UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

KEY WEST DIVISION

CASE NO.: 

RHIANNA KOCKA, 

Plaintiff,

v.

BREEZY BUDDHA CAFÉ, LLC,

SIU S. TONG and CINDY M. SHI,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

C O M P L A I N T

Plaintiff, RHIANNA KOCKA, by and through the undersigned counsel, Todd W. Shulby, 

P.A., sues the Defendants, BREEZY BUDDHA CAFE, LLC, SUI S. TONG and CINDY M. SHI, 

and allege as follows:

1. Plaintiff bringsthis action against Defendants to recover unpaid wages, compensation

and damages.

2. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”), 

29 U.S.C. §216(b) and 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343.

3. The unlawful employment practices alleged below occurred and/or were committed 

within this judicial district.

4. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff has been a citizen and resident of this judicial 

district and within the jurisdiction of this Court.

5. At all times material hereto, BREEZY BUDDHA CAFE, LLC was an employer as 
2

defined by the FLSA.

6. At all times material hereto, BREEZY BUDDHA CAFE, LLC was Plaintiff’s

employer as defined by the FLSA.

7. At all times material hereto, BREEZY BUDDHA CAFE, LLC was Plaintiff’s

employer.

8. At all times material hereto, BREEZY BUDDHA CAFE, LLC was an LLC in the 

State of Florida.

9. At all times material hereto, BREEZY BUDDHA CAFE, LLC was conducting 

business in this judicial district.

10. At all times material hereto, BREEZY BUDDHA CAFE, LLC’s principal place of 

business was in Key West, Florida.

11. At all times material hereto BREEZY BUDDHA CAFE, LLC had employees engaged 

in interstate commerce or in the production of goods for interstate commerce. 29 U.S.C. §203.

12. At all times material hereto BREEZY BUDDHA CAFE, LLC had employees 

handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that were moved in or produced for 

interstate commerce by a person. 29 U.S.C. §203.

13. BREEZY BUDDHA CAFE, LLC, upon information and belief, had anticipated 

revenue in excess of $500,000 per annum.

14. At all times during Plaintiff’s employment, SUI S. TONG was Plaintiff’s employer as 

defined by law.

15. At all times during Plaintiff’s employment, SUI S. TONG was an owner of BREEZY 

BUDDHA CAFE, LLC.

16. At all times during Plaintiff’s employment, SUI S. TONG was an officer of BREEZY 

Case 4:20-cv-10074-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 2 of 9
3

BUDDHA CAFE, LLC.

17. At all times during Plaintiff’s employment, SUI S. TONG was a director of BREEZY 

BUDDHA CAFE, LLC.

18. At all times during Plaintiff’s employment, SUI S. TONG was a shareholder of 

BREEZY BUDDHA CAFE, LLC.

19. At all times during Plaintiff’s employment, SUI S. TONG was paid a salary by 

BREEZY BUDDHA CAFE, LLC.

20. At all times during Plaintiff’s employment, SUI S. TONG shared in or was entitled to 

a share of the profits of BREEZY BUDDHA CAFE, LLC.

21. At all times during Plaintiff’s employment, SUI S. TONG had operational control 

over BREEZY BUDDHA CAFE, LLC.

22. At all times during Plaintiff’s employment, SUI S. TONG was directly involved in 

decisions affecting employee compensation and hours worked by employees.

23. At all times during Plaintiff’s employment, SUI S. TONG controlled the finances for 

BREEZY BUDDHA CAFE, LLC.

24. At all times during Plaintiff’s employment, SUI S. TONG was Plaintiff’s manager 

and/or supervisor.

25. At all times during Plaintiff’s employment, SUI S. TONG’s primary duty was to 

manage and/or supervise BREEZY BUDDHA CAFE, LLC.

26. At all times during Plaintiff’s employment, SUI S. TONG customarily and regularly 

directed the work of all employees at BREEZY BUDDHA CAFE, LLC.

27. At all times during Plaintiff’s employment, SUI S. TONG had the authority to hire or 

fire other employees.

Case 4:20-cv-10074-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 3 of 9
4

28. At all times during Plaintiff’s employment, SUI S. TONG’s suggestions or 

recommendations as to the hiring, firing, advancement, promotion or any other change of status of 

other employees were given particular weight.

29. At all times during Plaintiff’s employment, CINDY M. SHI was Plaintiff’s employer 

as defined by law.

30. At all times during Plaintiff’s employment, CINDY M. SHI was an owner of 

BREEZY BUDDHA CAFE, LLC.

31. At all times during Plaintiff’s employment, CINDY M. SHI was an officer of 

BREEZY BUDDHA CAFE, LLC.

32. At all times during Plaintiff’s employment, CINDY M. SHI was a director of 

BREEZY BUDDHA CAFE, LLC.

33. At all times during Plaintiff’s employment, CINDY M. SHI was a shareholder of 

BREEZY BUDDHA CAFE, LLC.

34. At all times during Plaintiff’s employment, CINDY M. SHI was paid a salary by 

BREEZY BUDDHA CAFE, LLC.

35. At all times during Plaintiff’s employment, CINDY M. SHIshared in or was entitled 

to a share of the profits of BREEZY BUDDHA CAFE, LLC.

36. At all times during Plaintiff’s employment, CINDY M. SHI had operational control 

over BREEZY BUDDHA CAFE, LLC.

37. At all times during Plaintiff’s employment, CINDY M. SHI was directly involved in 

decisions affecting employee compensation and hours worked by employees.

38. At all times during Plaintiff’s employment, CINDY M. SHI controlled the finances 

for BREEZY BUDDHA CAFE, LLC.

Case 4:20-cv-10074-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 4 of 9
5

39. At all times during Plaintiff’s employment, CINDY M. SHI was Plaintiff’s manager 

and/or supervisor.

40. At all times during Plaintiff’s employment, CINDY M. SHI’s primary duty was to 

manage and/or supervise BREEZY BUDDHA CAFE, LLC.

41. At all times during Plaintiff’s employment, CINDY M. SHI customarily and regularly 

directed the work of all employees at BREEZY BUDDHA CAFE, LLC.

42. At all times during Plaintiff’s employment, CINDY M. SHI had the authority to hire 

or fire other employees.

43. At all times during Plaintiff’s employment, CINDY M. SHI’s suggestions or 

recommendations as to the hiring, firing, advancement, promotion or any other change of status of 

other employees were given particular weight.

44. While working for BREEZY BUDDHA CAFÉ, LLC, a substantial part of Plaintiff’s

work was to process credit card transactions.

45. While working for BREEZY BUDDHA CAFÉ, LLC, a substantial part of Plaintiff’s

work was to process debit card transactions.

46. While working for BREEZY BUDDHA CAFÉ, LLC, Plaintiff regularly processed 

credit card transactions.

47. While working for BREEZY BUDDHA CAFÉ, LLC, Plaintiff regularly processed 

debit card transactions.

48. While working for BREEZY BUDDHA CAFÉ, LLC, the credit and/or debit card 

transactions processed by Plaintiff were completed outside the State of Florida.

49. While working for BREEZY BUDDHA CAFÉ, LLC, Plaintiff was individually 

engaged in interstate commerce.

Case 4:20-cv-10074-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 5 of 9
6

50. While working for BREEZY BUDDHA CAFÉ, LLC, Plaintiff was personally

engaged in interstate commerce.

51. While working for BREEZY BUDDHA CAFÉ, LLC, Plaintiff was regularly a party 

to interstate telephone calls.

COUNT I: FLSA RECOVERY OF MINIMUM WAGES AND TIPS

52. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 

51 above.

53. Plaintiff worked for Defendants starting on approximately February 20, 2020.

54. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a bartender, server and food expeditor handling 

take-out food orders and sales.

55. Plaintiff’s primary duties and responsibilities included taking orders and serving 

customers, interacting with customers, processing dine-in customer payments including credit and 

debit card transactions, taking to go and delivery orders through the telephone, packaging the orders 

and taking customers payments over the telephone or at pick up, and processing credit card and debit 

card transactions.

56. Plaintiff was paid at a rate of $6.00 or $7.00 per hour as a server and bartender, plus 

tips.

57. As a server and bartender, Plaintiff was required to pay 5% of Plaintiff’s gross sales 

back to Defendants for Defendants to distribute to the food runner and sushi chef.

58. Upon information and belief, Defendants retained a portion of the 5% of gross sales 

paid by Plaintiff to Defendants and did not distribute the entire amount to the food runner and sushi 

chef.

59. The sushi chef did not have regular interaction with customers.

Case 4:20-cv-10074-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 6 of 9
7

60. The sushi chef’s station was in the back of the house, in the kitchen, out of site of 

customers.

61. The sushi chef was not the type of employee to customarily and regularly receive tips 

from customers.

62. As a food expediter for take-out and delivery orders, Plaintiff was paid at a rate of 

$15.00 per hour.

63. Plaintiff’s customers left tips for Plaintiff on take-out orders.

64. Plaintiff did not actually receive or retain the tips left for Plaintiff by customers on 

take-out orders.

65. The tips left for Plaintiff by customers on take-out orders were retained by 

Defendants.

66. Defendants distributed all or a portion of Plaintiff’s tips to Plaintiff’s managers, 

including CINDY M. SHI.

67. Defendants used all or a portion of Plaintiff’s tips to pay the wages of other 

employees and/or for other operational expenses.

68. Defendants’ customers were not informed by Defendants that the tips they were 

leaving for Plaintiff were not being kept by Plaintiff.

69. Defendants’ customers were not informed by Defendants that the tips they were 

leaving for Plaintiff were being kept by Defendants.

70. Plaintiff was not informed by Defendants that Defendants would be retaining 

Plaintiff’s tips.

71. During one or more workweeks, Defendants kept Plaintiff’s tips in violation of the 

FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §203(m)(2)(B).

Case 4:20-cv-10074-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 7 of 9
8

72. During one or more workweeks, Defendants allowed Plaintiff’s managers or 

supervisors to keep Plaintiff’s tips in violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §203(m)(2)(B).

73. During one or more workweeks, Defendants distributed a portion of Plaintiff’s tips to 

employees who do not customarily and regularly receive tips in violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 

§203(m)(2)(A)(ii) and 203(t).

74. Defendants knew or showed reckless disregard as to the above violations of the 

FLSA.

75. Defendants did not act in good faith with respect to the above violations of the FLSA.

76. By reason of the intentional, willful and unlawful acts of Defendants, Plaintiff has 

suffered damages, including liquidated, and will continue to incur costs and attorneys’ fees.

77. Plaintiff is owed an additional amount equal to the amount of unpaid minimum wages 

and unlawfully retained tips as liquidated damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff hereby demandsjudgment against Defendants for all unpaid wages, 

the full minimum wage for all hours worked and paid less than the full minimum wage, 

reimbursement of all tips unlawfully retained by Defendants, liquidated damages, attorney’s fees and 

costs and demands a trial by jury for all issues so triable.

TRIAL BY JURY

Plaintiff demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Case 4:20-cv-10074-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 8 of 9
9