UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

CASE NO:

TORI VAN LEHN, on behalf of herself

and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

UNCLE AL’S SPORTS CAFÉ SUNRISE, INC.

d/b/a LUV’N OVEN ALE HOUSE, and

DEBORAH ALVAREZ, individually,

Defendants.

/

COLLECTIVE/CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, TORI VAN LEHN (“Plaintiff”) on behalf of herself and all others similarly 

situated, and pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, Fla. Stat. 448.440, and Art. X, 

Sec. 24 of the Florida Constitution, files this Collective/Class Action Complaint for Damages and 

Demand for Jury Trial against Defendants, UNCLE AL’S SPORTS CAFÉ SUNRISE, INC. d/b/a 

LUV’N OVEN ALE HOUSE (“Luv’n Oven Ale House”) and DEBORAH ALVAREZ

(“Alvarez”) (Ale House and Alvarez collectively referred to as “Defendants”), for their failure to 

pay restaurant servers and bartenders state and federal minimum wages during the relevant time 

period, as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff brings this collective and class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act 

(“FLSA”) and Florida Minimum Wage Act (“FMWA”) on behalf of herself and all restaurant 

servers and bartenders who work or have worked at the Luv’n Oven Ale House restaurant located 

at 10033 Sunset Strip, Sunrise, Florida 33322 during the applicable statute of limitations. 

Case 0:22-cv-61628-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 1 of 37
2

Defendants committed federal and state minimum wage violations because they compensate 

restaurant servers and bartenders at the reduced “tip credit” wage notwithstanding that servers and 

bartenders are required to spend more than 20% of their shifts performing non-tipped duties and 

side work. Defendants have also violated state and federal law by claiming a tip credit during 

shifts when servers and bartenders are required to spend 30 or more continuous minutes on side 

work and non-tipped duties. As a result, Plaintiff, and similarly situated restaurant servers and 

bartenders have been denied applicable wages in one or more workweeks during the relevant time 

period. 

PARTIES

2. During all times material hereto, Plaintiff was a resident of Broward County, 

Florida, over the age of 18 years, and otherwise sui juris. 

3. Plaintiff and the FLSA putative collective members are/were restaurant servers 

and bartenders who worked for Defendants within the last three (3) years at Luv’n Oven Ale House

in Sunrise, Florida. 

4. Plaintiff and the FMWA putative class members are/were restaurant servers and 

bartenders who worked for Defendants within the last five (5) years at Luv’n Oven Ale House in 

Sunrise, Florida.

5. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a restaurant server and bartender at Luv’n Oven 

Ale House from in or around February 2020 until on or about July 30, 2022. 

6. The proposed collective and class members worked for Defendants in the same 

capacity as Plaintiff in that they were restaurant servers and/or bartenders for Defendants at the

Luv’n Oven Ale House restaurant located in Sunrise, Florida. 

Case 0:22-cv-61628-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 2 of 37
3

7. Plaintiff seeks certification of three (3) separate collectives under 29 U.S.C. § 

216(b) for violations of the FLSA as follows:

80/20 Opening Shift Collective: All restaurant servers and 

bartenders who worked for Defendants in Sunrise, Florida 

during the three (3) years preceding this lawsuit who in one or 

more workweeks were required to spend more than 20% of an

opening shift performing “non-tipped” duties and side work 

and did not receive the full applicable minimum wage. 

80/20 Closing Shift Collective: All restaurant servers and 

bartenders who worked for Defendants in Sunrise, Florida 

during the three (3) years preceding this lawsuit who in one or 

more workweeks were required to spend more than 20% of a

closing shift performing “non-tipped” duties and side work and 

did not receive the full applicable minimum wage. 

Substantial Side Work Collective: All restaurant servers and 

bartenders who worked for Defendants in Sunrise, Florida 

during the three (3) years preceding this lawsuit who were 

required to spend thirty (30) or more continuous minutes on 

non-tipped duties and side work during any shift. 

8. Plaintiff also seeks certification of three (3) separate classes under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

23 and the FMWA and Florida Constitution for violations of the Florida Minimum Wage Act, as 

follows:

80/20 Opening Shift Class: All restaurant servers and 

bartenders who worked for Defendants in Sunrise, Florida 

during the five (5) years preceding this lawsuit who in one or 

more workweeks were required to spend more than 20% of an

opening shift performing “non-tipped” duties and side work 

and did not receive the full applicable minimum wage.

80/20 Closing Shift Class: All restaurant servers and bartenders

who worked for Defendants in Sunrise, Florida during the five 

(5) years preceding this lawsuit who in one or more workweeks 

were required to spend more than 20% of a closing shift 

performing “non-tipped” side work and did not receive the full 

applicable minimum wage. 

Case 0:22-cv-61628-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 3 of 37
4

Substantial Side Work Class: All restaurant servers and 

bartenders who worked for Defendants in Sunrise, Florida 

during the five (5) years preceding this lawsuit who were 

required to spend thirty (30) or more continuous minutes on 

non-tipped duties and side work during any shift. 

9. The precise size and identity of each collective and class should be ascertainable 

from the business records, tax records, and/or employee or personnel records of Defendants; 

however, Plaintiff estimates that the total number of class members in each class above exceeds 

50 restaurant servers and bartenders.

10. During all times material hereto, Defendant, Luv’n Oven Ale House, was a Florida 

For-Profit Corporation operating and transacting business within Broward County, Florida, within 

the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. 

11. Defendant, Alvarez, is a resident of Broward County, Florida, and is subject to the 

jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. 

12. Defendants own, operate and control the Luv’n Oven Ale House Restaurant located 

at 10033 Sunset Strip, Sunrise Fl 33322. 

13. Defendants were Plaintiff’s “employer,” as defined by the FLSA and FMWA,

during all times pertinent to the allegations herein. 

14. Defendants were also Plaintiff’s “joint employer” as defined by the FLSA, FMWA,

and all pertinent regulations during all times material hereto.

15. During all times material hereto, Defendant, Luv’n Oven Ale House, was vested 

with control and decision-making authority over the hiring, firing, scheduling, day-to-day 

operations, and pay practices of the Luv’n Oven Ale House Restaurant located at 10033 Sunset 

Strip, Sunrise Fl 33322.

Case 0:22-cv-61628-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 4 of 37
5

16. During all times material hereto, Defendant, Alvarez, was also vested with control 

and decision-making authority over the hiring, firing, scheduling, day-to-day operations, and pay 

practices of the Luv’n Oven Ale House restaurant located at 10033 Sunset Strip, Sunrise Fl 33322.

17. Defendants implement uniform pay, tip, and time keeping practices at the Luv’n 

Oven Ale House restaurant as they apply to all restaurant servers and bartenders. 

18. Plaintiff and putative collective and class members are/were non-exempt, hourly 

restaurant servers and bartenders. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

19. This action is brought under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, the Florida 

Minimum Wage Act (“FMWA”) and Article X Section 24 of the Florida Constitution to recover 

damages from Defendants, injunctive relief, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. 

20. This Honorable Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law 

claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367

21. The acts and/or omissions giving rise to this dispute took place within Broward

County, Florida, which falls within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court.

22. Defendants regularly transact business in Broward County, Florida, and jurisdiction 

is therefore proper.

23. Venue is also proper within Broward County, Florida. 

24. Plaintiff fulfilled all conditions precedent required to bring her class action claims 

under the FMWA.

25. More specifically, on August 9, 2022, through her counsel, Plaintiff served 

Defendants with a written pre-suit demand and notice regarding her FMWA claims, requesting 

that Defendants pay her and the putative FMWA classes the minimum wages owed to them. 

Case 0:22-cv-61628-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 5 of 37
6

Defendants refused to pay Plaintiff or the FMWA classes any wages whatsoever within the 

statutory notice period. This lawsuit followed. 

FLSA COVERAGE

26. Defendant, Luv’n Oven Ale House, is an enterprise covered by the FLSA by virtue 

of the fact that it is an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, 

in that Defendants had at least two employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods 

for commerce, or two (2) or more employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or 

materials that have been moved in or produced for commerce by any person. 

27. During all time periods pertinent hereto, Defendant, Luv’n Oven Ale House’s 

employees regularly handled goods such as food, beverages, napkins, silverware, appliances, rice, 

beer, vodka, meat, chicken, pork, cheese, broccoli, carrots, peas, oil, zucchini, wings, mahi mahi, 

salmon, onions, peppers, crab, vinegar sauce, shrimp, beef, steak, potatoes, bread, hot sauce, 

cheese, marinara sauce, pretzels, buns, nachos, calamari, chicken tenders, jalapenos, other food 

items, restaurant equipment, chairs, tables, vacuum cleaners, pens, paper, receipts, computers, 

credit card processors, staples, toothpicks, mints, flour, sugar, coffee, tea, soda, water bottles, and 

other materials that had previously travelled through interstate commerce. 

28. Defendant, Luv’n Oven Ale House, had an annual gross revenue in excess of 

$500,000.00 in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and is expected to gross in excess of $500,000.00 in 

2022. 

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

29. During all times material hereto, Defendant, Alvarez, was an owner, operator, and 

corporate officer of the Luv’n Oven Ale House Restaurant. 

Case 0:22-cv-61628-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 6 of 37
7

30. Defendant, Alvarez, had supervisory authority of Plaintiff and all other servers and 

bartenders during the all times material hereto. 

31. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a restaurant server and bartender during her 

employment period.

32. During Plaintiff’s employment period, Defendants did not track the time servers or 

bartenders spent performing side work and non-tipped duties in the restaurant.

33. Moreover, during all times material hereto, Defendants claimed a tip credit and paid 

Plaintiff and all other servers and bartenders the reduced wage for tipped employees, including 

during shifts when they spent a substantial amount of continuous time performing side work and 

non-tipped duties. 

DEFENDANTS REQUIRE PLAINTIFF AND SIMILARLY SITUATED SERVERS AND 

BARTENDERS TO SPEND MORE THAN 20% OF EACH OPENING SHIFT ON NONTIPPED DUTIES AND SIDE WORK 

34. Federal law prohibits employers from taking a tip credit when an employee 

performs non-tip generating duties for more than 20% of their shift. Rafferty v. Denny’s Inc., 13 

F4th 1166, 1188 (11th Cir. 2021). In other words, when restaurant servers and bartenders spend 

20% or more of any respective shift performing non-tip generating duties, they must be paid the 

full minimum wage, as opposed to the reduced minimum wage for tipped employees.

1

 Id. 

35. Defendants claimed a tip credit for all of Plaintiff’s work, including during shifts 

in which Plaintiff spent more than 20% of her time on non-tip producing duties and side work. 

36. In 2018, servers and bartenders were compensated at the reduced wage of $5.23 per 

hour for their first forty (40) hours of work per week. Defendants paid servers and bartenders the 

1 The maximum tip credit permissible under federal law is $2.13 cents and $3.02 cents under state 

law. However, as stated above, an employer cannot claim a tip credit if its employee spends more 

than 20% of any respective shift performing non-tip producing duties. 

Case 0:22-cv-61628-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 7 of 37
8

reduced cash wage of $5.44 per hour in 2019, $5.54 per hour in 2020, $5.63 per hour in from 

January 1, 2021, through September 29, 2021 and $6.98 per hour from September 30, 2021 through 

the present.

37. During her employment period with the Defendants, Plaintiff and members of the 

putative collectives and classes of servers and bartenders were assigned both “opening” shifts and 

“closing” shifts.

38. The typical opening shift schedule is from about 10:30 am until about 5:00 pm. 

39. The Luv’n Oven Ale House restaurant opens to the public at 11:00 am. 

40. Prior to opening the restaurant, from approximately 10:30 am to 11:00 am – a 

period of at least thirty (30) minutes – Defendants instructed Plaintiff and all other similarly 

situated restaurant servers and bartenders to make salads, unstack chairs, wipe down surfaces, 

prepare lights and signs, cut fruit, fill salt and pepper shakers, roll silverware, set tables, clean the 

beverage stations, clean tables, clean condiments, clean the outside of the restaurants, make coffee,

and perform additional side work and “non-tipped” duties which are merely incidental or 

completely unrelated to the employees’ tipped duties. 

41. Furthermore, prior to opening to the public, Plaintiff and the other servers and 

bartenders were paid the reduced tip credit wage, even though the restaurant was closed and its 

employees could not earn any tips. 

42. Before completing each “opening” shift, Plaintiff and the putative class members 

were required to perform the same “non-tipped” duties and responsibilities as outlined in the 

preceding paragraphs. At a minimum, when combining the pre-shift and post-shift duties, Plaintiff 

spent approximately two (2) full hours performing non-tipped duties and side work. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff and the class of similarly situated servers and bartenders spent more than 20% of opening 

Case 0:22-cv-61628-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 8 of 37
9

shifts performing non-tipped duties and side work but were nevertheless paid the reduced wage 

for their entire shift. 

43. As a result, Plaintiff and members of the putative collectives and classes are entitled 

to recover the applicable tip credit for the time they spent performing “non-tipped” incidental 

duties and side work during each opening shift, as opposed to the reduced wage they received 

when performing these non-tipped duties and side work. 

44. Plaintiff and the federal minimum wage collective members are entitled to recover

at least federal minimum wage for each hour spent performing “non-tipped” duties and side work

during opening shifts in which the “non-tipped” work exceeded 20% of the total time worked

during that shift. 

45. Similarly, Plaintiff and the Florida minimum wage class members are entitled to 

recover at least the Florida minimum wage for each hour spent performing “non-tipped” duties 

and side work during opening shifts in which the “non-tipped” work exceeded 20% of the total 

time worked during that shift. 

DEFEENDANTS REQUIRE PLAINTIFF AND SIMILARLY SITUATED SERVERS AND 

BARTENDERS TO SPEND MORE THAN 20% OF CLOSING SHIFTS PERFOMRING 

NON-TIPPED DUTIES AND SIDE WORK

46. When working the “closing” shift, Plaintiff and all other similarly situated servers 

and bartenders report to work at around 5:00 p.m. and are scheduled to work through around 12:00

a.m. During the entire closing shift, Plaintiff and all other servers and bartenders are paid a reduced 

wage for tipped employees (even though there are no customers for at least 1-hour of each closing

shift). 

47. However, before and after each “closing” shift, Plaintiff and the putative class 

members are instructed to stack chairs, wipe down surfaces, prepare lights and signs, fill salt and 

pepper shakers, roll silverware, clean the beverage stations, clean tables, clean condiments, clean 

Case 0:22-cv-61628-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 9 of 37
10

the outside of the restaurants, and perform additional “non-tipped” duties and side work which are 

merely incidental to the employees’ primary duties in the restaurant.

48. During a typical “closing” shift, Plaintiff and putative class members are regularly 

required to spend a total of more than 20% of the shift performing the aforementioned “nontipped” duties and side work.

49. In 2018, servers and bartenders were compensated at the reduced wage of $5.23 per 

hour for their first forty (40) hours of work per week. Defendants paid servers and bartenders the 

reduced cash wage of $5.44 per hour in 2019, $5.54 per hour in 2020, $5.63 per hour in from 

January 1, 2021, through September 29, 2021, and $6.98 per hour from September 30, 2021 

through the present.

50. As a result, Plaintiff and members of the putative collectives and classes are entitled 

to recover the applicable tip credit for the time spent each shift performing “non-tipped” incidental 

duties and side work, as opposed to the reduced wage they received. 

51. Plaintiff and the federal minimum wage collective members are entitled to recover

at least federal minimum wage for each hour spent performing “non-tipped” incidental work and 

side work during closing shifts in which the “non-tipped” work exceeded 20% of the total time 

worked during that shift. 

52. Plaintiff and the Florida minimum wage class members are entitled to recover at 

least the Florida minimum wage for each hour spent performing “non-tipped” incidental work and 

side work during closing shifts in which the “non-tipped” work exceeded 20% of the total time 

worked during that shift. 

Case 0:22-cv-61628-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 10 of 37
11

DEFEENDANTS REQUIRE PLAINTIFF AND ALL OTHER SERVERS AND 

BARTENDERS TO SPEND 30 OR MORE CONTINUOUS MINUTES ON NONTIPPED DUTIES AND SIDE WORK DURING EACH SHIFT 

53. Side work and non-tipped work which take 30 or more continuous minutes is not 

considered “part of the tipped occupation.” See 29 C.F.R. § 531.56(f)(4)(ii).

54. Accordingly, employers are forbidden from taking a tip credit when they compel

tipped employees to spend 30 or more continuous minutes on non-tipped duties and side work. 

55. During all times material hereto, Defendants required all servers and bartenders to 

arrive at opening shifts at least 30 minutes before the restaurant was open to the public. 

56. Moreover, during all times material hereto, Defendants required servers and 

bartenders to perform side work and non-tipped duties for 30 or more continuous minutes at the 

end of closing shifts, often when servers and bartenders did not have any customers and the 

restaurant was closed to the public. 

57. Plaintiff and the federal minimum wage collective members are entitled to recover

at least federal minimum wage for each the time spent performing “non-tipped” duties and side 

work which equals or exceeds 30 continuous minutes per shift. 

58. Plaintiff and the Florida minimum wage class members are entitled to recover at 

least the Florida minimum wage for the time spent performing “non-tipped” duties and side work 

which equals or exceeds 30 continuous minutes per shift. 

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

59. Class members are treated equally and similarly at the Luv’n Oven Ale House

restaurant that is owned and operated by Defendants, in that they were denied state and federal 

minimum wages when they spent more than 20% of opening and closing shifts performing “nontipped” duties and side work. 

Case 0:22-cv-61628-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 11 of 37
12

60. Defendants employed at least fifty (50) servers and bartenders in Sunrise, Florida,

who were required to spend at least 30 continuous minutes per shift on non-tipped duties and side 

work during the course of the previous five (5) years.

61. At all times material hereto, Defendants had express or constructive knowledge of 

the work performed by Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees. 

62. Moreover, at all times material hereto, Defendants had express or constructive 

knowledge of the time Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees worked but failed to keep 

and maintain accurate time records, thereby violating state and federal law. 

63. Plaintiff and the class members performed the same job duties for Defendants in 

Sunrise, Florida, as restaurant servers and bartenders, and were otherwise paid in an identical 

manner by Defendants based on Defendants’ failure to compensate Plaintiff and the class members 

properly when more than 20% of their shifts consisted of “non-tipped” duties and side work and 

when Plaintiff and class members were required to spend substantial time on “non-tipped” duties 

and side work.

64. During their employment, Plaintiff and one or more members of the class 

complained about the illegal practices above; however, Defendants took no action to stop the 

illegal pay practices. 

65. Although Defendants were aware of the requirements of the FLSA and FMWA, 

and the pertinent regulations thereto, Defendants’ willfully and/or intentionally failed to pay 

Plaintiff and the class members in accordance with the state and federal law. 

COUNT I – FED. R. CIV. P. 23 CLASS ACTION

FOR FLORIDA MINIMUM WAGE VIOLATIONS

(80/20 VIOLATIONS DURING OPENING SHIFTS)

66. Plaintiff hereby re-avers Paragraphs 1 through 65 as though set forth fully herein.

Case 0:22-cv-61628-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 12 of 37
13

67. Defendants claimed a tip credit for each hour of work for Plaintiff and all other 

servers and bartenders during the previous five (5) years. 

68. Plaintiff and all others similarly situated are/were entitled to be paid Florida’s full

minimum wage during their employment with Defendants.

69. Plaintiff and the proposed class members were subjected to similar violations of 

Florida law as a result of Defendants’ failure to pay them the full state minimum wage when they 

were required to spend more than 20% of their opening shifts performing non-tipped duties and 

side work. 

70. Plaintiff seeks recovery of Florida minimum wages under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 for 

herself and the following class for Defendants’ failure to pay constitutionally mandated state

minimum wages:

All restaurant servers and bartenders who worked for 

Defendants in Sunrise, Florida, during the five (5) years 

preceding this lawsuit who in one or more workweeks were 

required to spend more than 20% of their opening shift

performing “non-tipped” duties and side work and did not 

receive the full applicable minimum wage. 

RULE 23 CLASS ALLEGATIONS

71. Plaintiff brings her FMWA claim as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the above class.

72. The putative 80/20 Opening Shift Class members are treated equally and similarly 

by Defendants, in that they were denied full and proper Florida minimum wage based upon the 

Defendants requiring Plaintiff and similarly situated servers and bartenders to spend more than 

20% of opening shifts performing non-tipped duties and side work. 

73. Numerosity: Defendants employed more than 50 servers and bartenders at their

restaurant in Sunrise, Florida during the past five (5) years who were required to spend more than 

Case 0:22-cv-61628-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 13 of 37
14

20% of their opening shifts performing non-tipped duties and side work and were not paid the 

pertinent Florida minimum wage. Given Defendants’ size and the systematic nature of their failure 

to comply with Florida law, the members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members 

is impractical. 

74. Plaintiff and the 80/20 Opening Shift Class members were victims of the same 

policies, including Defendants’ requirement that employees spend more than 20% of opening 

shifts performing non-tipped duties and side work. 

75. Commonality: Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the 

Class and predominate over any questions solely affecting any individual member of the Class, 

including Plaintiff. Such questions common to the Class include, but are not limited to the 

following:

(a) Whether Plaintiff and the 80/20 Opening Shift Class members were 

“employees” of Defendants;

(b) Whether Plaintiff and the 80/20 Opening Shift Class’s hours were properly 

recorded;

(c) Whether Defendants violated the Florida minimum wage rights of Plaintiff and 

the 80/20 Opening Shift Class under the FMWA by failing to compensate the 

putative class the full state minimum wage when they spent more than 20% of 

opening shifts performing non-tipped duties and side work;

(c) Whether Defendants willfully or intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff and the 

80/20 Opening Shift Class Florida minimum wages;

Case 0:22-cv-61628-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 14 of 37
15

(d) Whether Defendants knew or should have known of the Florida minimum wage 

requirements and either intentionally avoided or recklessly failed to investigate 

proper payroll and time keeping practices; and

(e) The nature, extent, and measure of damages suffered by the Plaintiff and the 

80/20 Opening Shift Class.

76. Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the 80/20 

Opening Shift Class. Plaintiff’s claims arise from the Defendants’ company-wide policy of 

requiring all servers and bartenders to spend more than 20% of their opening shifts on non-tipped 

duties and side work without being paid the full applicable Florida minimum wage. 

77. Adequacy: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the 80/20 

Opening Shift Class. Plaintiff has no interest that might conflict with the interests of the 80/20 

Opening Shift Class. Plaintiff is interested in pursuing her claims against Defendants vigorously 

and has retained counsel competent and experienced in class and employment litigation.

78. Class action treatment is superior to the alternatives for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of the controversy alleged herein. Such treatment will permit a large number of 

similarly situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously, 

efficiently, and without the duplication of effort and expense that numerous individual actions 

would entail. No difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this class action 

that would preclude its maintenance as a class action, and no superior alternative exists for the fair 

and efficient adjudication of this controversy. 

79. Defendants acted on grounds generally applicable to the 80/20 Opening Shift Class, 

thereby making relief appropriate with respect to the 80/20 Opening Shift Class as a whole. 

Prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the 80/20 Opening Shift Class would 

Case 0:22-cv-61628-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 15 of 37
16

create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to the individual members of 

the 80/20 Opening Shift Class that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for 

Defendants. 

80. The identity of the 80/20 Opening Shift Class is readily identifiable from 

Defendants’ records.

81. Without a class action, Defendants will likely continue to retain the benefit of their

wrongdoing and will continue a course of conduct that will result in further damages to Plaintiff 

and the 80/20 Opening Shift Class. 

82. Plaintiff and the 80/20 Opening Shift Class members performed the same job 

duties, as restaurant servers and bartenders, and were paid in an identical manner by Defendants 

based on Defendants requiring the restaurant servers and bartenders to spend more than 20% of 

their opening shift on non-tipped duties and side work without paying the restaurant servers and 

bartenders at least the full applicable Florida minimum wage. 

83. Plaintiff and the 80/20 Opening Shift Class members were not paid proper Florida 

minimum wages when their non-tipped duties and side work exceeded 20% of any particular shift. 

84. Defendants were aware of the requirements of the FMWA, and the pertinent 

regulations thereto, yet acted willfully in failing to pay Plaintiff and the 80/20 Opening Shift Class

members in accordance with the law.

85. This action is intended to include each and every restaurant server and bartender

who worked for Defendants at their restaurant in Sunrise, Florida during the past five (5) years 

who was required to spend more than 20% of his/her opening shift performing non-tipped duties 

and side work. 

Case 0:22-cv-61628-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 16 of 37
17

86. During all material times hereto, Plaintiff and all 80/20 Opening Shift Class 

members are/were non-exempt employees of Defendants. 

87. Restaurant servers and bartenders’ work for Defendants is an integral part of 

Defendants’ business. 

88. Defendants violated the terms of the FMWA and Florida Constitution’s provision 

on minimum wages by not paying Plaintiff and the putative class members at least Florida’s 

minimum wage for all hours worked.

89. In 2018, the Florida minimum wage was $8.25.

90. In 2019, the Florida minimum wage was $8.46.

91. In 2020, the Florida minimum wage was $8.56.

92. From January 1, 2021, until September 29, 2021, the Florida minimum wage was 

$8.65 per hour. 

93. Beginning on September 30, 2021, the Florida minimum wage was $10.00 per hour. 

94. During their employment, Plaintiff and one or more of the 80/20 Opening shift

Class members complained about the illegal practices above; however, Defendants took no action 

to stop any of the illegal practices. 

95. Plaintiff has complied with pre-suit notice, and all other conditions precedent to 

this action have been performed, or waived, by sending Defendants a Florida minimum wage 

demand before this claim was filed. 

96. More than fifteen (15) calendar days have passed since Defendants received the 

Florida minimum wage demand letter and no payment has been tendered by Defendants to 

compensate Plaintiff and the putative 80/20 Opening Shift Class for the minimum wages owed. 

Case 0:22-cv-61628-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 17 of 37
18

97. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of the controversy. Absent these actions, many members of the class likely will not 

obtain redress of their damages and Defendants will retain the proceeds of their violations of the 

FMWA and Florida Constitution. 

98. Furthermore, even if every member of the 80/20 Opening Shift 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, efficiency, and parity 

among the claims of individual members of the class and provide for judicial consistency.

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

(a) Payment by the Defendants of actual damages caused by their failure to pay 

minimum wages pursuant to the Florida Minimum Wage Act and Florida 

Constitution;

(b) Payment by the Defendants of liquidated damages caused by their intentional 

and/or willful failure to pay minimum wages pursuant to the Florida Minimum 

Wage Act and Florida;

(c) Payment by the Defendants of the costs and expenses of this action, including 

attorney’s fees of Plaintiff’s counsel.

100. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ deliberate underpayment of wages, 

Plaintiff and the 80/20 Opening Shift Class members have been damaged in the loss of Florida

minimum wages for one or more weeks of work during their employment with Defendants. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, TORI VAN LEHN, respectfully requests that this Honorable 

Court enter judgment in her favor and against Defendants, UNCLE AL’S SPORTS CAFÉ 

SUNRISE, INC. d/b/a LUV’N OVEN ALE HOUSE and DEBORAH ALVAREZ, and award 

Case 0:22-cv-61628-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 18 of 37
19

Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated: (a) unliquidated Florida minimum wages; (b) an equal 

amount of liquidated damages; (c) all reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs permitted by

the FMWA and Fla. Stat. 448.08; and any and all such further relief as the Court deems just and 

reasonable under the circumstances.

COUNT II - COLLECTIVE ACTION FOR FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE VIOLATIONS

(80/20 VIOLATIONS DURING OPENING SHIFTS)

101. Plaintiff hereby re-avers Paragraphs 1 through 65 as though set forth fully herein.

102. Plaintiff and all others similarly situated are/were entitled to be paid full federal 

minimum wage for certain hours worked during their employment with Defendants.

103. Defendants claimed a tip credit for each hour of work for Plaintiff and all other 

servers and bartenders during all times material hereto. 

104. However, Plaintiff and the proposed collective members were subjected to similar 

violations of federal law as a result of the Defendants’ failure to pay them the full minimum wage 

when they were required to spend more than 20% of opening shifts performing non-tipped duties 

and side work. 

105. Plaintiff seeks recovery of these federal minimum wages under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) 

for herself and the following collective for Defendants’ failure to pay federally mandated minimum 

wages:

All restaurant servers and bartenders who worked for 

Defendants in Sunrise, Florida during the three (3) years 

preceding this lawsuit who in one or more workweeks were 

required to spend more than 20% of their opening shift

performing “non-tipped” duties and side work and did not 

receive the full applicable minimum wage. 

106. Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and the putative collective members the 

full federal minimum wage for one or more weeks of work. 

Case 0:22-cv-61628-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 19 of 37
20

107. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ deliberate underpayment of wages, 

Plaintiff and the collective members have been damaged in the loss of federal minimum wages for 

one or more weeks of work during their employment with Defendants. 

108. Defendants’ willful and/or intentional violations of entitle Plaintiff and the putative

collective members to an additional amount of liquidated, or double, damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, TORI VAN LEHN, respectfully requests that this Honorable 

Court enter judgment in her favor and against Defendants, UNCLE AL’S SPORTS CAFÉ 

SUNRISE, INC. d/b/a LUV’N OVEN ALE HOUSE and DEBORAH ALVAREZ, and award 

Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated: (a) unliquidated federal minimum wages; (b) an equal 

amount of liquidated damages; (c) all reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs permitted 

under the FLSA; and any and all such further relief as the Court deems just and reasonable under 

the circumstances.

COUNT III – FED. R. CIV. P. 23 CLASS ACTION

FOR FLORIDA MINIMUM WAGE VIOLATIONS

(80/20 VIOLATIONS DURING CLOSING SHIFTS)

109. Plaintiff hereby re-avers Paragraphs 1 through 65 as though set forth fully herein.

110. Defendants claimed a tip credit for each hour of work for Plaintiff and all other 

servers and bartenders during the previous five (5) years. 

111. Plaintiff and all others similarly situated are/were entitled to be paid Florida’s full

minimum wage for certain hours worked during their employment with Defendants.

112. Plaintiff and the proposed 80/20 Closing Shift Class members were subjected to 

similar violations of state and federal law as a result of the Defendants’ failure to pay them the full 

state minimum wage when they were required to spend more than 20% of their closing shifts 

performing non-tipped duties and side work. 

Case 0:22-cv-61628-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 20 of 37
21

113. Plaintiff seeks recovery of the Florida minimum wages under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23

for herself and the following 80/20 Closing Shift Class for Defendants’ failure to pay 

constitutionally mandated Florida minimum wages:

All restaurant servers and bartenders who worked for 

Defendants in Sunrise, Florida during the five (5) years 

preceding this lawsuit who in one or more workweeks were 

required to spend more than 20% of their closing shift

performing “non-tipped” duties and side work and did not 

receive the full applicable minimum wage. 

RULE 23 CLASS ALLEGATIONS

114. Plaintiff brings her FMWA claim as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the above class.

115. The putative 80/20 Closing Shift Class members are treated equally and similarly 

by Defendants, in that they were denied full and proper Florida minimum wages based upon 

Defendants requiring Plaintiff and similarly situated servers and bartenders to spend more than 

20% of closing shifts performing non-tipped duties and side work. 

116. Numerosity: Defendants employed more than fifty (50) restaurant servers and 

bartenders at their Sunrise, Florida restaurant during the past five (5) years who were required to 

spend more than 20% of their closing shifts on non-tipped duties and responsibilities and were not 

paid the applicable Florida minimum wage. Given Defendants’ size and the systematic nature of 

their failure to comply with Florida law, the members of the 80/20 Closing Shift Class are so 

numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. 

117. Plaintiff and the 80/20 Closing Shift Class members were victims of the same 

policies, including Defendants’ requirement that employees spend more than 20% of closing shifts

performing non-tipped duties and responsibilities. 

Case 0:22-cv-61628-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 21 of 37
22

118. Commonality: Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the 

80/20 Closing Shift Class and predominate over any questions solely affecting any individual 

member of the 80/20 Closing Shift Class, including Plaintiff. Such questions common to the 80/20 

Closing Shift Class include, but are not limited to the following:

(a) Whether Plaintiff and the 80/20 Closing Shift Class members were 

“employees” of Defendants;

(b) Whether Plaintiff and the Class’s hours were properly recorded;

(c) Whether Defendants violated the Florida minimum wage rights of Plaintiff and 

the 80/20 Closing Shift Class under the FMWA by failing to compensate the 

putative class the full state minimum wage when they spent more than 20% of 

closing shifts performing non-tipped duties and side work;

(d) Whether Defendants willfully or intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff and the 

80/20 Closing Shift Class Florida minimum wages;

(e) Whether Defendants knew or should have known of the Florida minimum wage 

requirements and either intentionally avoided or recklessly failed to investigate 

proper payroll and time keeping practices; and

(f) The nature, extent, and measure of damages suffered by the Plaintiff and the 

80/20 Closing Shift Class.

119. Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the 80/20 

Closing Shift Class. Plaintiff’s claims arise from the Defendants’ company-wide policy of 

requiring all servers and bartenders to spend more than 20% of their closing Shifts performing 

non-tipped duties and responsibilities without being paid the full applicable Florida minimum 

wage. 

Case 0:22-cv-61628-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 22 of 37
23

120. Adequacy: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the 80/20 

Closing Shift Class. Plaintiff has no interest that might conflict with the interests of the 80/20 

Closing Shift Class. Plaintiff is interested in pursuing her claims against Defendants vigorously 

and has retained counsel competent and experienced in class and employment litigation.

121. Class action treatment is superior to the alternatives for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of the controversy alleged herein. Such treatment will permit a large number of 

similarly situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously, 

efficiently, and without the duplication of effort and expense that numerous individual actions 

would entail. No difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this class action 

that would preclude its maintenance as a class action, and no superior alternative exists for the fair 

and efficient adjudication of this controversy. 

122. Defendants acted on grounds generally applicable to the 80/20 Closing Shift Class, 

thereby making relief appropriate with respect to the 80/20 Closing Shift Class as a whole. 

Prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the 80/20 Closing Shift Class would 

create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to the individual members of 

the 80/20 Closing Shift Class that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for 

Defendants. 

123. The identity of the 80/20 Closing Shift Class is readily identifiable from 

Defendants’ records.

124. Without a class action, Defendants will likely continue to retain the benefit of their

wrongdoing and will continue a course of conduct that will result in further damages to Plaintiff 

and the 80/20 Closing Shift Class. 

Case 0:22-cv-61628-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 23 of 37
24

125. Plaintiff and the 80/20 Closing Shift Class members performed the same job duties, 

as restaurant servers and bartenders, and were paid in an identical manner by Defendants based on 

Defendants requiring the restaurant servers and bartenders to spend more than 20% of their closing 

shift performing non-tipped duties and responsibilities without paying the restaurant servers and 

bartenders at least the full applicable Florida minimum wage. 

126. Defendants were aware of the requirements of the FMWA, and the pertinent 

regulations thereto, yet acted willfully in failing to pay Plaintiff and the 80/20 Closing Shift Class 

members in accordance with the law.

127. The precise size and identity of the 80/20 Closing Shift Class should be 

ascertainable from the business records, tax records, and/or employee or personnel records of 

Defendants; however, Plaintiff estimates that the total number of putative 80/20 Closing Shift

Class members exceeds 50 restaurant servers and bartenders. 

128. This action is intended to include each and every restaurant server and bartender

who worked for Defendants at their restaurant in Sunrise, Florida during the past five (5) years 

who was required to spend more than 20% of his/her closing shift performing non-tipped duties 

and side work. 

129. During all material times hereto, Plaintiff and all 80/20 Closing Shift Class 

members were non-exempt employees of Defendants. 

130. Restaurant servers and bartenders’ work for Defendants is an integral part of 

Defendants’ business. 

131. Defendants violated the terms of the FMWA and Florida Constitution’s provision 

on minimum wages by not paying Plaintiff and the putative 80/20 Closing Shift Class members at 

least Florida’s minimum wage for all hours worked.

Case 0:22-cv-61628-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 24 of 37
25

132. In 2018, the Florida minimum wage was $8.25.

133. In 2019, the Florida minimum wage was $8.46.

134. In 2020, the Florida minimum wage was $8.56.

135. From January 1, 2021, until September 29, 2021, the Florida minimum wage was 

$8.65 per hour. 

136. Beginning on September 30, 2021, the Florida minimum wage was $10.00 per hour. 

137. During the relevant time period, Plaintiff and one or more of the 80/20 Closing 

Shift Class members complained about the illegal practices above; however, Defendants took no 

action to stop any of their illegal practices. 

138. The additional persons who may become Plaintiffs in this action are employees 

with positions similarly situated to Plaintiff and who suffered from the same pay practices of not 

being properly paid at least Florida’s minimum wage for each hour worked. 

139. Plaintiff has complied with pre-suit notice, and all other conditions precedent to 

this action have been performed, or waived, by sending Defendants a Florida minimum wage 

demand before this claim was filed. 

140. More than fifteen (15) calendar days have passed since Defendants received the 

Florida minimum wage demand letter and no payment has been tendered by Defendants to 

compensate Plaintiff and the putative 80/20 Closing Shift Class for any minimum wages owed. 

141. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of the controversy. Absent these actions, many members of the class likely will not 

obtain redress of their damages and Defendants will retain the proceeds of their violations of the 

FMWA and Florida Constitution. 

Case 0:22-cv-61628-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 25 of 37
26

142. 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, efficiency, and parity among the claims of 

individual members of the class and provide for judicial consistency.

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

(a) Payment by the Defendants of actual damages caused by their failure to pay 

minimum wages pursuant to the Florida Minimum wage Act and Florida 

Constitution;

(b) Payment by the Defendants of liquidated damages caused by their intentional 

and/or willful failure to pay minimum wages pursuant to the Florida Minimum 

wage Act and Florida Constitution;

(c) Payment by the Defendants of the costs and expenses of this action, including 

attorney’s fees of Plaintiff’s counsel.

144. Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and the putative 80/20 Closing Shift

Class members Florida’s full applicable minimum wage for one or more weeks of work. 

145. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ deliberate underpayment of wages, 

Plaintiff and the 80/20 Closing Shift Class members have been damaged in the loss of Florida

minimum wages for one or more weeks of work during their employment with Defendants. 

146. As a result of the violations alleged herein, Plaintiff was required to retain the 

undersigned counsel and is therefore entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, TORI VAN LEHN, respectfully requests that this Honorable 

Court enter judgment in her favor and against Defendants, UNCLE AL’S SPORTS CAFÉ 

SUNRISE, INC. d/b/a LUV’N OVEN ALE HOUSE and DEBORAH ALVAREZ, and award 

Case 0:22-cv-61628-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 26 of 37
27

Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated: (a) unliquidated Florida minimum wages; (b) an equal 

amount of liquidated damages; (c) all reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs permitted by

the FMWA and Fla. Stat. 448.08; and any and all such further relief as the Court deems just and 

reasonable under the circumstances.

COUNT IV – COLLECTIVE ACTION FOR FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE VIOLATIONS

(80/20 VIOLATION DURING CLOSING SHIFTS)

147. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and re-avers Paragraphs 1 through 65 as though set forth 

fully herein.

148. Defendants claimed a tip credit for each hour of work for Plaintiff and all other 

servers and bartenders during the relevant time period. 

149. Plaintiff and all other similarly situated servers and bartenders are/were entitled to 

be paid full federal minimum wage for certain hours worked during their employment with 

Defendants.

150. Defendants violated the FLSA when they required Plaintiff, and all other servers 

and bartenders, to spend more than 20% or their closing shifts on non-tipped duties and side work. 

151. Plaintiff seeks recovery of federal minimum wages under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) for 

herself and the following collective for Defendants’ failure to pay federally mandated minimum 

wages:

All restaurant servers and bartenders who worked for 

Defendants in Sunrise, Florida during the three (3) years 

preceding this lawsuit who in one or more workweeks were 

required to spend more than 20% of their closing shift

performing “non-tipped” duties and side work and did not 

receive the full applicable minimum wage.

152. Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and the putative collective members the 

full federal minimum wage for one or more weeks of work. 

Case 0:22-cv-61628-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 27 of 37
28

153. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ deliberate underpayment of wages, 

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

more weeks of work during their employment with Defendants. 

154. Defendants’ willful and/or intentional violations of entitle Plaintiff and the putative

collective members to an additional amount of liquidated, or double, damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, TORI VAN LEHN, respectfully requests that this Honorable 

Court enter judgment in her favor and against Defendants, UNCLE AL’S SPORTS CAFÉ 

SUNRISE, INC. d/b/a LUV’N OVEN ALE HOUSE and DEBORAH ALVAREZ, and award 

Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated: (a) unliquidated minimum wages; (b) an equal amount 

of liquidated damages; (c) all reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs permitted under the 

FLSA; and any and all such further relief as the Court deems just and reasonable under the 

circumstances.

COUNT V – FED. R. CIV. P. 23 CLASS ACTION

FOR FLORIDA MINIMUM WAGE VIOLATIONS

(SUBSTANTIAL SIDE WORK CLASS)

155. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and re-avers Paragraphs 1 through 65 as though set forth 

fully herein.

156. Defendants claimed a tip credit for each hour of work for Plaintiff and all other 

servers and bartenders during the previous five (5) years. 

157. Plaintiff and all other similarly situated servers and bartenders are/were entitled to 

be paid full Florida minimum wage for each hour worked during their employment with 

Defendants.

158. Plaintiff seeks recovery of Florida minimum wages under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 for 

herself and the following Substantial Side Work Class because of Defendants’ failure to pay 

Florida’s constitutionally mandated minimum wages:

Case 0:22-cv-61628-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 28 of 37
29

All restaurant servers and bartenders who worked for 

Defendants in Sunrise, Florida during the five (5) years 

preceding this lawsuit who were required to spend thirty (30) or 

more continuous minutes on non-tipped duties and side work 

during any shift. 

159. Pursuant to state and federal law, any side work consisting of thirty (30) or more 

continuous minutes is considered “substantial” side work and must be paid at the full applicable 

minimum wage. 

160. Moreover, state and federal law forbids employers from claiming a tip credit 

whenever tipped employees are required to spend substantial time on side work and non-tipped 

duties. 

161. Defendants refused to compensate Plaintiff and all other servers and bartenders the 

full minimum wage, including during shifts when they were required to spend thirty (30) or more 

continuous minutes on non-tipped duties and side work. 

162. Defendants required Plaintiff all other servers and bartenders to arrive at opening 

shifts 30-minutes to 1-hour before Defendants’ restaurant opened to the public. During this time, 

Defendants claimed a tip credit of approximately $3.02 per hour and paid Plaintiff and all other 

servers and bartenders less than the applicable state minimum wage. 

163. Moreover, Defendants required Plaintiff all other servers and bartenders to spend 

30-minutes to 1-hour during each closing shift on side work and non-tipped duties, including when 

restaurant’s kitchen was closed and when tipped employees could not earn tips. During this time, 

Defendants claimed a tip credit of approximately $3.02 per hour and paid Plaintiff and all other 

servers and bartenders less than the applicable state minimum wage. 

164. Because Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees were forced to spend 

at least thirty (30) continuous minutes each shift on side work and non-tipped duties, Defendants 

Case 0:22-cv-61628-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 29 of 37
30

are not permitted to take the applicable tip credit for this work and committed categorical Florida

minimum wage violations during the course of the previous five (5) years. 

RULE 23 CLASS ALLEGATIONS

165. Plaintiff brings this FMWA claim as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all restaurant servers and bartenders who worked 

for Defendants in Sunrise, Florida during the five (5) years preceding this lawsuit who in one or 

more workweeks were required to spend thirty (30) or more continuous minutes on non-tipped 

duties and side work during any shift. 

166. The putative Substantial Side Work Class members are treated equally and 

similarly by Defendants, in that they were denied full and proper Florida minimum wages based 

upon the Defendants’ class-wide requirement for servers and bartenders to spend thirty (30) or 

more continuous minutes on non-tipped duties and side work during each shift. 

167. Numerosity: Defendants employed at least 50 restaurant servers and bartenders in 

Sunrise, Florida during the past five (5) years who were not paid Florida minimum wages as a 

result Defendants’ requirement that these employees spend thirty (30) or more continuous minutes 

during each shift on non-tipped duties and side work. Given Defendants’ size and the systematic 

nature of their failure to comply with Florida law, the members of the Class are so numerous that 

joinder of all members is impractical. 

168. Plaintiff and the Substantial Side Work Class members were victim to the same 

employment policies, including Defendants’ requirement for these employees to spend thirty (30) 

or more continuous minutes during each shift on non-tipped duties and side work. 

169. Commonality: Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the 

Substantial Side Work Class and predominate over any questions solely affecting any individual 

Case 0:22-cv-61628-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 30 of 37
31

member of the Substantial Side Work Class, including Plaintiff. Such questions common to the 

Substantial Side Work Class include, but are not limited to, the following:

(a) Whether Plaintiff and the Substantial Side Work Class were “employees” of 

Defendants;

(b) Whether Plaintiff and the Substantial Side Work Class’s hours were properly 

recorded;

(c) Whether Defendants violated the Florida minimum wage rights of Plaintiff and 

the Substantial Side Work Class under the Florida Minimum Wage Act and 

Florida Constitution by requiring servers and bartenders to spend thirty (30) or 

more continuous minutes on non-tipped duties on side work;

(d) Whether Defendants willfully or intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff and the 

Substantial Side Work Class Florida minimum wages;

(e) Whether Defendants knew or should have known of the Florida minimum wage 

requirements and either intentionally avoided or recklessly failed to investigate 

proper time-keeping and payroll practices; and

(f) The nature, extent, and measure of damages suffered by the Plaintiff and the 

Substantial Side Work Class based upon Defendants’ conduct.

170. Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the 

Substantial Side Work Class. Plaintiff’s claims arise from the Defendants’ company-wide 

requirement for servers and bartenders to spend thirty (30) or more continuous minutes on nontipped duties and side work each shift. 

171. Adequacy: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Substantial 

Side Work Class. Plaintiff has no interest that might conflict with the interests of the Substantial 

Case 0:22-cv-61628-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 31 of 37
32

Side Work Class. Plaintiff is interested in pursuing her claims against Defendants vigorously and 

has retained counsel competent and experienced in class and employment litigation.

172. Class action treatment is superior to the alternatives for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of the controversy alleged herein. Such treatment will permit a large number of 

similarly situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously, 

efficiently, and without the duplication of effort and expense that numerous individual actions 

would entail. No difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this class action 

that would preclude its maintenance as a class action, and no superior alternative exists for the fair 

and efficient adjudication of this controversy. 

173. Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the Substantial Side 

Work Class, thereby making relief appropriate with respect to the Substantial Side Work Class as 

a whole. Prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Substantial Side Work 

Class would create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to the individual 

members of the Substantial Side Work Class that would establish incompatible standards of 

conduct for Defendants. 

174. Without a class action, Defendants will likely continue to retain the benefit of their 

wrongdoing and will continue a course of conduct that will result in further damages to Plaintiff 

and the Substantial Side Work Class. 

175. Plaintiff and the Substantial Side Work Class members performed the same job 

duties, as restaurant servers and bartenders, and were paid in an identical manner by Defendants. 

Defendants require all servers and bartenders to spend substantial time on non-tipped duties and 

side work during each shift, including 30 or more continuous minutes during opening and closing 

shifts on non-tipped duties and side work when Defendants’ restaurant is not open to the public. 

Case 0:22-cv-61628-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 32 of 37
33

This caused state minimum wage violations during various workweeks within the applicable 

statute of limitations. 

176. Defendants were aware of the requirements of the FMWA and Florida 

Constitution’s Minimum Wage Amendment, and the pertinent regulations thereto, yet acted 

willfully in failing to pay Plaintiff and the Substantial Side Work Class members in accordance 

with the law.

177. The precise size and identity of the class should be ascertainable from the business 

records, tax records, and/or employee or personnel records of Defendants; however, Plaintiff 

estimates that the total number of putative Substantial Side Work Class members exceeds 50

restaurant servers and bartenders. 

178. This action is intended to include each and every restaurant server and bartender

who worked for Defendants in Sunrise, Florida, during the past five (5) years who was required to 

spend thirty (30) or more continuous minutes on non-tipped duties and side work during any shift. 

179. During all material times hereto, Plaintiff and all Substantial Side Work Class

members were non-exempt server and bartender employees of Defendants. 

180. Plaintiff and the Substantial Side Work Class members performed work as 

restaurant servers and bartenders which was integral to Defendants’ business operations. 

181. Defendants violated the terms of the FMWA and Florida Constitution’s provision 

on minimum wages by not paying Plaintiff and the putative Substantial Side Work Class members 

at least Florida’s minimum wage for some hours worked.

182. In 2018, the Florida minimum wage was $8.25.

183. In 2019, the Florida minimum wage was $8.46.

184. In 2020, the Florida minimum wage was $8.56.

Case 0:22-cv-61628-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 33 of 37
34

185. From January 1, 2021, until September 29, 2021, the Florida minimum wage as 

$8.65.

186. Beginning on September 30, 2021, the Florida minimum wage was $10.00 per hour. 

187. The additional persons who may become Plaintiffs in this action are servers and 

bartenders who were required to spend thirty (30) or more continuous minutes on non-tipped duties 

and side work during any shift within the previous five (5) years. 

188. Plaintiff has complied with pre-suit notice, and all other conditions precedent to 

this action have been performed, or waived, by sending Defendants a Florida minimum wage 

demand letter before this claim was filed. 

189. More than fifteen (15) calendar days have passed since Defendants received the 

Florida minimum wage demand letter and no payment has been tendered by Defendants to 

compensate Plaintiff and the putative Substantial Side Work Class their Florida minimum wages. 

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

(a) Payment by the Defendants of actual damages caused by their failure to pay 

minimum wages pursuant to the Florida Constitution and Florida Minimum 

Wage Act;

(b) Payment by the Defendants of liquidated damages caused by their failure to pay 

minimum wages pursuant to the Florida Constitution and Florida Minimum 

Wage Act as a result of Defendants’ intentional and/or willful violations;

(c) Payment by the Defendants of the costs and expenses of this action, including 

attorney’s fees of Plaintiff’s counsel.

Case 0:22-cv-61628-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 34 of 37
35

191. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ deliberate underpayment of wages, 

Plaintiff and the Substantial Side Work Class members have been damaged in the loss of Florida 

minimum wages for one or more weeks of work during their employment with Defendants. 

192. Defendants’ willful and/or intentional violations state law entitle Plaintiff and the

putative Substantial Side Work Class members to an additional amount of liquidated, or double, 

damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, TORI VAN LEHN, respectfully requests that this Honorable 

Court enter judgment in her favor and against Defendants, UNCLE AL’S SPORTS CAFÉ 

SUNRISE, INC. d/b/a LUV’N OVEN ALE HOUSE and DEBORAH ALVAREZ, and award 

Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated: (a) unliquidated Florida minimum wages; (b) an equal 

amount of liquidated damages; (c) all reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs permitted 

under the FMWA and Fla. Stat. 448.08; and any and all such further relief as the Court deems just 

and reasonable under the circumstances.

COUNT VI – COLLECTIVE ACTION FOR FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE VIOLATIONS

(SUBSTANTIAL SIDE WORK COLLECTIVE)

193. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers Paragraphs 1 - 65 as though set forth fully herein.

194. Defendants claimed a tip credit for each hour of work for Plaintiff and all other 

servers and bartenders during the relevant time period. 

195. Plaintiff and all other similarly situated servers and bartenders are/were entitled to 

be paid full federal minimum wage for all hours worked during their employment with 

Defendants.

196. Plaintiff seeks recovery of federal minimum wages under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) for 

herself and the following collective because of Defendants’ failure to pay federally mandated 

minimum wages:

Case 0:22-cv-61628-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 35 of 37
36

All restaurant servers and bartenders who worked for 

Defendants in Sunrise, Florida, during the three (3) years 

preceding this lawsuit who were required to spend thirty (30) or 

more continuous minutes on non-tipped duties and side work 

during any shift. 

197. Defendants violated the FLSA because they required servers and bartenders to 

spend thirty (30) or more continuous minutes on non-tipped duties and side work. 

198. Defendants required Plaintiff and all other servers and bartenders to spend

substantial time working on tip supporting work, side work and non-tipped duties and claimed a 

tip credit for this work (instead of paying these employees the full applicable minimum wage). 

199. Because Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees were forced to spend 

thirty (30) or more continuous minutes on non-tipped duties and side work, Defendants are not 

permitted to take the applicable tip credit. 

200. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ deliberate underpayment of wages, 

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

more weeks of work during the previous three (3) years. 

201. Defendants’ willful and/or intentional violations of entitle Plaintiff and the putative

collective members to an additional amount of liquidated, or double, damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, TORI VAN LEHN, respectfully requests that this Honorable 

Court enter judgment in her favor and against Defendants, UNCLE AL’S SPORTS CAFÉ 

SUNRISE, INC. d/b/a LUV’N OVEN ALE HOUSE and DEBORAH ALVAREZ, and award 

Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated: (a) unliquidated federal minimum wages; (b) an equal 

amount of liquidated damages; (c) all reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs permitted 

under the FLSA; and any and all such further relief as the Court deems just and reasonable under 

the circumstances.

Case 0:22-cv-61628-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 36 of 37
37

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, TORI VAN LEHN, demands a trial by jury on all appropriate claims. 

Date: August 31, 2022 

Respectfully Submitted,

USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERSJORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 

1800 SE 10th Ave, Suite 205

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316

Ph: (954) 871-0050

Counsel for Plaintiff

By: /s/ Jordan Richards

JORDAN RICHARDS, ESQUIRE

Florida Bar No. 108372

JAKE BLUMSTEIN, ESQUIRE

Florida Bar No. 1017746

Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com

Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing document was filed via CM/ECF on August 31, 

2022. 

By: /s/ Jordan Richards

JORDAN RICHARDS, ESQUIRE

Florida Bar No. 108372

SERVICE LIST

Case 0:22-cv-61628-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 37 of 37