UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI DIVISION 

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

OCTAVIO COLLADO 

For himself and all others 

similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

450 NORTH RIVER DRIVE, LLC, 

D/B/A KIKI ON THE RIVER, 

RJ RIVER, LLC, AND 

ROMAN JONES, 

Defendants. 

_______________________________________/

DEFENDANTS 450 NORTH RIVER DRIVE, LLC, D/B/A KIKI ON THE RIVER, 

ROMAN JONES, AND RJ RIVER LLC’S ANSWER AND DEFENSES TO THIRD 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Defendants, 450 North River Drive, LLC, d/b/a Kiki on the River (“Kiki”), Roman Jones 

(“Jones”), and RJ River, LLC (“RJ”) (collectively “Defendants”), by and through their 

undersigned counsels, hereby file their Answer and Defenses to Plaintiff Octavio Collado’s 

(“Plaintiff” or Collado”) Third Amended Complaint, and state as follows: 

Overview 

1. Defendants aver that Plaintiff purports to allege his claims on behalf of himself 

and other similarly situated employees who were purportedly entitled to receive and who 

received tips, but deny that Plaintiff or any alleged similarly situated individuals worked for 

Jones or RJ, that Defendants violated any statutes or common law, and that Plaintiff or any other 

individuals are entitled to any of the relief requested in the Third Amended Complaint. 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2023 Page 1 of 25
Case No. 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES 

2 

2. Defendants aver that Plaintiff purports to allege his claims under the following: 

Count I – The Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 203(m)(2)(B) (“FLSA”); Count II – the 

Florida Minimum Wage Act, Fla. Stat. § 448.110 et. seq. (“FMWA”); and Count III – Florida 

Common Law but deny that they violated any statutes or common law and that Plaintiff or any 

alleged similarly situated individuals are entitled to any of the relief requested in the Third 

Amended Complaint. 

3. Defendants aver that Plaintiff purports to allege his claims in Count I under the 

FLSA on behalf of himself and alleged “similarly situated traditionally tipped front-of-house 

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

hosts, hostesses, and dockmasters),” but deny that Plaintiff or any alleged similarly situated 

individuals worked for Jones or RJ, that Defendants violated any statutes or common law, and 

that Plaintiff or any alleged similarly situated individuals are entitled to any of the relief 

requested in the Third Amended Complaint. 

4. Defendants aver that Plaintiff purports to allege his claims in Count II under the 

FMWA on behalf of himself and alleged “similarly situated traditionally tipped front-of-house 

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

hosts, hostesses, and dockmasters),” but deny that Plaintiff or any alleged similarly situated 

individuals worked for Jones or RJ, that Defendants violated any statutes or common law, and 

that Plaintiff or any alleged similarly situated individuals are entitled to any of the relief 

requested in the Third Amended Complaint. 

5. Defendants aver that Plaintiff purports to allege his claims in Count III under 

Florida common law on behalf of himself and alleged “similarly situated traditionally tipped 

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

bartenders, barbacks, hosts, hostesses, and dockmasters),” but deny that Plaintiff or any alleged 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2023 Page 2 of 25
Case No. 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES 

3 

similarly situated individuals worked for Jones or RJ, that Defendants violated any statutes or 

common law, and that Plaintiff or any alleged similarly situated individuals are entitled to any of 

the relief requested in the Third Amended Complaint. 

6. Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations in Paragraph 6 of the 

Third Amended Complaint; therefore, those allegations are denied. 

7. Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations in Paragraph 7 of the 

Third Amended Complaint; therefore, those allegations are denied. 

Parties 

8. Defendants admit the allegations set forth in Paragraph 8 of the Third Amended 

Complaint only to the extent Kiki employed Plaintiff and other alleged tipped employees. 

Defendants deny that RJ or Jones employed Plaintiff or any other individuals identified in the 

Third Amended Complaint. Defendants further deny that there are any employees similarly 

situated to Plaintiff. 

9. Defendants admit that Plaintiff was employed by Kiki as a server and then as a 

captain at the restaurant, Kiki on the River. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in 

Paragraph 9. 

10. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 as 

they call for a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is 

required, Defendant Kiki admits it employed Plaintiff. Defendants deny the remaining 

allegations set forth in Paragraph 10. 

11. Defendants admit the allegations set forth in Paragraph 11 only to the extent 

Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee and employed by Kiki. Defendants deny the remaining 

allegations set forth in Paragraph 11. 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2023 Page 3 of 25
Case No. 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES 

4 

12. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 12 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

13. Defendants admit the allegations set forth in Paragraph 13 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

14. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 14 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

15. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 15 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

16. Defendants do not understand the allegations in Paragraph 16 of the Third 

Amended Complaint; therefore, those allegations are denied 

17. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 17 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

18. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 18 as 

they call for a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is 

required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 18 of the Third Amended Complaint. 

19. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 19 as 

they call for a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is 

required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 19 of the Third Amended Complaint. 

20. Defendants admit the allegations set forth in Paragraph 20 only to the extent Kiki 

maintained control, oversight, and direction over Plaintiff and other “front-of-the-house tipped 

employees.” Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 20. 

21. Defendants admit that Kiki employs two or more employees, but Defendants 

cannot determine the “relevant time” as stated because the term is undefined. Defendants neither 

admit nor deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 21 as they call for a legal 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2023 Page 4 of 25
Case No. 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES 

5 

conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants 

deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 21. 

Jurisdiction and Venue 

22. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 22 as 

they call for a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is 

required, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 22 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

23. Defendants admit that Kiki cooked, prepared, and stored perishables and alcoholic 

beverages using machinery, appliances, and refrigeration. Defendants deny the remaining 

allegations in Paragraph 23 of the Third Amended Complaint. 

24. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 24 as 

they call for a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is 

required, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 24 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

25. Defendants admit the allegations set forth in Paragraph 25 of the Third Amended 

Complaint as they relate to Kiki. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 25 of 

the Third Amended Complaint as they relate to RJ and Jones. 

26. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 26 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

27. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 27 for jurisdiction 

purposes only but deny that they acted unlawfully with respect to Plaintiff or anyone allegedly 

similarly situated. 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2023 Page 5 of 25
Case No. 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES 

6 

28. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 28 for venue purposes 

only but deny that they acted unlawfully with respect to Plaintiff or anyone allegedly similarly 

situated. 

Background Facts 

29. Defendants admit the allegations set forth in Paragraph 29 only to the extent that 

Kiki allows its customers to leave discretionary gratuities. Defendants deny the remaining 

allegations in Paragraph 29 of the Third Amended Complaint. 

30. Defendants admit the allegations set forth in Paragraph 30 only to the extent that 

customers of Kiki left discretionary gratuities on occasion for Kiki’s “front-of-the-house tipped 

employees.” Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 30 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

31. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 31 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

32. Defendants admit the allegations set forth in Paragraph 32 of the Third Amended 

Complaint as to Kiki. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 32 of the Third 

Amended Complaint. 

33. Defendants admit the allegations set forth in Paragraph 33 of the Third Amended 

Complaint as to Kiki. However, Defendants deny any express or implied suggestion that such 

tips were not distributed to tipped employee(s). 

34. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 34 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

35. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 35 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2023 Page 6 of 25
Case No. 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES 

7 

36. Defendants are without knowledge as to Plaintiff’s retention of counsel and 

payment structure in this lawsuit; therefore, they deny the allegations in Paragraph 36 of the 

Third Amended Complaint. 

Count I – Alleged Violation(s) of the FLSA (Tip Confiscation) 

Satisfaction of Conditions Precedent 

37. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 37 as 

they call for a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is 

required, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 37 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

38. The FLSA speaks for itself; therefore, no response to Paragraph 38 of the Third 

Amended Complaint is required and Defendants refer Plaintiff to the FLSA. 

Alleged Background Facts

39. The FLSA speaks for itself; therefore, no response to Paragraph 39 of the Third 

Amended Complaint is required and Defendants refer Plaintiff to the FLSA. 

40. The FLSA speaks for itself; therefore, no response to Paragraph 40 of the Third 

Amended Complaint is required and Defendants refer Plaintiff to the FLSA. 

41. The FLSA speaks for itself; therefore, no response to Paragraph 41 of the Third 

Amended Complaint is required and Defendants refer Plaintiff to the FLSA. 

Collective Action Allegations 

42. Defendants admit the allegations set forth in Paragraph 42 only to the extent that 

Kiki employed more than 50 “front-of-the-house tipped employees” in Miami-Dade County, FL, 

during the three years since the initial Complaint was filed. Defendants deny the remaining 

allegations in Paragraph 42 of the Third Amended Complaint. 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2023 Page 7 of 25
Case No. 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES 

8 

43. Defendants aver that Plaintiff purports to allege his claims in Count I under the 

FLSA on behalf of “himself and all other similarly situated individuals” referred to as “all frontof-house tipped employees,” but deny that they violated any statutes or common law, and that 

Plaintiff or anyone allegedly similarly situated are entitled to any of the relief requested in the 

Third Amended Complaint. 

44. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 44 of the Third Amended 

Complaint as there are no individuals identified in Paragraph 41 to be identified as the 

“Collective.” 

45. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 45 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

46. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 46 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

47. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 47 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

48. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 48 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

49. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 49 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

50. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 50 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

51. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 51 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2023 Page 8 of 25
Case No. 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES 

9 

Count IA 

Alleged Violation(s) of the FLSA (Tip Confiscations Claim Against Kiki)

52. Defendants re-allege and incorporate herein all responses contained in all the 

preceding Paragraphs as if fully stated herein. 

53. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 53 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

Alleged Liability

54. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 54 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

55. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 55 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

56. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 56 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

57. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 57 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

58. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 58 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

Count IB 

Alleged Violation(s) of the FLSA (Tip Confiscations Claim Against RJ)

59. Defendants re-allege and incorporate herein all responses contained in Paragraphs 

1 through 51 as if fully stated herein. 

60. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 60 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2023 Page 9 of 25
Case No. 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES 

10 

Alleged Liability

61. The FLSA speaks for itself; therefore, no response to Paragraph 61 of the Third 

Amended Complaint is required and Defendants refer Plaintiff to the FLSA. To the extent a 

response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 61 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

62. The FLSA speaks for itself; therefore, no response to Paragraph 62 of the Third 

Amended Complaint is required and Defendants refer Plaintiff to the FLSA. 

63. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 63 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

64. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 64 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

65. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 65 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

66. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 66 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

67. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 67 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

Count IC 

Alleged Violation(s) of the FLSA (Tip Confiscations Claim Against Jones)

68. Defendants re-allege and incorporate herein all responses contained in Paragraphs 

1 through 51 as if fully stated herein. 

69. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 69 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2023 Page 10 of 25
Case No. 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES 

11 

70. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 70 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

71. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 71 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

Alleged Liability

72. The FLSA speaks for itself; therefore, no response to Paragraph 72 of the Third 

Amended Complaint is required and Defendants refer Plaintiff to the FLSA. To the extent a 

response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 61 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

73. The FLSA speaks for itself; therefore, no response to Paragraph 73 of the Third 

Amended Complaint is required and Defendants refer Plaintiff to the FLSA. 

74. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 74 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

75. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 75 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

76. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 76 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

77. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 77 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

78. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 78 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2023 Page 11 of 25
Case No. 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES 

12 

Count I 

Prayer for Relief

79. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 79 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

In response to the unnumbered “WHEREFORE” clause immediately following 

Paragraph 79 of the Third Amended Complaint, Defendants deny that they violated the rights of 

Plaintiff or any alleged similarly situated individuals, and deny that Plaintiff or the alleged 

similarly situated individuals are entitled to any of the relief sought therein, including 

subparagraphs (a)-(k). 

Count II – Alleged Violation(s) of the FMWA 

Alleged Satisfaction of Conditions Precedent 

80. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 80 as 

they call for a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is 

required, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 80 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

81. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 81 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

Class Action Allegations 

82. Defendants aver that Plaintiff purports to allege his claims in Count II under the 

FMWA on behalf of himself and “other similarly situated front-of-house tipped employees” but 

deny that they violated any statutes or common law, and that Plaintiff or anyone allegedly 

similarly situated are entitled to any of the relief requested in the Third Amended Complaint. 

83. Defendants aver that Plaintiff purports to seek certification of a putative class of 

“front-of-the-house tipped employees” of Kiki on the River for a five (5) year period prior to the 

foiling of the Complaint but deny that they violated any statutes or common law, and that 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2023 Page 12 of 25
Case No. 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES 

13 

Plaintiff or anyone allegedly similarly situated are entitled to any of the relief requested in the 

Third Amended Complaint. 

84. Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations in Paragraph 84 of the 

Third Amended Complaint; therefore, those allegations are denied. 

85. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 85 of the Third Amended 

Complaint, including subsections (a)-(g). 

86. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 86 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

The Alleged Law 

87. The Florida Constitution speaks for itself; therefore, no response to Paragraph 87 

of the Third Amended Complaint is required and Defendants refer Plaintiff to the Florida 

Constitution. 

88. The FMWA and Florida Constitution speak for themselves; therefore, no response 

to Paragraph 88 of the Third Amended Complaint is required and Defendants refer Plaintiff to 

the Florida Constitution and FMWA. 

89. The Florida Constitution speaks for itself; therefore, no response to Paragraph 89 

of the Third Amended Complaint is required and Defendants refer Plaintiff to the Florida 

Constitution. 

90. The FMWA speaks for itself; therefore, no response to Paragraph 90 of the Third 

Amended Complaint is required and Defendants refer Plaintiff to the FMWA. 

91. The FLSA, FMWA, and Florida Constitution speak for themselves; therefore, no 

response to Paragraph 91 of the Third Amended Complaint is required and Defendants refer 

Plaintiff to the FLSA, FMWA, and Florida Constitution. 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2023 Page 13 of 25
Case No. 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES 

14 

92. The FMWA speaks for itself; therefore, no response to Paragraph 92 of the Third 

Amended Complaint is required and Defendants refer Plaintiff to the FMWA. 

93. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 93 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

94. The FLSA speaks for itself; therefore, no response to Paragraph 94 of the Third 

Amended Complaint is required and Defendants refer Plaintiff to the FLSA. 

95. Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 95 of the Third Amended Complaint. 

96. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 96 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

97. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 97 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

Count IIA 

Alleged Violation(s) of the FMWA (Against Kiki)

98. Defendants re-allege and incorporate herein all responses to Paragraphs 1 through 

36 and 80 through 97 as if fully stated herein. 

Alleged Liability

99. Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 99 of the Third Amended Complaint. 

100. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 100 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

101. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 101 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

102. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 102 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2023 Page 14 of 25
Case No. 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES 

15 

103. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 103 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

104. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 104 of the Third Amended 

Complaint because no tips were improperly retained. 

105. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 105 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

106. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 106 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

Count IIB 

Alleged Violation(s) of the FMWA (Against RJ)

107. Defendants re-allege and incorporate herein all responses contained in Paragraphs 

1 through 36 and 80 through 97 as if fully stated herein. 

Alleged Liability

108. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 108 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

109. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 109 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

110. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 110 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

111. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 111 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

112. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 112 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2023 Page 15 of 25
Case No. 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES 

16 

113. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 113 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

114. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 114 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

115. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 115 of the Third Amended 

Complaint 

Count IIC 

Alleged Violation(s) of the FMWA (Against Jones)

116. Defendants re-allege and incorporate herein all responses contained in Paragraphs 

1 through 36 and 80 through 97 as if fully stated herein. 

117. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 117 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

118. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 118 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

119. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 119 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

Alleged Liability

120. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 120 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

121. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 121 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

122. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 122 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2023 Page 16 of 25
Case No. 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES 

17 

123. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 123 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

124. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 124 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

125. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 125 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

126. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 126 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

127. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 127 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

Count II 

Prayer for Relief

128. Defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 128 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

In response to the unnumbered “WHEREFORE” clause immediately following 

Paragraph 128 of the Third Amended Complaint, Defendants deny that they violated the rights of 

Plaintiff or any alleged similarly situated individuals, and deny that Plaintiff or the alleged 

similarly situated individuals are entitled to any of the relief sought therein, including 

subparagraphs (a)-(k) 

Count III – Alleged Violation(s) of Florida 

Common Law for Unpaid Wages (Against Kiki) 

129. Kiki re-allege and incorporate herein all responses to Paragraphs 1 through 36 as 

if fully stated herein.1

1

 Count III is only asserted against Defendant Kiki. Therefore, Kiki is the only defendant 

responding to the allegations. To the extent RJ and Jones are required to respond to the 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2023 Page 17 of 25
Case No. 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES 

18 

130. Kiki neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 130 as they 

call for a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, 

Kiki denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 130. 

131. Kiki neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 131 as they 

call for a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, 

Kiki denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 131. 

132. Kiki avers that Plaintiff purports to allege his claims in Count III under Florida 

common law for allegedly unpaid tips on behalf of himself and similarly situated tipped front-ofhouse employees, but denies that it violated any statutes or common law, and denies that Plaintiff 

is entitled to any of the relief requested in the Complaint. 

Satisfaction of Conditions Precedent 

133. Kiki neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 133 as they 

call for a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, 

Kiki denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 133. 

Class Action Allegations 

134. Kiki avers that Plaintiff purports to allege his claims in Count III under Florida 

common law on behalf of himself and “other front-of-house tipped employees” but denies that it 

violated any statutes or common law, and that Plaintiff or anyone allegedly similarly situated are 

entitled to any of the relief requested in the Third Amended Complaint. 

135. Kiki avers that Plaintiff purports to seek certification of a putative class of “frontof-the-house tipped employees” of Kiki on the River for a four (4) year period prior to the filing 

of the Complaint but denies that it violated any statutes or common law, and that Plaintiff or 

allegations in Paragraphs 129 through 147 pf the Third Amended Complaint, such allegations are 

denied. 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2023 Page 18 of 25
Case No. 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES 

19 

anyone allegedly similarly situated are entitled to any of the relief requested in the Third 

Amended Complaint. 

136. Kiki is without knowledge as to the allegations in Paragraph 136 of the Third 

Amended Complaint; therefore, those allegations are denied. 

137. Kiki denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 137 of the Third Amended 

Complaint, including subsections (a)-(g). 

138. Kiki denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 138 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

Alleged Facts 

139. Kiki denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 139 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

140. Kiki denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 140 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

141. Kiki denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 141 of the Third Amended 

Complaint.2

142. Kiki denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 142 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

Alleged Liability 

143. Kiki denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 143 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

144. Kiki denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 144 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

2

 Kiki denies that any contractual agreement exists between Kiki, or any Defendant, and 

Plaintiff or the alleged putative class as implied by footnote 1 of the Third Amended Complaint. 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2023 Page 19 of 25
Case No. 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES 

20 

145. Kiki denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 145 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

146. Kiki denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 146 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

Prayer for Relief 

147. Kiki denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 147 of the Third Amended 

Complaint. 

In response to the unnumbered “WHEREFORE” clause immediately following 

Paragraph 147 of the Third Amended Complaint, Kiki denies that it violated the rights of 

Plaintiff or any alleged similarly situated individuals and deny that Plaintiff or the alleged 

similarly situated individuals are entitled to any of the relief sought therein, including 

subparagraphs (a)-(g). 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Defendants admit that Plaintiff demands a trial by jury but deny the existence of any 

triable issues in this matter. 

GENERAL DENIAL 

Defendants further deny each and every allegation in the Third Amended Complaint that 

has not been expressly admitted herein. 

AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES 

As separate and distinct defenses to the Complaint, Defendants asserts the following: 

FIRST DEFENSE 

To the extent that any part of Plaintiff’s or the alleged similarly situated employees’ 

claims are based on any action or omission that occurred outside of the applicable statute of 

limitations, those claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable limitations periods. 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2023 Page 20 of 25
Case No. 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES 

21 

SECOND DEFENSE 

Plaintiff’s and the alleged similarly situated employees’ FLSA claims are barred under a 

good faith extension of the FLSA’s safe harbor provision in that Defendants acted in good faith 

and had a policy requiring Plaintiff to report any unpaid tips; Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take 

advantage of this policy and failed to notify Defendants that he felt he was owed unpaid tips. 

THIRD DEFENSE 

Plaintiff and the alleged similarly situated employees’ claims are barred, in whole or in 

part, from the relief Plaintiff seeks by virtue of the following: 

a. the doctrine of estoppel, 

b. the doctrine of latches, 

c. unclean hands, or 

d. the improper actions of Plaintiff in failing to comply with Kiki’s policies 

and the directives of his superiors. 

FOURTH DEFENSE 

Defendants did not willfully—nor with intent—deprive Plaintiff or any alleged similarly 

situated employees’ of any tip or “overtips” to which Plaintiff or any alleged similarly situated 

employees, were entitled under the FLSA; therefore, Plaintiff is not entitled to any recovery of 

any damages and a three year statutory period cannot be applied. 

FIFTH DEFENSE 

Plaintiff’s and the alleged similarly situated employees’ claims for liquidated damages 

are barred on the basis that, in the event Defendants violated the FLSA, Defendants’ actions 

and/or the actions of its agents or employees were taken in good faith and are supported by 

reasonable bases. 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2023 Page 21 of 25
Case No. 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES 

22 

SIXTH DEFENSE 

The FMWA does not provide a cause of action to recover tips. 

SEVENTH DEFENSE 

Plaintiff’s and the alleged similarly situated employees’ FMWA claims are barred 

because they cannot establish that they were paid less than minimum wage for any time worked 

at Kiki on the River. 

EIGHTH DEFENSE 

Plaintiff’s and the alleged similarly situated employees’ FMWA claims are barred 

because they cannot establish that they were paid a tip credit wage at any time during their 

employment. 

NINTH DEFENSE 

Plaintiff and the alleged similarly situated employees cannot assert a claim for unpaid 

wage under Florida common law because tips are not wages. 

TENTH DEFENSE 

Jones and RJ are improperly joined in this action because Jones and RJ were never 

Plaintiff's employer or the employer of any of the individuals Plaintiff seeks to represent. 

ELEVENTH DEFENSE

Assuming, arguendo, Plaintiff and those individuals Plaintiff purports to represent are 

employees under the FLSA, FWMA, or Florida common law, neither Plaintiff nor those 

individuals Plaintiff purports to represent are “similarly situated” under the FLSA, FMWA, or 

Florida common law. 

TWELFTH DEFENSE

Some or all of the purported claims in the Third Amended Complaint are barred because 

the named Plaintiff lacks standing to represent the purported collective/class action members. 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2023 Page 22 of 25
Case No. 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES 

23 

Plaintiff is not entitled to maintain this lawsuit as a collective/class action. Plaintiff cannot 

satisfy the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and/or the adequate representative standards 

and/or requirements necessary for this case to proceed as an opt-in collective/class action. 

THIRTEENTH DEFENSE 

Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because 

neither Plaintiff nor those individuals Plaintiff seeks to represent are employees of Jones or RJ. 

Further, Jones and RJ did not exercise the requisite degree of control by contract or in fact for the 

Plaintiff or those individuals Plaintiff seeks to represent to be their employees. 

FOURTEENTH DEFENSE 

The types of claims plaintiff alleged on his own behalf and on behalf of others are claims 

in which individual questions predominate for which class treatment is not appropriate. 

FIFTEENTH DEFENSE 

Plaintiff is not an adequate representative of those individuals he purports to represent. 

Specifically, Plaintiff claims that he is a “captain and server” but identifies the Collective as 

“tipped employees such as captains, servers, bottle servers, bussers, food runners, bartenders, 

barbacks, hosts, hostesses, and dockmasters.” 

SIXTEENTH DEFENSE 

Plaintiff and the alleged similarly situated employees cannot establish a claim for unpaid 

wages under Florida common law because no contractual agreement exists between the 

individuals and Kiki. 

SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE 

Counts II and III of the Third Amended Complaint cannot be maintained as plead 

because the claims are preempted by the FLSA. Counts II and III are preempted because inter 

alia Plaintiff is seeking the recovery of tips, which is also the same relief provided by Count I. 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2023 Page 23 of 25
Case No. 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES 

24 

RESERVATION OF DEFENSES

Defendants reserves the right to raise additional defenses as discovery may reveal. 

WHEREFORE, having fully answered the Complaint and having raised defenses thereto, 

Defendants respectfully requests that this Court: (i) enter judgment in its favor and against 

Plaintiff; (ii) award Defendants the cost of suit including attorney’s fees; and (iii) grant such 

further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 

Dated: June 30, 2023 

Respectfully submitted, 

JACKSON LEWIS P.C. LEVINE & PARTNERS, P.A. 

One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3500 3350 Mary Street 

Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33133 

Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone: (305) 372-1352 

Telephone: (305) 577-7600 

/s/ Roman Sarangoulis /s/ Allan Reiss 

Reynaldo Velazquez, Esq. Allan Reiss, Esq 

Florida Bar No.: 069779 Florida Bar No. 858500 

Email: rey.velazquez@jacksonlewis.com Email: asr@levinelawfirm.com

Roman Sarangoulis, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 1011944 Counsel for RJ River, LLC

Email: roman.sarangoulis@jacksonlewis.com 

Counsel for 450 North River Drive, LLC, 

d/b/a Kiki on the River and Roman Jones 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document is being served on 

June 30, 2023, on all counsel of record on the Service List below via transmission of Notices of 

Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF 

s/ Roman Sarangoulis 

Roman Sarangoulis, Esq. 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2023 Page 24 of 25
Case No. 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES 

25 

SERVICE LIST 

Brian Pollock, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 174742 

Email: brian@fairlawattorney.com 

FAIRLAW FIRM 

135 San Lorenzo Ave. 

Coral Gables, Florida 33146 

Telephone: (305) 230-4884 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Reynaldo Velazquez, Esq. 

Florida Bar No.: 069779 

Email: rey.velazquez@jacksonlewis.com 

Roman Sarangoulis, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 1011944 

Email: roman.sarangoulis@jacksonlewis.com

JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 

One Biscayne Tower 

2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3500 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Telephone: 305-577-7600 

Facsimile: 305-373-4466 

Counsel for 450 North River Drive, LLC, Kiki on 

the River and Roman Jones

Allan Reiss, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 858500 

Email: Asr@Levinelawfirm.com 

LEVINE & PARTNERS, P.A. 

3350 Mary Street 

Miami, Florida 33133 

Telephone: (305) 372-1352 

Facsimile: (305) 372-1352 

Attorneys for RJ River, LLC

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2023 Page 25 of 25