UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT PIERCE DIVISION

LAUREN PEOPLES, for herself and on behalf 

of those similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

TURTLEFTPIERCE, LLC, a Florida Limited 

Liability Company, d/b/a THIRSTY TURTLE 

SEAGRILL, PANHANDLERS, INC., a 

Florida Profit Corporation, d/b/a THIRSTY 

TURTLE SEAGRILL, TURTLE SPORT, 

INC., a Florida Profit Corporation, d/b/a

THIRSTY TURTLE SEAGRILL, TURTLE 

PARTNERS, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability 

Company, d/b/a THIRSTY TURTLE 

SEAGRILL.

Defendants.

_________________________________/

Case No.: 

VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, LAUREN PEOPLES, (“Plaintiff”), for herself and on behalf of those similarly 

situated, hereby files this Verified Complaint against Defendants, TURTLEFTPIERCE, LLC, 

d/b/a THIRSTY TURTLE SEAGRILL, (“TURTLEFTPIERCE”), PANHANDLERS, INC., d/b/a 

THIRSTY TURTLE SEAGRILL (“PANHANDLERS”), TURTLE SPORT, INC., d/b/a 

THIRSTY TURTLE SEAGRILL, (“TURTLE SPORT”), and TURTLE PARTNERS, LLC, d/b/a 

THIRSTY TURTLE SEAGRILL, (“TURTLE PARTNERS”), (collectively, “Defendants” or 

“THIRSTY TURTLE”), and states as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction in this Court is proper as the claims are brought pursuant to the Fair 

Labor Standards Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. §201, et seq.) (“FLSA”) to obtain declaratory 

Case 2:22-cv-14345-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2022 Page 1 of 14
2

relief, a judgment against Defendants as to liability, recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, 

and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

2. The jurisdiction of the Court over this controversy is proper pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §1331, as Plaintiff’s claims arise under 29 U.S.C. §216(b). 

3. Venue is proper in this Court because Plaintiff resides within the District, 

Defendants maintain business operations within the District, and Plaintiff’s claims accrued in this 

District. 

INTRODUCTION

4. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), 29 U.S.C. §206, and 29 

U.S.C. §207.

5. The Defendants in this case violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff and other 

similarly situated servers and bartenders the proper minimum wage and overtime compensation for 

all hours worked.

6. This action is intended to include each and every hourly-paid bartender/server who 

worked for THIRSTY TURTLE at any of their three locations at any time within the past three (3)

years.

7. The jurisdiction of the Court over this controversy is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1331 as these claims arise under 29 U.S.C. §216(b).

PARTIES

8. At all times material to this action, Plaintiff was, and continues to be a resident of 

St. Lucie County, Florida.

9. At all times material to this action, TURTLEFTPIERCE, LLC, was and continues 

to be a Florida Limited Liability Company. Further, at all times material to this action, Defendant

Case 2:22-cv-14345-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2022 Page 2 of 14
3

TURTLEFTPIERCE was, and continues to be, engaged in business in Florida, doing business, in 

St. Lucie County, Florida.

10. TURTLEFTPIERCE is currently listed with the Florida Department of State, 

Division of Corporations, as an “Active” business, at 108 N 2nd ST, Fort Pierce, FL, as its 

principal address. See Corporation search result attached hereto as Exhibit A.

11. At all times material to this action, PANHANDLERS, was and continues to be a 

Florida Profit Corporation. Further, at all times material to this action, Defendant

PANHANDLERS was, and continues to be, engaged in business in Florida, doing business, in 

Palm Beach County, Florida. See Corporation search result attached hereto as Exhibit B.

12. At all times material to this action, TURTLE SPORT, was and continues to be a 

Florida Profit Corporation. Further, at all times material to this action, Defendant

TURTLEFTPIERCE was, and continues to be, engaged in business in Florida, doing business, 

in St. Lucie County, Florida. See Corporation search result attached hereto as Exhibit C.

13. At all times material to this action, TURTLE PARTNERS, was and continues to 

be a Florida Limited Liability Company. Further, at all times material to this action, Defendant

TURTLE PARTNERS was, and continues to be, engaged in business in Florida, doing business,

in St. Lucie County, Florida. See Corporation search result attached hereto as Exhibit D.

14. At all times material to this action, THIRSTY TURTLE SEAGRILL is a 

fictitious name owned by Defendants TURTLEFTPIERCE, LLC, PANHANDLERS, INC., 

TURTLE SPORT, INC., and TURTLE PARTNERS, LLC, which are registered and continue to 

be engaged in business in Florida, doing business in Palm Beach and St. Lucie Counties, 

Florida.

Case 2:22-cv-14345-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2022 Page 3 of 14
4

15. THIRSTY TURTLE SEAGRILL is currently listed with the Florida Department 

of State, Division of Corporations, as a Fictitious Name owed by TURTLEFTPIERCE, LLC, 

PANHANDLERS, INC., TURTLE SPORT, INC., and TURTLE PARTNERS, LLC. See

Fictitious Name search result attached hereto as Exhibit E.

16. THIRSTY TURTLE is an enterprise engaged in the hospitality industry, and 

specifically in the operation of restaurants. 

17. Defendants operate Thirsty Turtle locations at 108 N 2nd ST, Fort Pierce, FL, and 

13981 US HWY 1, Juno Beach, FL 33408. Upon information and belief, these two locations, as 

well as another Thirsty Turtle location at 2825 SW Port St Lucie Blvd, Port Saint Lucie, FL

34953, share common ownership and management, and share employees.

18. Ronald Paranzino and/or Joseph Paranzino are managers, members, or officers of 

TURTLEFTPIERCE, PANHANDLERS, TURTLE SPORT, and TURTLE PARTNERS, and, 

upon information and belief, maintain the power to direct, restrict, regulate, govern, or 

administer the performance of each of the three locations operating as Thirsty Turtle. 

19. Upon information and belief, the activities of the three Thirsty Turtle locations 

operate under unified operation or common control, and are performed for a common business 

purpose of providing Thirsty Turtle restaurant services in Palm Beach and St. Lucie Counties. 

20. Upon information and belief, the policies and practices described herein with 

respect to the Ft. Pierce Thirsty Turtle location occurred in Thirsty Turtle’s other two locations, 

because the same individuals were responsible for creation and implementation of these policies 

in each location. 

21. At all times material to this action, Plaintiff was an “employee” of THIRSTY 

TURTLE within the meaning of the FLSA.

Case 2:22-cv-14345-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2022 Page 4 of 14
5

22. At all times material to this action, Defendants were Plaintiff’s “employer” 

within the meaning of the FLSA.

23. Defendants were, and continue to be, an “employer” within the meaning of the 

FLSA.

24. At all times material to this action, Defendants were, and continue to be, an

“enterprise engaged in commerce” and/or an enterprise engaged in the “handling, selling, or 

otherwise working on goods and materials that have been moved in or produced for commerce 

by any person” within the meaning of the FLSA.

25. Based upon information and belief, the annual gross revenue of Defendants was

in excess of $500,000.00 per annum in each of the three years preceding the filing of the 

Complaint in this action. 

26. At all times material to this action, Defendants had two (2) or more employees 

handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that had been moved in or 

produced for commerce such as cash registers, telephones, plates, kitchen equipment, and 

imported beer and wine, which were used directly in furtherance of Defendants’ commercial 

activity of running a restaurant.

27. At all times material hereto, the work performed by the Plaintiff was directly 

essential to the business performed by Defendants.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

28. In or about December 2021, Defendants hired Plaintiff to work as a non-exempt 

hourly-paid server and bartender at THIRSTY TURTLE’s location in Fort Pierce, St. Lucie 

County, Florida. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in this position until June 2022. 

29. Plaintiff’s job duties, like the other service staff, were serving food and drinks to 

Case 2:22-cv-14345-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2022 Page 5 of 14
6

costumers.

30. Defendants paid Plaintiff the tipped minimum wage rather than the regular 

minimum wage for all hours worked. 

31. Defendants did not permit Plaintiff to retain all of her tips. Instead, Defendants

required Plaintiff to pay a portion of her tips to salaried managers working on her shifts.

32. When Plaintiff was a server, she was required to tip out an amount equal to 2.5% 

of her total sales, from her tips, to the manager. When Plaintiff was bartending in any bar 

except the back bar, Plaintiff was required to tip out an amount equal to 3.5% of her total sales, 

from her tips, to the manager. 

33. These policies and requirements regarding tipping out managers a portion of 

total sales from amounts received as tips applied equally to all servers and bartenders working 

for Thirsty Turtle in Fort Pierce. 

34. Upon information and belief, these policies and requirements regarding tipping 

out managers a portion of total sales from amounts received as tips applied equally to all servers 

and bartenders working for all three Thirsty Turtle locations (hereafter “those similarly 

situated”). 

35. By virtue of Defendants’ appropriation of a portion of its bartender/server 

employees’ tips for salaried managers, Defendants were not entitled to take a tip credit. Rather, 

Defendants were/are required to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated to Plaintiff, the full, 

regular minimum wage.

36. Under the FLSA, an employer who fails to provide information required by 

section 203(m), regarding the tip-credit, cannot use the tip credit provisions and therefore must 

Case 2:22-cv-14345-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2022 Page 6 of 14
7

pay the tipped employee at least the full minimum wage, and allow the tipped employee to keep

all tips received.

37. Defendants did not provide its bartenders/servers the notice required by Section 

203(m) of the FLSA. 

38. Due to their improper appropriation of bartenders/servers’ tips for Defendants’

managers, and failure to provide the notice required by Section 203(m), Defendants were not 

entitled to take any tip credit, and failed to pay Plaintiff and the other tipped employees 

similarly situated to Plaintiff at least the applicable minimum wage.

39. Due to Defendants’ practices, Plaintiff and those similarly situated did not earn 

at least the statutory minimum wage for all hours worked during one or more workweeks.

40. Plaintiff and those similarly situated were/are entitled to at least the Federal 

minimum wage pursuant to §206(a) of the FLSA.

41. Plaintiff and those similarly situated were/are entitled to the Florida minimum 

wage pursuant to 29 C.F.R §778.5.

42. Defendants have a common pay policy and/or pay practice which violates the 

FLSA tip credit provisions and therefore fail to pay certain hourly employees at least the 

statutory minimum wage for all hours worked per week as a result of:

a. Failing to provide the notice required by Section 203(m); and

b. Requiring their bartenders/servers to share tips with Defendants’

managers.

43. Because Defendants took a tip credit without proper notice, and appropriated tips 

for their managers, Defendants are not permitted to claim the tip credit, and must re-pay

Plaintiff, and those similarly situated opt-in Plaintiffs who join this action by filing consents to 

Case 2:22-cv-14345-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2022 Page 7 of 14
8

join, the amount of any tip credit claimed.

44. Upon information and belief, Defendants claimed $3.02 per hour in tip credit. 

45. Because Defendants took a tip credit without proper notice, and appropriated tips 

for their managers, Defendants must disgorge to Plaintiff, and those similarly situated opt-in 

Plaintiffs who join this action by filing consents to join, the amount of any tips which were 

distributed to managers.

46. Due to Defendants’ unlawful practices described herein, Plaintiff and those 

similarly situated did not earn at least the statutory minimum wage for all hours worked during 

one or more workweeks.

47. Plaintiff and those similarly situated were/are entitled to at least the Federal 

minimum wage pursuant to §206(a) of the FLSA.

48. Plaintiff and those similarly situated were/are entitled to the Florida minimum 

wage pursuant to §29 C.F.R §778.5.

49. Defendants also maintained a policy pursuant to which they paid their servers 

and bartenders overtime only for hours worked over eighty (80) in a two-week period.

50. Defendants did not calculate overtime on a per workweek basis, as required by

the FLSA. 

51. Plaintiff and those similarly situated worked over forty hours in a single 

workweek on multiple occasions in the three years before this lawsuit was filed. 

52. However, due to Defendants’ policies and practices, as described above, Plaintiff 

and those similarly situated were not paid overtime premiums for all hours over forty worked in 

a single workweek. 

Case 2:22-cv-14345-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2022 Page 8 of 14
9

53. Defendants’ failure to pay proper minimum and overtime wages to Plaintiff and 

those similarly situated was a knowing violation of the law, or, at a minimum, in reckless

disregard of the law. It is well-settled that hourly employees are to be paid overtime premiums 

for hours over forty in a workweek, and failure to do so disregards well-settled and commonly 

known principles of law. Similarly, it is black letter law that tipped employees cannot be 

required to share tips with managers, and Defendants cannot have enacted a uniform 

requirement to engage in such sharing without recklessly disregarding their obligations under 

the FLSA. 

54. Defendants’ violation was also willful because Plaintiff complained that the 

practice of paying overtime for hours over eighty in a two-week period, rather than for hours 

over forty in a single workweek, violated the law, but Defendants still did not pay proper 

overtime. 

COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS

55. Plaintiff and the putative collective members are all servers and bartenders in 

Defendants’ three Thirsty Turtle locations, and performed the same or similar job duties as one 

another in that they provided food and beverage services to Defendants’ patrons.

56. Plaintiff and the putative collective members were subjected to the same pay 

provisions in that they were all paid the tipped minimum wage, without receiving proper notice 

of Defendants’ intention to claim a tip credit as well as the rules related to tip pooling and 

sharing.

57. Plaintiff and the putative collective members were subjected to the same pay 

provisions in that they were all required to share their tips with Defendants’ salaried managers. 

58. Plaintiff and the putative collective members were subjected to the same pay 

Case 2:22-cv-14345-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2022 Page 9 of 14
10

provisions in that they were all subject to Defendants’ policy and practice of paying overtime 

not for all hours over forty in a workweek, as required by the FLSA, but for hours over 80 in a 

two-week period, such that they were deprived of proper overtime premiums owed under the 

law. 

59. Defendants’ uniform method of payment to Plaintiff and the putative collective

members resulted in a violation of the FLSA tip credit provisions and a failure to pay Plaintiffs

and the putative collective members the required minimum and overtime wages due.

60. These policies and practices were equally applicable to Plaintiff and the putative 

collective members.

61. Accordingly, the putative collective members are properly defined as: 

All “Bartenders and Servers” who worked for Defendants at any of their 

three Thirsty Turtle locations in the three years prior to the date the 

Complaint in this matter was filed.

62. Defendants knowingly, willfully, or with reckless disregard carried out its illegal 

pattern or practice of failing to pay minimum and overtime wages with respect to Plaintiff and 

the putative collective members.

COUNT I

RECOVERY OF MINIMUM WAGES

63. Plaintiff incorporates and adopts all allegations contained within Paragraphs 1-62

above.

64. Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, were/are entitled to be paid the applicable 

minimum wage for each hour worked during their employment with Defendants. 

65. In the three years preceding the filing of the Complaint in this action, 

Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, the applicable minimum wage for 

each hour worked for Defendants. 

Case 2:22-cv-14345-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2022 Page 10 of 14
11

66. Defendants failed to provide proper notice of their intent to claim the tip credit or 

regarding requirements for the tip pool, as required by 29 U.S.C. §203(m).

67. Defendants required its server and bartender employees to share tips with 

management, in violation of the FLSA.

68. Because of these policies, Defendants violated the FLSA’s tip-credit provisions 

and the FLSA’s provision on minimum wages (29 U.S.C. §206) in that Plaintiff, and those 

similarly situated, have not been paid the full minimum wage for each hour worked during their 

employment.

69. Defendants had specific knowledge that they were paying sub-minimum wages 

to Plaintiff, but still failed to pay Plaintiff at least minimum wages. 

70. Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiffs the applicable minimum wage for 

one or more weeks of work contrary to 29 U.S.C. § 206.

71. Based upon information and belief, the employees and former employees of 

Defendants similarly situated to Plaintiff were not paid proper minimum wage for each hour 

worked because Defendants claimed the maximum tip credit for Plaintiff and those similarly

situated, while requiring them to share tips with managers, and failing to provide proper notice of 

their intention to take the tip credit.

72. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ deliberate underpayment of 

wages, Plaintiff and those similarly situated have been damaged in the loss of minimum wages, 

as well as payments of tip monies to management, for one or more weeks of work with 

Defendants.

73. As a result of these common policies, Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, are 

entitled to receive the difference between the full statutory minimum wage and the hourly wage 

Case 2:22-cv-14345-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2022 Page 11 of 14
12

actually paid to them, in addition to disgorgement of tips paid to management.

74. Defendants knew or reasonably should have known their conduct violated the 

FLSA. 

75. Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, are entitled to an award of reasonable 

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

COUNT II

RECOVERY OF OVERTIME COMPENSATION

76. Plaintiff incorporates and adopts all allegations contained within Paragraphs 1-62

above.

77. In the three years preceding the filing of the Complaint in this action, in one or 

more workweeks, Plaintiff and other bartenders/servers worked hours in excess of forty (40) 

hours for which Plaintiff and other bartenders/servers were not compensated at the statutory rate 

of one and one-half times the applicable minimum wage.

78. Plaintiff and other bartenders/servers were, and are entitled to be paid at the 

statutory rate of one and one-half the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked in excess of 

forty (40) hours in a workweek.

79. Defendants’ actions were willful and/or showed reckless disregard for the 

provisions of the FLSA as evidenced by their failure to compensate Plaintiff and other 

bartenders/servers at the statutory rate of one and one-half times their lowest lawful rate of pay 

for all hours in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek when it knew, or reasonably should have 

known, such was, and is due.

80. During the three years preceding the filing of the Complaint in this matter, other 

bartenders/servers were not paid proper overtime for hours worked in excess of forty (40) in one 

or more workweeks because Defendants have failed to properly pay Plaintiff proper overtime 

Case 2:22-cv-14345-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2022 Page 12 of 14
Case 2:22-cv-14345-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2022 Page 13 of 14
Case 2:22-cv-14345-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2022 Page 14 of 14