought by Plaintiff to recover from AP LOGISTICS 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.”

42. Since the commencement of Plaintiff’s employment, AP LOGISTICS has willfully violated 

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

Case 1:22-cv-24008-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 7 of 11
Page 8

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 worked 56-80 hours during each workweek 

he was employed but he was compensated the same salary each week. 

44. AP LOGISTICS 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). AP LOGISTIC’s business activities involve those to 

which the Fair Labor Standards Act applies. 

45. 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 other manual tasks 

and did not have decision-making authority.

46. AP LOGISTICS 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.

47. By reason of the said intentional, willful, and unlawful acts of AP LOGISTICS, Plaintiff has 

suffered damages plus incurring costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.

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

this complaint.

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

50. 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 AP LOGISTICS.

Case 1:22-cv-24008-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 8 of 11
Page 9

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for the following relief against AP LOGISTICS:

B. Adjudge and decree that Defendant has violated the FLSA and has done so 

willfully, intentionally and with reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights;

A. 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

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

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

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

circumstances.

COUNT III

VIOLATION OF FLSA/OVERTIME against AP SMART SOLUTIONS

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

52. This action is brought by Plaintiff to recover from AP SMART SOLUTIONS 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.”

53. Since the commencement of Plaintiff’s employment, AP SMART SOLUTIONS 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 overtime hours at 

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

54. Specifically, throughout his employment Plaintiff worked 56-80 hours during each workweek 

he was employed but he was compensated the same salary each week. 

Case 1:22-cv-24008-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 9 of 11
Page 10

55. AP SMART SOLUTIONS 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). SLILMA, INC’s business activities involve 

those to which the Fair Labor Standards Act applies. 

56. 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 other manual tasks 

and did not have decision-making authority.

57. AP SMART SOLUTIONS 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.

58. By reason of the said intentional, willful, and unlawful acts of AP SMART SOLUTIONS, 

Plaintiff has suffered damages plus incurring costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.

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

this complaint.

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

61. 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 AP SMART SOLUTIONS.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for the following relief against AP SMART 

SOLUTIONS: 

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

willfully, intentionally and with reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights;

Case 1:22-cv-24008-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 10 of 11
Page 11

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.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, RAFAEL ANTONIO TORREZ GARCIA demands trial by jury on all issues and all 

counts of this Complaint so triable as a matter of right.

Dated: December 9, 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

By: /s/ Jocelyn Rocha

Jocelyn Rocha, Esq.

Fla. Bar No. 1039302

Email: jocelyn@peregonza.com

Case 1:22-cv-24008-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 11 of 11