UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

MARIA STATHIS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DUFFY'S OF NORTH MIAMI 

BEACH, INC., d/b/a d/b/a DUFFY’S 

SPORTS GRILL, a Florida Profit

Corporation,

Defendants.__________ /

CASE NO.: 

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT & DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

(Collective Action Complaint)

Plaintiff, MARIA STATHIS, (“Plaintiff”), was an employee of Defendant DUFFY'S OF 

NORTH MIAMI BEACH, INC., d/b/a d/b/a DUFFY’S SPORTS GRILL, a Florida Limited 

Liability Corporation (“Defendant”), and brings this action for unpaid minimum wages, liquidated 

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

“FLSA”). 

I. 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 maintenance of minimum standards of 

living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers. Barrentine v. ArkansasBest Freight System, Inc., 450 U.S. 728, 739, 101 S.Ct. 1437, 1444 (1981). The liquidated damage 

provision of the FLSA constitutes a congressional recognition that failure to pay statutory 

minimum on time may be so detrimental to maintenance of minimum standard of living necessary 

Case 1:20-cv-22247-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 1 of 12
2

for health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers and to the free flow of commerce, that 

double payment must be made in event of delay in order to insure restoration of worker to that 

minimum standard of well-being. Brooklyn v. Sav. Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U.S. 697, 707-08, 65 S.Ct. 

895, 902 (1945).

1. This action is brought under the FLSA to recover from Defendant unapid minimum 

wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 

II. PARTIES

2. Plaintiff was an hourly paid service worker (“server”) and performed related 

activities for Defendant in North Miami Beach, Florida.

3. Defendant, DUFFY'S OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH, INC., d/b/a d/b/a DUFFY’S 

SPORTS GRILL, is a domestic corporation existing under the laws of Florida. Defendant may be 

served with process via service on its registered agent Mark Rouleau at 1478 1926 10th Avenue 

North, Suite 300, Lake Worth, Florida 33461 or at its principal place of business located at 3969 

NE 163rd Street, North Miami Beach, Florida 33160.

4. Defendant is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court.

5. Defendant is a Florida For Profit Corporation and operating its business within the 

city of North Miami Beach, Florida. 

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

7. Venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) & (c).

III. JURISDICTION

8. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1337 and 

the FLSA. 

Case 1:20-cv-22247-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 2 of 12
3

IV. COVERAGE

9. At all material times (2017-2020), Defendant was an enterprise covered by the 

FLSA, and as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(r) and 203 (s).

10. At all material times, Defendant was an employer as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 

203(d).

11. At all material times, Defendant has had an annual gross volume of sales made or 

business done of not less than five hundred thousand and 0/100 dollars ($500,000.00), exclusive 

of excise taxes at the retail level which are separately stated.

12. At all material times, Defendant has had two or more employees engaged in 

interstate commerce, producing goods for commerce, or handling, selling or otherwise working on 

goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for such commerce.

13. At all material times, Defendant has had two or more employees who routinely 

ordered materials or supplies such as office supplies and equipment, food service products, and 

food preparation products from out of state vendors.

14. Additionally, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant and was, at all times relevant 

to this action, individually engaged in commerce as defined by 29 U.S.C. §§206(a) and 207(a)(1) 

as she was required to accept payment from customers using credit cards issued by out of state 

financial institutions on a daily basis and worked at a restaurant which served customers who 

traveled to/from out of state destinations.

V. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

15. Defendant owns and operates a restaurant known as Duffy’s Sports Grill.

16. Defendant employs several servers, bartenders, hosts, bussers, and runners.

Case 1:20-cv-22247-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 3 of 12
4

17. Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a server from approximately May 2017

through May 2019.

18. As a server, Plaintiff was responsible for serving food and beverages, explaining 

the menu and taking orders from guests, and adhering to company standards for food and 

beverages.

19. Plaintiff was also responsible for performing side work such as rolling silverware, 

clearing dishes, and restocking napkins and condiments.

20. Plaintiff’s side work accounted for approximately 50% of her weekly job duties.

21. Plaintiff typically worked thirty-five (35) to forty-five (45) hours per week.

22. Defendant paid Plaintiff an hourly wage less than minimum wage (approximately 

$5.60).

23. In addition, Plaintiff earned tips as a server.

24. Defendant paid Plaintiff according to what is commonly referred to as the “tip 

credit.”

25. Throughout Plaintiff’s employment Defendant failed to properly notify Plaintiff of 

the provisions of FLSA § 3(m), 29 U.S.C. § 203(m). 

26. Throughout Plaintiff’s employment Defendant required Plaintiff to share her tips 

with other workers (through a “tip pool”). 

27. Specifically, Defendant required Plaintiff to tip out another “back of house,” nontipped employee who was a dedicated silverware roller.

28. Defendant’s silverware rollers do not serve or interact with Defendant’s customers.

29. Defendant’s silverware rollers typically remain in the kitchen and was commonly 

referred to as the “back of the house” area.

Case 1:20-cv-22247-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 4 of 12
5

30. Servers should not share tips with back of the house employees.

31. As a result, Defendants were not entitled to utilize the FLSA’s tip credit provision 

to credit Plaintiff’s tips towards a portion of their minimum wage obligations. 

VI. COLLECTIVE/CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

32. Defendant employs other servers as part of its business operations. 

33. Servers perform similar job duties as Plaintiff in that they explain the menu and 

take orders from guests, serve beverages and keep their area clean.

34. Servers are paid by the hour.

35. Servers are paid less than minimum wage, plus tips (“the tip credit”).

36. Servers typically work thirty (30) to forty (40) hours per week.

37. Servers are required to tip out silverware rollers in a manner similar to Plaintiff.

38. Defendant’s servers are the putative class members for this potential collective 

action.

39. Plaintiff and the class members performed the same or similar job duties as one 

another in that they provided services for Defendants.

40. Plaintiff and the class members were required to tip back of house employees each 

shift in violation of the FLSA’s requirement that minimum wages be paid “free and clear.”

41. Shortly after being hired, Defendant explains it policy that servers are required to 

tip out silverware rollers.

42. The tip out is mandatory and affects all servers.

43. Further, Plaintiff and the class members were subjected to the same pay provisions 

in that they were subject to working without receiving proper compensation in the form of a free 

and clear minimum wage.

Case 1:20-cv-22247-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 5 of 12
6

44. Defendants’ common policy violations have caused Plaintiff and the class 

members to receive less than minimum wage for all hours worked. 

45. Thus, the class members are similar with regard to their wages for the same reasons 

as Plaintiff.

46. These policies or practices were applicable to Plaintiff and the class members. 

Application of these policies or practices does not depend on the personal circumstances of 

Plaintiff or those joining this lawsuit. Rather, the same policies or practices which resulted in the 

non-payment of federally mandated minimum wages to Plaintiff apply to all class members. 

Accordingly, the class members are properly defined as: 

All servers who worked at any of Defendant’s North Miami Beach restaurant

within the last three years

47. Defendant knowingly, willfully, or with reckless disregard carried out its illegal 

pattern or practice of failing to pay Plaintiff and the class members at a rate of at least the statutorily 

prescribed minimum wage.

48. Defendant did not act in good faith or reliance upon any of the following in 

formulating its pay practices: (a) case law, (b) the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., (c) Department 

of Labor Wage & Hour Opinion Letters or (d) the Code of Federal Regulations. 

49. During the relevant period, Defendant violated § 7(a)(1), § 15(a)(2) and § 203(m), 

by employing employees in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for 

commerce within the meaning of the FLSA as aforesaid, for one or more workweeks without 

compensating such employees for their work at the statutorily prescribed minimum wage within a 

work week during one or more weeks.

50. Defendant has acted willfully in failing to pay Plaintiff and the class members in 

accordance with the law.

Case 1:20-cv-22247-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 6 of 12
7

51. Defendant has employed more than one hundred (100) or more class members who 

were paid pursuant to a tip credit at their North Miami Beach location within the relevant 

limitations period.

CLASS REPRESENTATION ALLEGATIONS

52. The claims under the Florida Constitution may be pursued by all similarly situated 

persons who choose not to opt-out of the state law sub-class pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil 

Procedure Rule 1.220(b)(1),(2) and alternatively (3).

53. The number of individuals in the class is so numerous that joinder of all members 

is impracticable. 

54. The exact number of members of each class can be determined by reviewing 

Defendant’s records. 

55. However, Plaintiffs are informed and believe that there are more than one hundred

(100) eligible individuals in the defined class. 

56. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class and has retained 

counsel that is experienced and competent in class action and employment litigation.

57. Plaintiff has no interests that are contrary to, or in conflict with, the members of the 

class.

58. A class action suit, such as the instant one, is superior to other available means for 

fair and efficient adjudication of the lawsuit. 

59. The damages suffered by individual members of the class may be relatively small 

when compared to the expense and burden of litigation, making it virtually impossible for members 

of the class to individually seek redress for the wrongs done to them.

Case 1:20-cv-22247-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 7 of 12
8

60. A class action is, therefore, superior to other available methods for the fair and 

efficient adjudication of the controversy. 

61. Absent these actions, many members of the class likely will not obtain redress of 

their injuries and Defendants will retain the proceeds of their violations of the Florida Constitution.

62. Furthermore, even if every member of the class could afford individual litigation 

against Defendants, it would be unduly burdensome to the judicial system. Concentrating the 

litigation in one forum will promote judicial economy and parity among the claims of individual 

members of the class and provide for judicial consistency.

63. There is a well-defined community of interest in the questions of law and fact 

affecting the class as a whole. The questions of law and fact common to the class predominate 

over any questions affecting solely the individual members. Among the common questions of law 

and fact are:

a. Whether Defendant’s employed servers within the meaning of the 

applicable statutes;

b. Whether servers were uniformly paid the tipped minimum wage; 

c. Whether Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and members of the class all 

minimum wages owed to them;

d. Whether Plaintiffs and the class members were required to participate 

in an illegal tip pool plan;

e. What remedies are appropriate compensation for the damages caused to 

Plaintiff and each member of the class; and

Case 1:20-cv-22247-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 8 of 12
9

f. Whether Defendant’s failure to compensate Plaintiff and the class 

members at the applicable minimum wage rates was willful, intentional or done with 

reckless disregard.

64. The relief sought is common to the entire class including, inter alia:

a. payment by the Defendant of actual damages caused by their failure to pay 

minimum wages pursuant to the Florida Constitution;

b. payment by the Defendant of liquidated damages caused by their failure to 

pay minimum wages pursuant to the Florida Constitution;

c. payment by the Defendant of the costs and expenses of this action, including 

the attorneys’ fees of Plaintiffs’ counsel.

65. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of members of the class. 

66. Plaintiff and members of the class have sustained damages arising out of the same 

wrongful and uniform employment policies of Defendant in violation of the Florida Constitution 

and federal law.

67. Plaintiff knows of no difficulty that will be encountered in the management of this 

litigation that would preclude its continued maintenance.

68. As to the Florida claims, Plaintiff seeks class certification under Florida Rules of 

Civil Procedure Rule 1.220(b)(1),(2) and alternatively (3) of the following state law class:

All servers who worked at any of Defendant’s North Miami Beach restaurant 

within the last five years

COUNT I - RECOVERY OF MINIMUM WAGES UNDER THE FLSA

69. Plaintiff reincorporates and readopts all allegations contained within Paragraphs 1-51

above as though fully stated herein. 

Case 1:20-cv-22247-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 9 of 12
10

70. Plaintiff and the class members are entitled to be paid minimum wage for each hour 

worked during their employment with Defendant.

71. Plaintiff has demanded proper compensation for one or more weeks of work with 

Defendant, but Defendant has refused and/or failed to compensate Plaintiff for the same. 

72. Because of Defendant’s improper tip out policy in this regard, Plaintiff and the class 

members have not been paid the minimum wage for each hour worked during one or more weeks of 

employment with Defendant. 

73. Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and the class members minimum wage for 

one or more weeks of work contrary to 29 U.S.C. § 206 because it was aware of the minimum wage 

law requirements but continued its violations.

74. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s deliberate underpayment of wages, 

Plaintiff and the class members have been damaged in the loss of minimum wages for one or more 

weeks of work with Defendant.

75. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated FLSA 

Collective Members who worked for Defendant during the Collective Period, prays for the following 

relief:

a. Plaintiff be allowed to give notice of this collective action, or that 

the Court issue such notice, to all servers who work or have worked for Defendant 

during the Collective Period. Such notice shall inform them that this civil action 

has been filed, of the nature of the action, and of their right to join this lawsuit if 

they believe they were denied proper wages;

b. payment to her and all class members of minimum wages for all 

hours worked at the correct rate pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b);

c. an equal amount of liquidated damages pursuant at the highest rate 

allowed by law; 

d. reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for all time worked by the 

attorneys for Plaintiffs in prosecuting this; and

Case 1:20-cv-22247-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 10 of 12
11

e. Any other relief that Plaintiff and the class members may be due or 

entitled.

COUNT IIVIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION, ART. X, § 24

76. Plaintiff reincorporates and readopts all allegations contained within Paragraphs 1-

31, and 52-68, above as though fully stated herein. 

77. Plaintiff and those similarly situated servers are/were entitled to be paid the full 

minimum wage for each hour worked during their employment with Defendant.

78. During their employment with Defendant, Plaintiff and those similarly situated 

servers were forced to participate in an illegal tip pool in violation of the Florida Constitution’s 

tip-credit provision. 

79. Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated servers the 

full minimum wage for one or more weeks of work contrary to Article X, Section 24 of the Florida

Constitution.

80. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s deliberate underpayment of wages, 

Plaintiff and those similarly situated servers have been damaged in the loss of minimum wages for 

one or more weeks of work with Defendant.

81. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant an Order awarding:

f. payment to her and all class members of minimum wages for all 

hours worked at the correct rate pursuant to Article X, Section 24 of the Florida 

Constitution;

g. an equal amount of liquidated damages pursuant to Article X, 

Section 24 of the Florida Constitution, or in the alternative pre-judgment and postjudgment interest at the highest rate allowed by law; 

h. reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for all time worked by the 

attorneys for Plaintiffs in prosecuting this case pursuant to Article X, Section 24 of 

the Florida Constitution;

i. certification of this case as a class action under the provisions of 

Florida Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 1.220(b)(1),(2) and alternatively (3); and

Case 1:20-cv-22247-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 11 of 12
12

j. Any other relief that Plaintiff and the class members may be due or 

entitled.

Dated this 29th day of May, 2020.

Respectfully submitted,

s/Carlos V. Leach 

Carlos Leach, Esq.

FL Bar No. 0540021

Bruce A. Mount, Esq.

FL Bar No. 88754

THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 

631 S. Orlando Ave., Suite 213 

Winter Park, Florida 32789 

Phone: (407) 574-4999 

Facsimile: (833) 423-5864 

E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com

Email: bmount@theleachfirm.com

Email: yhernandez@theleachfirm.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 1:20-cv-22247-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 12 of 12