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, RJ RIVER, LLC, AND ROMAN JONES’ 

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 

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

(“RJ”), and Roman Jones (“Jones”) (collectively “Defendants”), by and through their respective 

undersigned counsel, hereby file their joint Reply in Support of their Motion for Protective Order. 

Defendants state the following in support thereof. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

Plaintiff’s Response contends that the Motion for Protective Order makes ad hominem

attacks directed at his counsel Brian Pollock, Esq. That is inaccurate. Defendants are raising wellfounded concerns about the TikTok videos that Defendants believe are having detrimental and 

permanent effects on the pending litigation. To be clear, the concerns Defendants raise in the 

motion are based on the content of the TikTok videos and exists irrespective of the person 

responsible for their production and dissemination. 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2023 Page 1 of 10
CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES 

2 

Plaintiff filed his Renewed Motion for Conditional Certification of a Collective Action on 

January 27, 2023, [ECF No. 65]. While Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Conditional Certification 

of a Collective Action was pending, Mr. Pollock took to social media to discuss the pending 

litigation in one-sided videos that mischaracterize the litigation.1 A review of the February 152

and 17 TikTok videos and their comments demonstrate that the effect of the videos was to 

communicate with potential putative class members, providing them (among others) misleading 

information, and soliciting individuals to join the action. 

The claim in Plaintiff’s Response that the TikTok videos were not directed at putative class 

members because they were videos for the public places form over substance. It is apparent the 

TikTok posts reached putative class members because, not only were they viewed over 50,000 

times, at least one individual stated she was previously employed at Kiki. In response, opposing 

counsel requested that the putative class member contact his office. It is also clear that the 

information contained in the videos mislead putative class members because the comments include 

statements such as “It’s Miami, they’re guilty” and “Miami of course. Full of fraudulent business 

and people.” Moreover, Plaintiff recently commented on the post stating “Justice for All!!!!” as if 

there has been a determination as to any Defendants’ culpability. As a result, and for the detailed 

reasons that follow, Defendants request the Court grant their Motion for Protective Order. 

1

 See https://www.tiktok.com/@fairlawfirm/video/7200398055902924074 and 

https://www.tiktok.com/@fairlawfirm/video/7201226796317084970. 

2

 For clarification of the record, Defendants previously identified Mr. Pollock’s first TikTok 

relating to this case as the February 12 TikTok. It has subsequently been determined that the first 

TikTok was in fact posted on February 15, 2023. 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2023 Page 2 of 10
CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES 

3 

ARGUMENT AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW 

A. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) is the Appropriate Means to Request a Protective 

Order, and even if it is Not, citing to Rule 26(c) is not a basis for denying 

Defendant’s Motion

Plaintiff’s claim that Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) (“Rule 26”) does not provide the relief requested 

in Defendants’ Motion is a red herring intended to distract from the issues presented. A careful 

review of the case law cited by Defendants and Plaintiff reveals that when a party is seeking a 

protective order to limit the other party’s communication with putative class members, Rules 26(c) 

is applicable. See Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89, n. 16 (1981) (citing In re Halkin, 589 F.2d 

176, 193 (1976) (“To establish ‘good cause’ for a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 26(c) ‘the courts have insisted on a particular and specific demonstration of fact, as 

distinguished from stereotyped conclusory statements.’”). 

To the extent Rule 26 may not be applicable, the Court still has the authority to restrain a 

party’s communications with putative class members through the issuance of a protective order. 

See Longcrier v. HL-A Co. 595 F. Supp. 2d 1218, 1226 (S.D. Ala. 2008) (granting a plaintiff’s 

motion for protective order to restrict the defendant from communicating with putative class 

members); See also, Martin v. Partsbase, Inc., No. 20-80235-Civ-Brannon, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

248626, at *16-17 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 7, 2020) (entering a tailored protective order to restrict certain 

communications with putative class members). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants’ 

Motion for Protective Order should be denied because it seeks relief pursuant to Rule 26 does not 

have merit. 

B. The Attempted Conferral in this Particular Instance was Sufficient 

The first TikTok video was posted by Mr. Pollock on February 15, 2023. Notably, this 

was after Plaintiff filed his Renewed Motion for Conditional Certification of a Collection Action, 

but before Defendant’s Response was due. Defendants addressed the February 15 TikTok in their 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2023 Page 3 of 10
CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES 

4 

Response to Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Conditional Certification of a Collective Action and 

explained the video conveyed a statement that was misleading and subject to incorrect 

interpretation. [ECF No. 82]. Subsequently, counsel for Defendants and Mr. Pollock addressed 

the February 15 TikTok via email. Specifically, the email stated as follows: 

Your statements that the TikTok I posted contains misleading information is 

unfounded. That TikTok was not directed to anyone in particular, nor was it 

directed to solicit others to join, and instead was part of a social media strategy that 

involves posting about employment law topics. 

 

It is apparent Mr. Pollock disagreed with Defendants’ opposition to the February 15 TikTok video, 

and that is confirmed by the second TikTok he posted that led to this motion. 

During the afternoon of March 1, 2023, and after the conclusion of the settlement 

conference, Defendants’ counsel learned that Mr. Pollock posted the second TikTok video relating 

to this litigation. Defendants’ counsel decided on March 2, 2023, that a Motion for Protective 

Order was necessary and proper because it was the second video, and that prompt action was 

necessary. Thereafter, Defendants’ counsel attempted to confer with Mr. Pollock via email at 

approximately 3:35 p.m. regarding the filing of the Motion for Protective Order. Defendants’ 

counsel waited just under two hours for a response and moved forward with the filing at 

approximately 5:28 p.m. when a response was not received. Significant to the decision to file was 

the email quoted above in which Mr. Pollock claims Defendants’ concerns are “unfounded.” 

Therefore, the attempted conferral in this instance was sufficient. 

C. The TikTok Communications Contain Misleading Information and their 

Practical Effects are to Communicate with and Solicit Putative Class 

Members 

As a preliminary matter, the prohibition against communicating with putative class 

members applies to all parties and their counsel. See Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. at 100 (“a 

district court has both the duty and broad authority to exercise control over a class action and to 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2023 Page 4 of 10
CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES 

5 

enter appropriate orders governing the conduct of counsel and parties.”) (emphasis added); see 

also Taylor v. Shippers Transp. Express, Inc., No. CV 13-02092, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190290, 

at *9-11 (C.D. Cal. July 8, 2014) (granting defendant’s request for court intervention as to 

plaintiff’s communications with the putative class). Therefore, Plaintiff’s suggestion that courts 

“traditionally limit their involvement in pre-certification communications” to defendants is not a 

basis to deny this Motion for Protective Order. 

In this case, the Motion for Protective Order should be granted. Despite Plaintiff’s 

Response suggesting the contrary, the communications are directed to putative class members even 

if they are subject to being viewed by the public, they do contain misleading information that is 

abusive, and invite participation. 

a. The TikTok Videos are Communications with the Putative Class 

The TikTik videos do communicate with putative class members. Simply because the 

TikTok videos are not sent directly to specific individuals does not change the fact that they are 

intended for putative class members even if they can be viewed by other individuals. 

This point is illustrated by the fact that Mr. Pollock used the TikTok videos as an interactive 

tool to specifically respond to viewer comments about the litigation. As the Response concedes, 

the second TikTok video resulted from a request for an update on the litigation after the first video 

was posted on February 15. [ECF No. 102 at p. 13]. In response to the viewer’s request for an 

update on the litigation, the second TikTok video was posted on February 17, 2023, and included 

another misleading statement and essentially invited the putative class to join the lawsuit prior to 

the settlement conference that occurred on March 1, 2023. Accordingly, the effect of the videos, 

irrespective of the alleged general communication, is to communicate with and solicit putative 

class members. This is not a situation where the TikTok videos are speaking generally about 

employers allegedly taking employees’ tips and their rights when that happens. No, the videos 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2023 Page 5 of 10
CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES 

6 

specifically reference, among other things about the case, Kiki on the River, the claims against the 

restaurant and an owner, and the status of the case. 

b. The TikTok’s Videos Do Include Misinformation and Solicit 

Involvement in this Lawsuit 

The TikTok videos threaten the proper function of the litigation because they provide the 

putative class with misleading information and the effect of the videos is to solicit individuals to 

join the lawsuit. The misleading information contained in the TikTok videos are addressed in the 

Motion for Protective Order. [See ECF No. 96 at p. 3-4]. The misleading information is abusive 

because in one instance it suggests Kiki and its “corporate owners” violated the law. See

https://www.tiktok.com/@fairlawfirm/video/7200398055902924074. In the second instance it is 

abusive because the video conveys Defendants’ opposition to the Motion for Conditional 

Certification of a Collective Action “means” Defendants do not want Mr. Pollock to inform 

putative class members of their rights. See 

https://www.tiktok.com/@fairlawfirm/video/7201226796317084970. 

Moreover, the effect of the TikTok videos is to solicit involvement in the case. For 

example, a viewer of the February 17 TikTok video stated she previously worked at Kiki. See

https://www.tiktok.com/@fairlawfirm/video/7201226796317084970. In response, Mr. Pollock 

wrote “Hi, please contact my office and we can talk.” Id. (emphasis added). Therefore, it is 

clear the effect of the videos, irrespective of any claim to the contrary, is to communicate with 

putative class members, and this exchange expressly illustrates how the videos and subsequent 

communications can be and was exploited to invite the putative class member to speak to Mr. 

Pollock about this case. 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2023 Page 6 of 10
CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES 

7 

c. The Balance of the Representations Made in the Response are 

Refuted by the TikTok Videos and/or Do Not Have Merit 

The February 17 TikTok video does identify the date and general location of the settlement 

conference as reflected by the following: 

We’ve got an appointment on March 1st with the federal magistrate judge with 

those people who joined the lawsuit already to see whether we can resolve the case 

and if so what those terms would be. . . [.] And about that March 1st date, that’s 

for anybody who joins the lawsuit they would have to personally appear at the 

settlement conference in downtown Miami in the federal courthouse, there’s a 

specific courthouse you have to go to, with the federal magistrate judge, to 

attend the settlement conference in person to try to resolve the case. 

See https://www.tiktok.com/@fairlawfirm/video/7201226796317084970 (emphasis 

added). The communication was seemingly successful in its attempt to rally additional putative 

class members to join prior to the settlement conference because at least three (3) individuals 

appeared that were not parties to the lawsuit. Contrary to Plaintiff’s claims, Defendants’ counsel 

objected to non-parties being present at the confidential settlement conference and the Court had 

to approve their appearance via a ruling from the bench. To be clear, Defendants did not reference 

the February 17 TikTok video in their objections as they did not know about its existence until 

after the settlement conference. 

Plaintiff states that “No TikTok videos discuss the ‘reasons’ behind any actions taken by 

any party (or their counsel) to any legal proceedings[.]” However, as previously stated, the second 

TikTok video conveys in no uncertain terms that Mr. Pollock received a response to Plaintiff’s 

Renewed Motion to Conditionally Certify a Collective Action “from Kiki on the River’s lawyers 

asking the judge to not certify a collective action, which means to not let us inform each of the 

people who work at Kiki who would be affected by this lawsuit by sending them an email or 

a letter . . . to notify them of their rights about this lawsuit[.]” See

https://www.tiktok.com/@fairlawfirm/video/7201226796317084970. This statement implies that 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2023 Page 7 of 10
CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES 

8 

Defendants are opposing the Motion for Conditional Certification of a Collective Action for the 

nefarious or unjust reason of not informing putative class members of their rights. This statement 

is not only inaccurate, but also paints Defendants in a negative light without any basis. The 

negative impact of opposing counsel’s statement is clearly visible in the comments where 

individuals stated in response to this inaccurate claim that “I’m never eating there again! I’m 

appalled!” and “Definitely make sure they get paid a lot of restaurants and clubs see how much 

their employees make and want parts [sic] stop letting them take our money.” Id. 

Plaintiff’s response further claims that the “TikTok videos [] do not include the style of the 

lawsuit or the case number, name any corporate defendant or Mr. Jones, directly solicit potential 

class members, or invite – let alone insinuate – that others could contact [Mr. Pollock] to join this 

lawsuit.” [ECF No. 102 at p. 10]. Said comment is completely inaccurate and rebutted by a review 

of the TikTok videos and comments. The February 15 TikTok video states that a case was filed 

against Kiki on the River and the thumbnail cover photo on the video reads “Lawsuit Against 

Kiki On The River For Improper Tips Distribution.” See 

https://www.tiktok.com/@fairlawfirm/video/7200398055902924074. Mr. Pollock also writes in 

a comment to the February 15 TikTok “The case is collado v. 450 north river drive and pending 

on federal court in Miami. If you google the case, you’ll find it.” Id. Accordingly, the videos do 

identify Kiki as a defendant in this case. 

Lastly, Plaintiff raises an issue that is immaterial to the analysis pertaining to the resolution 

of the Motion for Protective Order. Specifically, the Response suggests incorrectly that 

Defendants’ admission to a variance in the distribution of tips requires a finding that the FLSA 

was violated. That suggestion is inaccurate because there is no evidence at this juncture suggesting 

that the variance is a product of the unaccounted tips going to non-tipped employees. In other 

words, if the unaccounted tips went to tipped employees, there is no violation of the FLSA. 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2023 Page 8 of 10
CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES 

9 

Mr. Pollock should be barred from posting any further TikTok videos or social media posts 

relating to the pending litigation. Defendants have no recourse to limit these improper 

communications short of Court intervention, which is necessary to preserve the proper functioning 

of the litigation. Therefore, Defendants request that the Court grant their Motion for Protective 

Order. 

CONCLUSION 

Based upon the foregoing reasons, Defendants, 450 North River Drive, LLC, d/b/a Kiki on 

the River, RJ River, LLC, and Roman Jones respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter 

an order: (1) prohibiting Mr. Pollock’s, and his clients’ communications with putative class 

members until there is a ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion for Conditional Certification of a Collective 

Action; (2) require that Mr. Pollock cease the posting of any further videos posts, tweets, messages, 

etc., on social media platforms, including TikTok, about the pending action; (3) order that any and 

all currently posted videos, posts, tweets, messages, etc., relating to this action be deleted from any 

and all social media platforms in his control or the control of his law firm; and (4) granting such 

other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. 

 Dated: March 21, 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/ Reynaldo Velazquez /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 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2023 Page 9 of 10
CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES 

10 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

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

March 21, 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. 

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 

Counsel 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 

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 

Counsel Attorneys for RJ River, LLC

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2023 Page 10 of 10