135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES

OCTAVIO COLLADO,

For himself and all others

similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

450 NORTH RIVER DRIVE, LLC,

D/B/A KIKI ON THE RIVER, 

RJ RIVER, LLC, AND ROMAN JONES,

Defendants.

______________________________/

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Octavio Collado, for himself and all others similarly situated, sues Defendants, 450 

North River Drive, LLC d/b/a Kiki On The River, RJ River, LLC, and Roman Jones, as both a 

proposed “opt-in” collective action as to their FLSA claim and as a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

23 class action as to their Florida law claims as follows:

Overview

1. Plaintiff brings this Third Amended Complaint for himself and other similarly 

situated employees who were entitled to receive and who received tips while working for 

Defendants at their restaurant known as “Kiki on the River.”

2. Plaintiff asserts the following three (3) claims for himself and for the others similarly 

situated:

Count I: A proposed “opt-in” collective action 29 U.S.C. §216(b) for the recovery of 

the tips/overtips that Defendants improperly retained/distributed in 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2023 Page 1 of 38
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

2

violation of 29 U.S.C. §203(m)(2)(B); see also Lopez v. Fun Eats and Drinks, 

LLC, 2021 WL 5302361 (N.D. Tex. 2021);

Count II: A proposed Rule 23 class action to address Defendants’ violations of the 

Florida Minimum Wage Act (“FMWA”), Fla. Stat. §448.110 et seq., in 

conjunction with Article X, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution; and

Count III: A proposed Rule 23 class action for unpaid wages under Florida common 

law to address the improper retention/distribution of the wages 

(tips/overtips) earned by Plaintiff and the class and their attorneys’ fees 

pursuant to Fla. Stat. §448.08 against Defendant, 450 North River Drive, 

LLC. See Hamann v. Little Italy’s Meatballs, LLC, 2021 WL 1931257 (M.D. Fla. 

2021).

3. Plaintiff brings his FLSA claim (Count I) against all Defendants as a proposed “optin” collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b) and seeks to recover tips/overtips, liquidated 

damages, declaratory relief, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for himself and all other 

similarly situated traditionally tipped front-of-the-house employees (such as captains, servers, bottle 

servers, bussers, food runners, bartenders, barbacks, hosts, hostesses, and dockmasters), who 

eventually opt into the class and who worked for the Defendants within the three (3) years 

preceding the filing of this action (the “Collective Action Class”).

4. Plaintiff brings his Florida Minimum Wage Act Claim (Count II) against all 

Defendants as a proposed Rule 23 class for himself and all other similarly situated traditionally 

tipped front-of-the-house employees (such as captains, servers, bottle servers, bussers, food runners, 

bartenders, barbacks, hosts, hostesses, and dockmasters), who worked for Defendants during the 

five (5) years preceding the filing of this action for Count II.

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2023 Page 2 of 38
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

3

5. Plaintiff brings his Florida Common Law Claim for Unpaid Wages (Count III)

against Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, as a proposed Rule 23 class for himself and all 

other similarly situated traditionally tipped front-of-the-house employees (such as captains, servers, 

bottle servers, bussers, food runners, bartenders, barbacks, hosts, hostesses, and dockmasters), who 

worked for Defendants during the four (4) years preceding the filing of this action.

6. Plaintiff knows of (and the undersigned counsel also currently represents) others

similarly situated to him who have and/or are interested in opting into the collective being 

proposed in Count I with the Court supervising the process.

7. Plaintiff also knows of (and the undersigned counsel currently represents) other 

similarly situated individuals who currently work or have worked for Defendants and would seek 

recovery of damages in any Rule 23 classes created to pursue a claim under the Florida Minimum 

Wage Act and a Florida common law claim for unpaid wages and who, even if no Rule 23 classes 

were to be certified by the Court, intend to pursue their legal claims under the aforementioned 

laws either individually or as part of multi-plaintiff litigation. 

Parties

8. Plaintiff and the others similarly situated are sui juris adults who worked or who work 

for Defendants at their restaurant known as Kiki on the River as front-of-the-house tipped 

employees (such as captains, servers, bottle servers, bussers, food runners, bartenders, barbacks, 

hosts, hostesses, and dockmasters).

9. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a front-of-the-house tipped employee, 

particularly as a server and then as a captain, at Kiki on the River.

10. Plaintiff was an “employee” of Defendants, as the term “employee” is defined by 

29 U.S.C. §203(e).

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2023 Page 3 of 38
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

4

11. Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee of the Defendants.

12. Defendants are believed to have records identifying the exact dates when they 

employed Plaintiff and the other similarly situated front-of-the-house tipped employees.

13. Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, is a sui juris Florida for-profit limited 

liability company that was authorized to conduct and conducted its for-profit restaurant business 

in Florida, at all times material. 

14. Defendant, RJ River, LLC, is a sui juris Florida for-profit limited liability 

company that was authorized to conduct and conducted its for-profit restaurant business in Florida 

at all times material.

15. Defendants 450 North River Drive, LLC and RJ River, LLC, operate under the 

fictitious name of “Kiki On The River,” a restaurant in Miami, Florida.

16. Defendants, 450 North River Drive, LLC and RJ River, LLC, use the same 

mailing/business address, with RJ River, LLC as the managing member of 450 North River Drive, 

LLC, and with both LLCs sharing membership/ownership/direction/control through at least one 

member – Roman Jones. 

17. Defendant, Roman Jones, was and is an owner/officer/director/manager of 

Kiki On The River for the time relevant to this lawsuit. He ran its day-to-day operations, was 

responsible for operational decisions, supervised Plaintiff and the others in their work, and was 

partially or totally responsible for paying Plaintiff’s wages and the wages of other similarly situated 

tipped front-of-the-house employees.

18. Defendants were Plaintiff’s direct employers, joint employers, and co-employers, as 

the term “employer” is defined by 29 U.S.C. §203(d). 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2023 Page 4 of 38
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

5

19. Defendants were also the direct employers, joint employers, and co-employers of 

the similarly situated front-of-the-house tipped employees who worked at Kiki on the River.

20. Defendants maintained the control, oversight, and direction over Plaintiff and the 

other front-of-the-house tipped employees, including the ability to hire, fire, and discipline them.

21. Defendants regularly employed two or more employees for the relevant time that 

handled goods or materials that traveled through interstate commerce or used instrumentalities of 

interstate commerce, thus making Defendants’ business an enterprise covered under the Fair Labor 

Standards Act. 

Jurisdiction and Venue

22. Defendants have been, at all material times, an enterprise engaged in interstate 

commerce in their marketing, preparation, cooking, service, and sale of foodstuffs, produce, meats, 

fish, beverages, coffees, teas, alcoholic beverages, and products that moved through interstate 

commerce. 

23. Defendants cooked, prepared, and stored perishables and alcoholic beverages using 

machinery, appliances, refrigeration, goods, and materials that have also moved through interstate 

commerce. 

24. Furthermore, Defendants regularly and recurrently obtained, solicited, exchanged,

and sent funds to and from outside of the State of Florida, used telephonic transmissions going 

outside of the State of Florida to conduct business, and transmitted electronic information through 

computers, the internet, via email, and otherwise outside of the State of Florida.

25. Defendants’ annual gross revenues from this interstate commerce are believed to 

exceed $1,000,000.00 for the relevant time and/or $125,000.00 for each fiscal quarter in which 

Plaintiff and the other similarly situated front-of-the-house tipped employees worked. 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2023 Page 5 of 38
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

6

26. As evidence of its gross annual revenues, Defendant, 450 North River Drive LLC, 

received over $2.4 million in forgiven PPP loans – meaning that its operating expenses alone

exceeded the jurisdictional threshold during a limited window of several months.

27. This Court has original jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s federal question claim at 

Count I pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 and 26 U.S.C. §201, et seq., and pendent/supplemental 

jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s class claims at Counts II and III arising under Florida law pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. §1367 and/or 28 U.S.C. §1343.

28. Venue in this Court is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(ii) because Defendants 

transact business in this District, and because Plaintiff and the Defendants’ other front-of-the-house 

tipped employees worked in Miami-Dade County, were paid in Miami-Dade County, and were 

due to be paid the tips and overtips that they earned in Miami-Dade County.

Background Facts

29. Defendants, like the owners of most service establishments, allowed their customers

to leave discretionary gratuities.

30. Defendants’ customers left gratuities (tips and overtips) intended to be paid to 

Plaintiff and the other similarly situated front-of-the-house tipped employees who worked for 

Defendants.

31. The discretionary gratuities (tips) that Defendants’ patrons left are referred to as 

“tips” or “overtips.”

32. Defendants also allowed certain patrons to accumulate their bills into “house 

accounts,” whereby Defendants allowed their patrons to accumulate their bills into larger 

aggregate bills and to pay those aggregate bills periodically, but with less frequency than each 

dining visit – such as monthly.

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2023 Page 6 of 38
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

7

33. Defendants’ patrons with “house accounts” paid tips and /or overtips that were 

intended to be paid to Plaintiff and the other similarly situated front-of-the-house tipped employees

who worked for Defendants.

34. Defendants exercised complete control over the tips and overtips that their patrons 

left for their tipped employees, accumulating them in a “tip pool” or another aggregate 

arrangement, and then Defendants either retained a portion of the tips and overtips collected (by 

failing to distribute all tips and overtips collected) and/or distributed a portion of the tips and 

overtips to traditionally non-tipped employees (such as owners, officers, directors, partners, 

managers, or supervisors). 

35. Defendants’ unlawful pay practices deprived Plaintiff and the other similarly 

situated front-of-the-house tipped employees of the tips and overtips they earned and should have 

received, which amount results in a significant sum when aggregated.

36. Plaintiff retained the undersigned counsel and agreed to pay a reasonable attorneys’

fee for all services related to this matter.

COUNT I

VIOLATION(S) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

(TIP CONFISCATION)

Satisfaction of Conditions Precedent

37. Plaintiff complied with all conditions precedent to bringing this claim under the 

FLSA, as the FLSA imposes no condition precedent to bringing a lawsuit.

38. The FLSA always precluded employers like Defendant, 450 North River Drive, 

LLC, from retaining any portion of the tips and/or overtips and from distributing any tips and/or 

overtips to traditionally non-tipped employees.

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2023 Page 7 of 38
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

8

Background Facts

39. The FLSA was amended in 2018 at 29 U.S.C. §203(m)(2)(B) to confirm that 

employers may (a) not keep any portion of the tips and/or overtips earned by their employees for 

any reason – even when employers pay their employees more than the minimum wage – and (b) 

may not distribute tips to managers or supervisors:

An employer may not keep tips received by its employees for any purposes, 

including allowing managers or supervisors to keep any portion of employees’ tips, 

regardless of whether or not the employer takes a tip credit.

40. The 2018 amendment to the FLSA confirms that each employer who violates the 

provisions of 29 U.S.C. §203(m)(2)(B) on either an individual or collective basis violates the FLSA:

Any employer who violates section 203(m)(2)(B) of this title shall be liable to the employee 

or employees affected in the amount of the sum of any tip credit taken by the employer and 

all such tips unlawfully kept by the employer, and in an additional equal amount as 

liquidated damages. An action to recover the liability prescribed in the preceding sentences 

may be maintained against any employer (including a public agency) in any Federal or 

State court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more employees for and in behalf of 

himself or himself and other employees similarly situated

29 U.S.C. §216(b).

41. The FLSA makes each “employer” jointly and severally liable for all wages, 

liquidate damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs owed.

Collective Action Allegations

42. Defendants employed more than 50 front-of-the-house tipped employees in Miami, 

Miami-Dade County, Florida, during the three (3) years since the initial Complaint was filed.

43. Plaintiff brings this Count I as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) 

for himself and all other similarly situated individuals who are part of the following:

All front-of-the-house tipped employees who worked at Kiki on the River any time during 

the three (3) years before filing the Complaint and up through the rendition of a judgment 

in this matter.

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2023 Page 8 of 38
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

9

44. These individuals identified in paragraph 41 are called the “Collective.”

45. The Collective includes the persons who worked for Defendants as front-of-thehouse tipped employees with various job titles, such as captains, servers, bottle servers, bussers, 

food runners, bartenders, barbacks, hosts, hostesses, and dockmasters, at the Kiki on the River 

restaurant during the three (3) years before the filing of the initial Complaint through the present, 

who were paid on an hourly basis, and who worked in customer-facing (front-of-the-house), nonmanagerial and non-supervisory jobs, who were entitled to share in the tips and overtips that 

Defendants collected and aggregated into a “tip pool,” and who were subject to the same pay 

practices as Plaintiff.

46. Plaintiff performed the same type of work under the same procedures, rules, and 

regulations as the Defendants’ other similarly situated front-of-the-house tipped employees who 

worked for Defendants at their Kiki on the River restaurant in Miami, Miami-Dade County, 

Florida, and who relied at least in part on tips and overtips for their wages.

47. The Collective of similarly situated workers who may become plaintiffs in this action 

includes the currently and formerly employed front-of-the-house tipped employees who worked 

for Defendants but to whom Defendants did not distribute all the tips and overtips that they earned.

48. The members of the Collective are readily identifiable from records maintained by 

Defendants and necessarily will present legal and factual issues which are nearly the same, if not 

identical, to those presented by Plaintiff.

49. The members of the Collective are known to Defendants and can be located 

through the mailing addresses, email addresses, and/or telephone records that Defendants 

collected. 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2023 Page 9 of 38
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

10

50. Notice should be sent to the Collective pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b), with the 

Court managing the Notice process.

51. Collective Action treatment of Count I is appropriate because Plaintiff and the 

Collective were subjected to the common business practices referenced in this Count I. The success 

of this FLSA claim depends on the resolution of common issues of law and fact, including, inter alia, 

whether Defendants’ companywide practices resulted in their failure to pay/distribute the tips and 

overtips that Defendants received properly, that the Collective earned and were entitled to receive, 

but which the Defendants either retained or failed to distribute properly in violation of 29 U.S.C. 

§203(m)(2)(B).

COUNT IA

VIOLATION(S) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

(TIP CONFISCATION CLAIM AGAINST 450 NORTH RIVER DRIVE, LLC)

52. Plaintiff reincorporates and re-alleges all preceding paragraphs as though set forth 

fully herein.

53. Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, employed Plaintiff and other front-of-thehouse tipped employees in its restaurant, “Kiki on the River.”

Liability

54. Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, disregarded the FLSA’s prohibition 

against retaining the tips by employers and its prohibition against distributing tips to managers or 

supervisors when it kept a portion of the tips and/or overtips and/or when it distributed such tips 

and/or overtips to traditionally non-tipped employees (such as owners, officers, directors, partners, 

managers, or supervisors).

55. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC,

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2023 Page 10 of 38
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

11

retaining a portion of the tips and/or overtips intended to for its front-of-the-house tipped 

employees and/or distributing a portion of the tips and/or overtips to traditionally non-tipped 

employees (such as owners, officers, directors, partners, managers, or supervisors), Defendant, 450 

North River Drive, LLC, violated the 29 U.S.C. §203(m)(2)(B) of the FLSA and damaged Plaintiff 

and the Collective.

56. Plaintiff and the Collective are entitled to recover as damages all tips and overtips 

that Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, improperly retained and/or that Defendant, 450 

North River Drive, LLC, improperly distributed to traditionally non-tipped employees (such as 

owners, officers, directors, partners, managers, or supervisors).

57. Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, willfully and intentionally refused to pay 

Plaintiff and the Collective all the tips and/or overtips they earned/received during the relevant 

time.

58. Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, either knew from prior experience 

because of its being previously sued for violating the FLSA by improperly sharing tips with 

traditionally non-tipped employees in Arriaga vs. 450 North River Drive, LLC, S.D. Fla. Case No.: 

1:19-CV-25174-MARTINEZ, or it recklessly failed to investigate whether its failure to pay Plaintiff 

and the Collective all of the tips and overtips they earned and/or that its patrons left (a) violated 

the FLSA, (b) it either knew from prior experience or recklessly failed to investigate whether the 

aforementioned practice violated the FLSA, (c) it either knew from prior experience or recklessly 

failed to investigate whether their failure to distribute the tips (and overtips) received from and paid 

by patrons with “house” accounts during the relevant time period violated the FLSA, (d) and then 

it failed to timely correct its violation(s).

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2023 Page 11 of 38
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

12

COUNT IB

VIOLATION(S) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

(TIP CONFISCATION CLAIM AGAINST RJ RIVER, LLC)

59. Plaintiff reincorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 51 as though set forth 

fully herein.

60. Defendant, RJ River, LLC, employed Plaintiff and other similarly situated captains, 

servers, and bussers in its restaurant, “Kiki on the River”.

Liability

61. The FLSA always precluded employers like Defendant, RJ River, LLC, from 

retaining any portion of the tips and/or overtips and from distributing any tips and/or overtips to 

traditionally non-tipped employees (such as owners, officers, directors, partners, managers, or 

supervisors).

62. The FLSA was amended in April 2018 at 29 U.S.C. §203(m)(2)(B) to confirm that 

employers may not keep any portion of the tips and/or overtips earned by their employees for any 

reason – even if in situations in which employers pay their employees more than the minimum 

wage:

An employer may not keep tips received by its employees for any purposes, 

including allowing managers or supervisors to keep any portion of employees’ tips, 

regardless of whether or not the employer takes a tip credit.

63. Defendant, RJ River, LLC, disregarded the FLSA’s prohibition on retaining the 

tips and/or overtips left by patrons by retaining a portion of the tips and overtips and/or by 

distributing such tips and/or overtips to traditionally non-tipped employees (such as owners, 

officers, directors, partners, managers, or supervisors).

64. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant, RJ River, LLC, retaining a portion 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2023 Page 12 of 38
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

13

of the tips and/or overtips received by its employees and/or distributing a portion of the tips 

and/or overtips to traditionally non-tipped employees (such as owners, officers, directors, partners, 

managers, or supervisors, Defendant, RJ River, LLC, violated the FLSA and damaged Plaintiff 

and the Collective.

65. Plaintiff and the Collective are entitled to recover as damages all tips and overtips 

that Defendant, RJ River, LLC, improperly retained and/or that Defendant, RJ River, LLC,

improperly distributed to traditionally non-tipped employees (such as owners, officers, directors, 

partners, managers, or supervisors).

66. Defendant, RJ River, LLC, willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff and 

the Collective all the tips and overtips they earned/received during the relevant time.

67. Defendant, RJ River, LLC, either knew from prior experience because of its being 

previously sued for violating the FLSA by improperly sharing tips with traditionally non-tipped 

employees in Arriaga vs. 450 North River Drive, LLC, S.D. Fla. Case No.: 1:19-CV-25174-

MARTINEZ, or it recklessly failed to investigate whether its failure to pay Plaintiff and the 

Collective all of the tips (and overtips) they earned and/or that its patrons left (a) violated the FLSA, 

(b) it either knew from prior experience or recklessly failed to investigate whether the 

aforementioned practice violated the FLSA, (c) it either knew from prior experience or recklessly 

failed to investigate whether their failure to distribute the tips and overtips received from and paid 

by patrons with “house” accounts during the relevant time period violated the FLSA, (d) and then 

it failed to timely correct its violation(s).

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2023 Page 13 of 38
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

14

COUNT IC

VIOLATION(S) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

(TIP CONFISCATION CLAIM AGAINST ROMAN JONES)

68. Plaintiff reincorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 51 as though set forth 

fully herein.

69. Defendant, Roman Jones, is an officer, director, member, and/or managing 

member of Defendants, 450 North River Drive, LLC and RJ River, LLC.

70. Defendant, Roman Jones, had operational control over Defendants, 450 North 

River Drive, LLC and RJ River, LLC, and is jointly liable for the damages sustained by Plaintiff 

and the Collective.

71. Defendant, Roman Jones, made significant operational decisions on behalf of 

Defendants, 450 North River Drive, LLC and RJ River, LLC, he had signatory authority for them, 

and he maintained the right to hire, fire, and make decisions regarding the employment of Plaintiff 

and the Collective.

Liability

72. The FLSA always precluded employers like Defendant, Roman Jones, LLC, from 

retaining or receiving any portion of the tips and/or overtips and from distributing any tips and/or 

overtips to traditionally non-tipped employees (such as owners, officers, directors, partners, 

managers, or supervisors).

73. The FLSA was amended in April 2018 at 29 U.S.C. §203(m)(2)(B) to confirm that 

employers may not keep any portion of the tips and/or overtips earned by their employees for any 

reason – even if in situations in which employers pay their employees more than the minimum 

wage:

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2023 Page 14 of 38
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

15

An employer may not keep tips received by its employees for any purposes, 

including allowing managers or supervisors to keep any portion of employees’ tips, 

regardless of whether or not the employer takes a tip credit.

74. Defendant, Roman Jones, disregarded the FLSA’s prohibition on retaining the tips 

and/or overtips left by patrons by retaining or receiving a portion of the tips and/or overtips 

and/or by distributing such tips and/or overtips to traditionally non-tipped employees (such as 

owners, officers, directors, partners, managers, or supervisors).

75. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant, Roman Jones, retaining or receiving 

a portion of the tips and/or overtips received by his tipped employees and/or by distributing a 

portion of the tips and/or overtips to traditionally non-tipped employees (such as owners, officers, 

directors, partners, managers, or supervisors), Defendant, Roman Jones, violated the FLSA and 

damaged Plaintiff and the Collective.

76. Plaintiff and the Collective are entitled to recover as damages all tips and overtips 

that Defendant, Roman Jones, improperly retained, received, and/or that he improperly 

distributed to traditionally non-tipped employees (such as owners, officers, directors, partners, 

managers, or supervisors).

77. Defendant, Roman Jones, willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff and the 

Collective all the tips (and overtips) they earned/received during the relevant time.

78. Defendant, Roman Jones, either knew from prior experience as a result of his being 

previously sued for violating the FLSA by improperly sharing tips with traditionally non-tipped 

employees in Arriaga vs. 450 North River Drive, LLC, S.D. Fla. 1:19-CV-25174-MARTINEZ, and 

Murin v. Star Island Entertainment, LLC, S.D. Fla. 1:17-CV-20614-MORENO, or he recklessly failed 

to investigate whether its failure to pay Plaintiff and the Collective all of the tips (and overtips) they 

earned and/or that its patrons left, (b) he either knew from prior experience or recklessly failed to 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2023 Page 15 of 38
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

16

investigate whether the aforementioned practice violated the FLSA, (c) he either knew from prior 

experience or recklessly failed to investigate whether his failure to distribute the tips and overtips 

received from and paid by patrons with “house” accounts during the relevant time period violated 

the FLSA, (d) and then failed to correct his violation(s) timely.

COUNT I

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

79. Plaintiff and the Collective are entitled to a back pay award of the tips and overtips 

they earned, but that Defendants, 450 North River Drive, LLC, RJ River, LLC, and Roman Jones, 

improperly retained/received/distributed, plus an equal amount as liquidated damages, plus all 

attorneys’ fees and costs incurred pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

WHEREFORE Plaintiff, Octavio Collado, demands the entry of a judgment in his favor 

and in favor of the Collective, and against Defendants, 450 North River Drive, LLC, RJ River, 

LLC, and Roman Jones, jointly and severally, after trial by jury and as follows:

a. Designating this Count as a Collective Action by Octavio Collado on behalf of the 

Collective he represents pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, issuing notice 

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) to all similarly situated members of the FLSA optin Collective apprising them of the pendency of this action, which will permit them 

to assert timely FLSA claims in this action by filing individual consent to sue forms 

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and equitably tolling the statute of limitations from 

the date of filing this Complaint until the expiration of the deadline for filing the 

consent to sue/join forms pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b);

b. Designating Plaintiff as the representative for the Collective;

c. Designating the undersigned as counsel for the Collective;

d. Awarding Plaintiff and the Collective the tips and overtips improperly 

withheld/distributed and an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, 

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(m)(2)(B) and 216(b);

e. Issuing a declaratory judgment that the practices complained of herein are unlawful 

under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, 203(m)(2)(B), et seq.;

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2023 Page 16 of 38
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

17

f. Issuing an injunction prohibiting Defendants, 450 North River Drive, LLC, RJ 

River, LLC, and Roman Jones, from continued unlawful practices, policies and 

patterns set forth herein; 

g. Awarding pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law;

h. Awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; 

i. Declaring Defendants, 450 North River Drive, LLC, RJ River, LLC, and Roman 

Jones, to be in willful violation of the minimum wage provisions of the FLSA; 

j. Declaring that the statute of limitations should be three (3) years; and

k. Awarding such other and further relief that this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT II

VIOLATION(S) OF THE FLORIDA MINIMUM WAGE ACT

Satisfaction of Conditions Precedent

80. While Plaintiff does not believe that the pre-suit notice requirements of Fla. Stat. 

§448.110(6) are constitutional, or that pre-suit notice is required by Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.220 or Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 23 for class claims involving the FMWA, Plaintiff nevertheless complied with any such

requirement(s) by serving Defendants with the notice required by the FMWA on November 10, 

2022, and on December 8, 2022. 

81. Defendants thereafter failed to resolve the FMWA claims to the Plaintiff’s

satisfaction within the time permitted by law. 

Class Action Allegations

82. Plaintiff seeks to bring this Count II on a class basis because, during the last five 

years, he and the other similarly situated front-of-the-house tipped employees with various job titles 

at Kiki on the River, such as captains, servers, bottle servers, bussers, food runners, bartenders, 

barbacks, hosts, hostesses, and dockmasters, were subjected to the same wrongful pay practices and 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2023 Page 17 of 38
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

18

policies that operated to deprive him and the others similarly situated front-of-the-house tipped 

employees of the tips they earned, in violation of the FMWA.

83. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff seeks

certification of and is a member of the following putative class that he seeks to represent: 

All persons who worked, were employed by, or engaged as front-of-the-house tipped 

employees at Kiki On The River any time during the five (5) years prior to the filing of the 

Complaint and up through the rendition of a judgment in this matter.

84. Subject to additional information obtained through further investigation and 

discovery, the foregoing definition of the Class may be expanded or narrowed by amendment or 

amended complaint. Specifically excluded from the Class are Defendants, their officers, directors, 

agents, trustees, parents, children, the Judge assigned to this action, and any member of the Judge’s 

immediate family.

85. This Count II is properly maintainable on a class basis pursuant to Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3).

a. Numerosity: This Count II satisfies numerosity. The class defined above is 

sufficiently numerous that separate joinder of each member is impracticable, as the 

Class will comprise more than fifty (50) people. Though the exact number and 

identity of Class members are not presently known, they can be identified through 

the records in Defendants’ possession, custody, and control.

b. Commonality: The named Plaintiff’s claim in Count II raises questions of law and 

fact common to each member of the Class, which include, but are not limited to: 

i. whether Defendants paid a direct hourly wage below the minimum wage 

required by the FMWA;

ii. whether Defendants collected tips/overtips from patrons who paid upon 

completion of their dining;

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2023 Page 18 of 38
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

19

iii. whether Defendants allowed patrons to accumulate bills into “house 

accounts:

iv. whether Defendants collected tips/overtips when patrons settled (or paid)

their “house accounts”;

v. whether Defendants took control over and pooled the tips/overtips left for 

their tipped employees;

vi. whether Defendants were required to properly distribute all the 

tips/overtips that patrons left for the front-of-the-house tipped employees; 

vii. whether Defendants improperly retained any portion of the tips/overtips 

that patrons left for the front-of-the-house tipped employees;

viii. whether Defendants improperly distributed any portion of the tips/overtips 

patrons left for the front-of-the-house tipped employees to managers or 

traditionally non-tipped employees (such as owners, officers, directors, 

partners, managers, or supervisors); 

ix. whether tips/overtips are included within the definition of minimum wages 

under the FMWA;

x. whether Defendants owe any tips/overtips to Plaintiff and the Class; and

xi. whether Defendants’ conduct willfully violated the FMWA.

c. Defendants’ defenses, to the extent that any such defenses apply, are commonly and 

generally applicable to Plaintiff and to the entire Class, and are not distinguishable 

or applicable against individual members of the proposed Class.

d. Typicality: The named Plaintiff’s claim in Count II is typical of the claims of the 

Class members because the representative Plaintiff, like all members of the Class, 

worked as a front-of-the-house tipped employee, in particular a captain and a 

server, who was paid a direct hourly wage that was below the applicable minimum 

wage required by the FMWA, received tips and/or overtips from a “tip pool”, and 

who did not receive all of the wages he earned due to the same and/or similar 

policies applied to all other front-of-the-house tipped employees with various job 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2023 Page 19 of 38
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

20

titles at Kiki on the River, such as captains, servers, bottle servers, bussers, food 

runners, bartenders, barbacks, hosts, hostesses, and dockmasters, who also were 

paid a direct hourly wage below the applicable Florida minimum wage and who 

also received tips and/or overtips from a “tip pool” while working for Defendants 

during the past five years. 

e. Adequacy: Plaintiff will vigorously pursue the claims alleged in Count II on behalf 

of himself and other similarly situated front-of-the-house tipped employees at Kiki 

on the River. Neither the Plaintiff nor his claims have any adverse interests to the 

proposed absent class members because he asserts the same claims under Florida 

law (FMWA) and seeks the same relief as would the Class members if each were to 

bring a similar action individually. Plaintiff will adequately protect and represent 

the interests of each Class member. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s counsel is 

experienced in wage class actions and intimately familiar with Florida and federal 

wage laws.

f. Predominance: Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), class certification of Count II is 

appropriate because the FMWA claim alleged on behalf of the Class, as described 

in Count II, predominates over any question of law or fact affecting only individual 

members of the Class. The predominance questions of law or fact are clear, precise, 

well-defined, and applicable to the Plaintiff as well as every other member of the 

proposed Class.

g. Superiority: Class representation is superior to other available methods for the fair 

and efficient adjudication of the FMWA claim at Count II for a number of reasons 

including, but not limited to, the following: (1) the FMWA claim at Count II

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2023 Page 20 of 38
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

21

challenges the policy of a long-time employer and therefore employees may be 

reluctant to bring claims individually for fear of retaliation; (2) some class members 

may have only worked for Defendants for a short period of time, and their 

individual damages would not be substantial enough to be worth the effort of 

bringing individual claims; (3) class members do not have the resources to bring 

their claims individually; (4) the prosecution of separate actions by individual 

members of the Class would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications 

with respect to individual members of the proposed Class that would establish 

incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant; and (5) it would be an inefficient 

use of scarce judicial resources to require each employee affected by the practices 

challenged herein to bring his or her own individual claim. 

86. Notice of the Court’s certification of Count II as a Class Action and of any result or 

resolution of Count II can be provided to Class members by first-class mail, email, text message, 

by the provision of notice in the paychecks/stubs to class members still employed by Defendants, 

by publication, by posting at a conspicuous location visited by the members of the Class still 

working for Defendants, by text message, and/or such other methods of notice as deemed 

appropriate by the Court.

The Law

87. The Florida Constitution provides that “All working Floridians are entitled to be 

paid a minimum wage that is sufficient to provide a decent and healthy life for them and their 

families, that protects their employers from unfair low-wage competition, and that does not force 

them to rely on taxpayer-funded public services to avoid economic hardship.” Fla. Const., Art. X, 

§24(a).

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2023 Page 21 of 38
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

22

88. Plaintiff and the similarly situated front-of-the-house tipped employees are/were 

entitled to be paid at least the minimum wage established by the Florida Minimum Wage Act. Fla. 

Stat. §448.110; and Art. X, §24, Fla. Const.

89. Article X, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution states that “the terms ‘Employer,’ 

‘Employee’ and ‘Wage’ shall have the meanings established under the federal Fair Labor Standards 

Act (FLSA) and its implementing regulations.”

90. The FMWA has “intended that case law, administrative interpretations, and other 

guiding standards developed under the federal FLSA shall guide the construction of [Article X, 

Section 24 of the Florida Constitution] and any implementing statutes or regulations.” Id. at § 24(e).

91. The FLSA permits employers to consider part of the gratuities left by customers 

(tips and/or overtips) as part of the wages paid to their employees for purposes of satisfying the 

minimum wage requirements, 29 U.S.C. §203(m)(2)(A), and the FMWA incorporates that 

definition of “wage.” Art. X, §24(b) and (c). 

92. The Florida Minimum Wage Act specifically states, “For tipped Employees 

meeting eligibility requirements for the tip credit under the FLSA, Employers may credit towards 

satisfaction of the Minimum Wage tips up to the amount of the allowable FLSA tip credit in 2003.” 

Art. X, §24(c).

93. A “tip credit” is the difference between the minimum wage and the amount paid to 

a tipped employee.

94. “An employer is permitted to apply a ‘tip credit’ only if it satisfies two requirements: 

(1) the tipped employee must be informed of the tip credit practice and (2) the employee must 

retain all the tips she receives. The employee will be deemed to retain her tips even if she 

participates in a valid tip-pooling arrangement that is limited to those employees who ‘customarily 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2023 Page 22 of 38
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

23

and regularly receive tips.’” Biller v. Cafe Luna of Naples, Inc., 2017 WL 11633268, at *4 (M.D. Fla. 

Feb. 7, 2017) (citing 29 U.S.C. §§203(m) and 531.59.)

95. Defendants paid Plaintiff and their other similarly situated front-of-the-house 

tipped employees with various job titles, such as captains, servers, bottle servers, bussers, food 

runners, bartenders, barbacks, hosts, hostesses, and dockmasters, at their Kiki on the River a direct 

hourly wage that was less than the applicable Florida minimum wage during all times material to 

this Count II.

96. Defendants considered the all or part of the gratuities left by customers (tips and 

overtips) as part of the wages they paid to their employees for purposes of satisfying the minimum 

wage requirements imposed by the FMWA.

97. Plaintiff and the other similarly situated front-of-the-house tipped employees with 

various job titles at Kiki on the River were and (those currently employed are) engaged in 

occupations that customarily and regularly received more than $30/month in tips.

COUNT IIA

VIOLATION(S) OF THE FLORIDA MINIMUM WAGE ACT

(450 NORTH RIVER DRIVE, LLC)

98. Plaintiff reincorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 36 and 80 through 97

as set forth fully herein and further alleges as follows:

Liability

99. Defendant 450 North River Drive, LLC, paid Plaintiff and the other similarly 

situated tipped front-of-the-house employees a direct hourly wage below the direct minimum 

hourly wage required by the FMWA.

100. Defendant 450 North River Drive, LLC, maintained control over the tips and 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2023 Page 23 of 38
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

24

overtips paid by patrons by receiving, aggregating, and/or pooling that money.

101. Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, paid Plaintiff and its front-of-the-house 

tipped employees a “tip credit” wage that was less than the direct hourly wage required by the 

FMWA.

102. Defendant 450 North River Drive, LLC, violated the FMWA by paying a “tip 

credit” wage but retaining a portion of the tips and/or overtips patrons left for their tipped 

employees and/or by distributing such tips and/or overtips to traditionally non-tipped employees 

(such as owners, officers, directors, partners, managers, or supervisors) each week instead of 

distributing all tips and overtips to only the front-of-the-house tipped employees who worked 

during each shift when the tips were earned.

103. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC’s

retaining a portion of the tips and/or overtips that should have been paid to its front-of-the-house 

tipped employees and/or distributing a portion of the tips and/or overtips to traditionally nontipped employees (such as owners, officers, directors, partners, managers, or supervisors), 

Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, violated the FMWA.

104. Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to payment of all tips and/or overtips that 

Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, improperly retained and/or that Defendant, 450 North 

River Drive, LLC, improperly distributed.

105. Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, willfully and intentionally refused to pay 

Plaintiff and the Class all tips and overtips they earned/received during the relevant time, thereby 

violating the FMWA.

106. Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, either knew from prior experience as a 

result of its being previously sued for improperly sharing tips with traditionally non-tipped 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2023 Page 24 of 38
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

25

employees in Arriaga vs. 450 North River Drive, LLC, S.D. Fla. Case No.: 1:19-CV-25174-

MARTINEZ (a) violated the FLSA and therefore the FMWA, (b) it either knew from prior 

experience or recklessly failed to investigate whether the aforementioned practice violated the 

FMWA, (c) it either knew from prior experience or recklessly failed to investigate whether their 

failure to distribute the tips and overtips received from and paid by patrons with “house” accounts 

during the relevant time period violated the FMWA, (d) and then it failed to timely correct its

violation(s) of the FMWA.

COUNT IIB

VIOLATION(S) OF THE FLORIDA MINIMUM WAGE ACT

(RJ RIVER, LLC)

107. Plaintiff reincorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 36 and 80 through 97 

as set forth fully herein and further alleges as follows:

Liability

108. Defendant RJ River, LLC, paid Plaintiff and the other similarly situated tipped 

front-of-the-house employees a direct hourly wage below the direct minimum hourly wage 

required by the FMWA.

109. Defendant RJ River, LLC, maintained control over the tips and overtips paid by 

patrons by receiving, aggregating, and/or pooling that money.

110. Defendant, RJ River, LLC, paid Plaintiff and its front-of-the-house tipped 

employees a “tip credit” wage that was less than the direct hourly wage required by the FMWA.

111. Defendant RJ River, LLC, violated the FMWA by paying a “tip credit” wage but 

retaining a portion of the tips and/or overtips patrons left for their tipped employees and/or by 

distributing such tips and/or overtips to traditionally non-tipped employees (such as owners, 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2023 Page 25 of 38
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

26

officers, directors, partners, managers, or supervisors) each week instead of distributing all tips and 

overtips to only the front-of-the-house tipped employees who worked during each shift when the 

tips were earned.

112. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant, RJ River, LLC’s retaining a portion 

of the tips and/or overtips that should have been paid to its front-of-the-house tipped employees 

and/or distributing a portion of the tips and/or overtips to traditionally non-tipped employees

(such as owners, officers, directors, partners, managers, or supervisors), Defendant, RJ River, LLC,

violated the FMWA.

113. Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to payment of all tips and/or overtips that 

Defendant, RJ River, LLC, improperly retained and/or that Defendant, RJ River, LLC,

improperly distributed.

114. Defendant, RJ River, LLC, willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff and 

the Class all tips and overtips they earned/received during the relevant time, thereby violating the 

FMWA.

115. Defendant, RJ River, LLC, either knew from prior experience as a result of its being 

previously sued for improperly sharing tips with traditionally non-tipped employees in Arriaga vs. 

450 North River Drive, LLC, S.D. Fla. Case No.: 1:19-CV-25174-MARTINEZ (a) violated the FLSA 

and therefore the FMWA, (b) it either knew from prior experience or recklessly failed to investigate 

whether the aforementioned practice violated the FMWA, (c) it either knew from prior experience 

or recklessly failed to investigate whether their failure to distribute the tips and overtips received 

from and paid by patrons with “house” accounts during the relevant time period violated the 

FMWA, (d) and then it failed to timely correct its violation(s) of the FMWA.

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2023 Page 26 of 38
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

27

COUNT IIC

VIOLATION(S) OF THE FLORIDA MINIMUM WAGE ACT

(ROMAN JONES)

116. Plaintiff reincorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 36 and 80 through 97 

as set forth fully herein and further alleges as follows:

117. Defendant, Roman Jones, is an officer, director, member, and/or managing 

member of Defendants, 450 North River Drive, LLC and RJ River, LLC.

118. Defendant, Roman Jones, had operational control over Defendants, 450 North 

River Drive, LLC and RJ River, LLC, and/or supervised Plaintiff and the Class, and he is jointly 

liable for the damages sustained by Plaintiff and the other similarly situated captains, bussers, and 

servers he employed at “Kiki on the River”.

119. Defendant, Roman Jones, made significant operational decisions on behalf of 

Defendants, 450 North River Drive, LLC and RJ River, LLC, he had signatory authority for them, 

and he maintained the right to hire, fire, and make decisions regarding the employment of Plaintiff 

and the other similarly situated captains, servers, and bussers at “Kiki on the River”.

Liability

120. Defendant Roman Jones, paid Plaintiff and the other similarly situated tipped frontof-the-house employees a direct hourly wage below the direct minimum hourly wage required by 

the FMWA.

121. Defendant Roman Jones, maintained control over the tips and overtips paid by 

patrons by receiving, aggregating, and/or pooling that money.

122. Defendant, Roman Jones, paid Plaintiff and its front-of-the-house tipped employees 

a “tip credit” wage that was less than the direct hourly wage required by the FMWA.

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2023 Page 27 of 38
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

28

123. Defendant Roman Jones, violated the FMWA by paying a “tip credit” wage but 

retaining a portion of the tips and/or overtips patrons left for their tipped employees and/or by 

distributing such tips and/or overtips to traditionally non-tipped employees (such as owners, 

officers, directors, partners, managers, or supervisors) each week instead of distributing all tips and 

overtips to only the front-of-the-house tipped employees who worked during each shift when the 

tips were earned.

124. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant, Roman Jones’s retaining a portion 

of the tips and/or overtips that should have been paid to his front-of-the-house tipped employees 

at Kiki on the River and/or distributing a portion of the tips and/or overtips to traditionally nontipped employees (such as owners, officers, directors, partners, managers, or supervisors), 

Defendant, Roman Jones, violated the FMWA.

125. Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to payment of all tips and/or overtips that 

Defendant, Roman Jones, improperly retained and/or that Defendant, RJ River, LLC, improperly 

distributed.

126. Defendant, Roman Jones, willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff and the 

Class all tips and overtips they earned/received during the relevant time, thereby violating the 

FMWA.

127. Defendant, Roman Jones, either knew from prior experience as a result of his 

having been previously sued for violating the minimum wage laws in Arriaga vs. 450 North River Drive, 

LLC, S.D. Fla. 1:19-CV-25174-MARTINEZ, and Murin v. Star Island Entertainment, LLC, S.D. Fla. 

1:17-CV-20614-MORENO, (a) violated the FLSA and therefore the FMWA, (b) he either knew 

from prior experience or recklessly failed to investigate whether the aforementioned practice 

violated the FMWA, (c) he either knew from prior experience or recklessly failed to investigate 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2023 Page 28 of 38
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

29

whether their failure to distribute the tips and overtips received from and paid by patrons with 

“house” accounts during the relevant time period violated the FMWA, (d) and then he failed to 

timely correct his violation(s) of the FMWA.

COUNT II

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

128. Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to a back pay award of tips and overtips they 

earned, plus an equal amount as liquidated damages, plus all attorneys’ fees and costs incurred.

WHEREFORE Plaintiff, Octavio Collado, demands the entry of a judgment in their favor 

and in favor of the Class, and against Defendants, 450 North River Drive, LLC, RJ River, LLC, 

and Roman Jones, jointly and severally, after trial by jury and as follows:

a. Certifying this Count II as a Class Action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 

(b)(3) by Octavio Collado on behalf of the Class;

b. Designating Plaintiff as the representative for the Class;

c. Designating the undersigned as counsel for the Class;

d. Awarding Plaintiff and the Class the tips and overtips improperly 

withheld/distributed - and an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, 

pursuant to the FMWA;

e. Issuing a declaratory judgment that the practices complained of herein are unlawful 

under the FMWA;

f. Issuing an injunction prohibiting Defendants from continued unlawful practices,

policies and patterns set forth herein; 

g. Awarding pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law;

h. Awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; 

i. Declaring Defendants to be in willful violation of the minimum wage provisions of 

the FMWA; 

j. Declaring that the statute of limitations should be five (5) or more years and/or that 

the limitations should be tolled, as appropriate; and

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2023 Page 29 of 38
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

30

k. Awarding such other and further relief that this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT III – FLORIDA COMMON LAW CLAIM FOR UNPAID WAGES

(AGAINST 450 NORTH RIVER DRIVE, LLC)

129. Plaintiff reincorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 36 as set forth fully 

herein and further alleges as follows:

130. Tips are considered “wages” under Florida law. See Fla. Stat. §443.1217 (“wages... 

include tips or gratuities” for purposes of reemployment assistance); and Hamann v. Little Italy's 

Meatballs, LLC, 2021 WL 1931257, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, 

2021 WL 1541086 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 20, 2021) (“In this instance, Hamann seeks her unpaid tips 

pursuant to Section 448.08. Hamann is entitled to such money as unpaid wages under Florida 

common law.”)(citing Coleman v. City of Hialeah, 525 So. 2d 435, 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (defining 

“wages” to include “tips”).)

131. Federal law, likewise, considers “tips” that employees receive in the course of their 

employment to be “wages” paid by their employer:

For purposes of this chapter, tips received by an employee in the course of his 

employment shall be considered remuneration for such employment (and 

deemed to have been paid by the employer for purposes of subsections (a) and (b) of 

section 3111). Such remuneration shall be deemed to be paid at the time a written 

statement including such tips is furnished to the employer pursuant to section 6053(a) or (if 

no statement including such tips is so furnished) at the time received; except that, in 

determining the employer's liability in connection with the taxes imposed by section 3111 

with respect to such tips in any case where no statement including such tips was so furnished 

(or to the extent that the statement so furnished was inaccurate or incomplete), such 

remuneration shall be deemed for purposes of subtitle F to be paid on the date on which 

notice and demand for such taxes is made to the employer by the Secretary.

26 U.S.C.A. §3121(q); see also United States v. Fior D’Italia, Inc., 536 U.S. 238, 241 (2002) (discussing 

the requirement that employers report all tips to the IRS.)

132. In this Count III, Plaintiff seeks for himself and the other similarly situated front-ofCase 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2023 Page 30 of 38
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

31

the-house tipped employees (such as captains, servers, bottle servers, bussers, food runners, 

bartenders, barbacks, hosts, hostesses, and dockmasters), who worked and currently work at the 

Kiki on the River, the tips and overtips that Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, improperly 

retained and/or distributed. See Pastrana v. Level Up Fitness, LLC, 2021 WL 5631776, at *4 (S.D. Fla. 

Dec. 1, 2021) (recognizing claims for unpaid wages under Florida common law).

Satisfaction of Conditions Precedent

133. Plaintiff complied with all conditions precedent to bringing his claim under the 

common law of Florida, as the common law of Florida imposes no condition precedent to bringing 

a lawsuit for unpaid wages.

Class Action Allegations

134. Plaintiff seeks to bring this Count III on a class basis because, during the last four

years, he and the other front-of-the-house tipped employees at the Kiki on the River were subjected 

to the same wrongful pay practices and policies that deprived them of the wages (tips and overtips) 

they were entitled to receive according to the common law of Florida and the standardized 

agreements they entered into with Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC.

135. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff seeks

certification of and is a member of the following putative class that he seeks to represent: 

All persons who worked at, were employed by, or were engaged as front-of-the-house 

tipped employees at Kiki On The River any time during the four (4) years before filing the 

Complaint and up through the rendition of a judgment in this matter.

136. Subject to additional information obtained through further investigation and 

discovery, the foregoing definition of the Class may be expanded or narrowed by amendment or 

amended complaint. Specifically excluded from the Class are Defendants, their officers, directors, 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2023 Page 31 of 38
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

32

agents, trustees, parents, children, the Judge assigned to this action, and any member of the Judge’s 

immediate family.

137. This Count III is properly maintainable on a class basis pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23b)(3).

a. Numerosity: This Count III satisfies numerosity. The class defined above is 

sufficiently numerous that separate joinder of each member is impracticable, as the 

Class will comprise more than fifty (50) Class members from the last four years. 

Though the exact number and identity of Class members are presently unknown to 

Plaintiff, they can be identified through the records in Defendant’s possession, 

custody, and control.

b. Commonality: The named Plaintiff’s claims in Count III raise questions of law and 

fact common to each member of the class, which include, but are not limited to: 

i. whether Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, offered to pay its frontof-the-house employees (such as captains, servers, bottle servers, bussers, 

food runners, bartenders, barbacks, hosts, hostesses, and dockmasters) a 

direct hourly wage that was less than the applicable Florida minimum wage; 

ii. whether Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, also offered to pay its

front-of-the-house employees with the tips and overtips as a condition of 

employment and continued employment; 

iii. whether Plaintiff and the Class members accepted the offers by Defendant, 

450 North River Drive, LLC, to receive the reduced hourly wage 

supplemented by the tips and overtips as a condition of their employment 

and continued employment;

iv. whether Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, paid its front-of-thehouse employees the reduced hourly wage;

v. whether Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, collected and/or 

aggregated the tips and overtips from patrons who paid upon completion of 

their dining;

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2023 Page 32 of 38
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

33

vi. whether Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, allowed patrons to 

accumulate bills into “house accounts:

vii. whether Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, collected tips/overtips 

when patrons settled their “house accounts”;

viii. whether Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, was required to distribute 

all the tips/overtips they it to only their front-of-the-house tipped employees

in accordance with its agreements with them; 

ix. whether the tips/overtips are considered “wages” under Florida common 

law;

x. whether Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, improperly retained any 

portion of the tips/overtips;

xi. whether Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, improperly distributed 

any portion of the tips/overtips to managers or traditionally non-tipped 

employees (such as owners, officers, directors, partners, managers, or 

supervisors); 

xii. whether Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, breached its contract(s) 

with Plaintiff and the other similarly situated front-of-the-house tipped 

employees by retaining any portion of the tips/overtips;

xiii. whether Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, breached its contract(s) 

with Plaintiff and the other similarly situated front-of-the-house tipped 

employees by distributing any portion of the tips/overtips to managers or 

traditionally non-tipped employees (such as owners, officers, directors, 

partners, managers, or supervisors); 

xiv. whether Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, owe sany tips/overtips 

as wages to Plaintiff and the Class; and

xv. whether Florida common law provides a cause of action for unpaid wages.

c. Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC’s defenses, to the extent that any such 

defenses apply, are commonly and generally applicable to Plaintiff and the entire 

Class and are not distinguishable or applicable against individual members of the 

proposed Class.

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2023 Page 33 of 38
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

34

d. Typicality: The claims of the named Plaintiff in Count III are typical of the claims 

of the Class members because the representative Plaintiff, like all members of the 

Class, worked as a front-of-the-house tipped employee (in particular as captain and 

then as a server) who was entitled to receive as wages the tips and overtips he earned 

according to the contractual agreements he entered into with Defendant, 450 North 

River Drive, LLC, but who was deprived of those tips and overtips by Defendant, 

450 North River Drive, LLC, as a result of its either retaining for itself or improperly 

distributing tips and/or overtips to traditionally non-tipped employees (such as 

owners, officers, directors, partners, managers, or supervisors), and by the same 

and/or similar policies applied to all front-of-the-house tipped employees working 

at Kiki on the River. 

e. Adequacy: Plaintiff will vigorously pursue the claims alleged in Count III on behalf 

of himself and other captains, servers, and bussers similarly situated. Neither the 

Plaintiff nor his claims have any adverse interests to the proposed absent class 

members because he asserts the same claims under Florida common law and seeks

the same relief as would the Class members if each were to bring a similar action 

individually. Plaintiff will adequately protect and represent the interests of each 

absent class member. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s counsel is experienced in wage class 

actions and intimately familiar with claims for unpaid/underpaid wages under 

Florida law.

f. Predominance: Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), class certification of Count III is 

appropriate because the Florida common law wage claim alleged on behalf of the 

Class in Count III predominates over any question of law or fact affecting only 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2023 Page 34 of 38
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

35

individual members of the Class. The predominance questions of law or fact are 

clear, precise, well-defined, and applicable to Plaintiff and every other member of 

the proposed Class.

g. Superiority: Class representation is superior to other available methods for the fair 

and efficient adjudication of the Florida common law claim for unpaid wages for a 

number of reasons including, but not limited to, the following: (1) this action 

challenges the policy of a long-time employer and therefore employees may be 

reluctant to bring claims individually for fear of retaliation; (2) some Class members 

may have only worked for Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, for a short 

period of time, and their individual damages would not be substantial enough to be 

worth the effort of bringing individual claims; (3) Class members do not have the 

resources to bring their claims individually; (4) the prosecution of separate actions 

by individual members of the Class would create a risk of inconsistent or varying 

adjudications with respect to individual members of the proposed Class that would 

establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant, 450 North River Drive, 

LLC; and (5) it would be an inefficient use of scarce judicial resources to require 

each employee affected by the practices challenged herein to bring his or her own 

individual claim. 

138. Notice of the Court’s certification of this Count III as a Class action and of any 

result or resolution of Count III can be provided to Class members by first-class mail, email, by 

provision of Notice of the Class Action in the paychecks/stubs issued to Class members still 

employed by Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, by publication, by text message, or such 

other methods of notice as deemed appropriate by the Court.

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2023 Page 35 of 38
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

36

Facts

139. In exchange for employment and continued employment, Defendant 450 North 

River Drive, LLC, offered to pay an hourly wage to Plaintiff and each Class member.

140. In exchange for employment and continued employment, Defendant 450 North 

River Drive, LLC, also offered to collect and to then distribute to Plaintiff and each Class member

all the tips and overtips the patrons at Kiki on the River left during each shift they worked

141. Defendant 450 North River Drive, LLC, offered each front-of-the-house tipped 

employee a percentage of the tips and overtips based on such factors as the total amount of tips 

and overtips that Defendants collected during each shift, the position in which each person worked 

during each shift, and the hours each person worked during each shift, as further identified in its 

Answer to Interrogatory No. 5 of Exhibit “A”. 1

142. Plaintiff and each Class member accepted the offer(s) by Defendant, 450 North 

River Drive, LLC, to receive the agreed-upon percentage(s) of the tips and overtips as a condition 

of their employment and/or continued employment with Defendant.

Liability

143. Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, violated Florida common law by 

breaching its contractual agreements with Plaintiff and each Class member by retaining a portion 

of the wages (tips and overtips that customers left for their tipped employees) and/or by distributing 

such wages (tips and overtips) to traditionally non-tipped employees (such as owners, officers, 

directors, partners, managers, or supervisors).

1 Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, has not yet identified the specifics of its contractual 

agreements with Plaintiff or the Class for the time before September 2019, but is expected to supplement 

its response to include a five-year time period based on the Court’s Order at ECF No. 121.

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2023 Page 36 of 38
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

37

144. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC’s either 

retaining for itself and/or distributing a portion of the tips and overtips to traditionally non-tipped 

employees (such as owners, officers, directors, partners, managers, or supervisors), it breached the 

contractual agreement(s) it entered into with Plaintiff and each Class member and violated the

Florida common law that precludes employers from retaining any of the wages earned by 

employees.

145. Plaintiff and the Class were damaged as a direct and proximate result of the 

breaches by Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, improperly retaining and/or distributing to 

traditionally non-tipped employees the all wages (tips and overtips) that they earned but that they 

did not receive.

146. Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to payment of all wages (tips and overtips) that 

they earned but that Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, improperly retained and/or

distributed to traditionally non-tipped employees.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

147. Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to a back pay award of wages (tips and overtips)

they earned under the common law of Florida, plus all attorneys’ fees and costs incurred pursuant 

to Fla. Stat. §448.08.

WHEREFORE Plaintiff, Octavio Collado, demands the entry of a judgment in his favor 

and in favor of the Class, and against Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, after trial by jury 

and as follows:

a. Certifying this Count III as a Class Action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 

(b)(3) by Octavio Collado on behalf of the Class;

b. Designating Plaintiff as the representative for the Class;

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2023 Page 37 of 38
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

38

c. Designating the undersigned as counsel for the Class;

d. Awarding Plaintiff and the Class unpaid wages (the tips/overtips improperly 

withheld/distributed) pursuant to Fla. Stat. §448.08;

e. Awarding pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law;

f. Awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Fla. Stat. §448.08; and

g. Awarding such other and further relief that this Court deems appropriate.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, Octavio Collado, demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable.

Respectfully submitted this 7th day of April 2023,

s/Brian H. Pollock, Esq.

Brian H. Pollock, Esq.

Fla. Bar No. 174742

brian@fairlawattorney.com

FAIRLAW FIRM

135 San Lorenzo Avenue

Suite 770

Coral Gables, FL 33146

Tel: 305.230.4884

Counsel for Plaintiff(s)

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2023 Page 38 of 38