135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, FL 33156

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,

Plaintiff,

vs.

450 NORTH RIVER DRIVE, LLC,

D/B/A KIKI ON THE RIVER, 

RJ RIVER, LLC AND ROMAN JONES,

Defendants.

______________________________/

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO 

MOTION TO COMPEL IN-PERSON SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

I. INTRODUCTION

This is a putative collective and class action lawsuit to recover what is likely millions of 

dollars for Plaintiff, Octavio Collado, the Opt-In Plaintiffs, and the other tipped captains, servers, 

and bussers employed at Defendants’ restaurant because of Defendants’ improper tip confiscation 

practices. As apparent from their recent submissions, Defendants are utilizing different ploys to try 

and frustrate the orderly administration of this case. Their most recent ploy is to provide the Court 

with a partial and distorted factual history to try and coerce an in-person settlement conference 

when one is not needed. Defendants’ excitement over a non-issue illustrates the lengths to which 

Defendants will go to defend the tips they were caught taking illegally. 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/08/2023 Page 1 of 4
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, FL 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

2

II. RELEVANT HISTORY

1. The parties, meaning Plaintiff and Defendants, coordinated to conduct the 

settlement conference in this case on February 15, 2023. 

2. Undersigned counsel, along with his associate attorney, commenced a jury trial with 

the Honorable Beth Bloom on January 30, 2023.

3. One of the undersigned law firm’s paralegals contacted the Court on January 30, 

2023, to confirm the settlement conference. The court advised the parties that February 15, 2023, 

was no longer available.

4. The Court offered to conduct a settlement conference on February 16, 2023, via 

zoom.

5. Without following the firm’s internal proper procedures and without contacting the 

undersigned counsel first to confirm the date, this same paralegal from the undersigned law agreed 

to February 16, 2023 – a date on which the undersigned previously reserved in the firms’ calendar,

and which was coordinated with counsel and the witness take a deposition of a non-party in Perez 

vs. City of Opa-Locka, due to the discovery cut-off in early March 2023. 

6. Defense counsel responded that they were available on February 16, 2023 but

requested that the settlement conference be conducted in person.

7. Without contacting the undersigned or any attorney in the firm, the paralegal in 

question parroted the defense counsel’s request for the settlement conference to be in person.

8. At 4:24 p.m., and while in a trial before Judge Bloom, the undersigned responded 

to defense counsel by email (for the first time that day) that Plaintiff did not agree to conduct the 

settlement conference in person, “especially considering the amendment to the local rule that 

makes the default attendance for mediation as remote.”

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/08/2023 Page 2 of 4
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, FL 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

3

9. The undersigned’s paralegal promptly contacted the Court and advised that 

Plaintiff did not agree (and had mistakenly agreed) to in-person attendance. 

10. The undersigned continued to appear before Judge Bloom in trial for the remainder 

of the day on January 31, 2023, until receiving a verdict at about 4:15 pm. 

11. Counsel went back and forth by email about the need for an in-person vs. remote 

settlement conference.

12. Defense counsel conditioned the agreement to reschedule the settlement conference 

from February 16 to 17 upon the undersigned’s agreement to conduct the settlement conference 

in person in an email sent at 4:39 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2023.

13. Defense counsel filed the instant Motion at 1:12 pm on Thursday, February 2, 

2023.

14. Not once did the defense counsel pick up the phone before filing the instant Motion.

III. ARGUMENT

In-person mediation is an antiquated concept, and experience during and since the 

pandemic resulted in a shift in the Local Rules for the Southern District of Florida to provide that

“Unless the Court orders otherwise, the parties shall decide whether their mediation conference 

will be conducted in person or by video-conference and, if the parties cannot agree, the mediation 

conference shall be held by video-conference.” (L.R. 16.2(a)(2).) 

Undersigned counsel and his clients are concerned that because of the abusive management 

style of those who operate the Defendants’ restaurant, an in-person settlement conference will not 

facilitate a resolution. Moving past the present impediments to settlement due to the premature 

stage of this case and the information yet to be exchanged, it would serve no legitimate purpose for 

Defendants to stare down their former employees to try and intimidate them. 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/08/2023 Page 3 of 4
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, FL 33156

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

4

Defendants do not indicate why appearing at a federal courthouse instead of remotely would 

impede the potential for settlement. Defendants acknowledge that Mr. Collado and the Opt-In 

Plaintiffs would prefer to appear at the settlement conference remotely from the office of the 

undersigned. Given that the instant case involves issues of fact and law upon which both parties 

presently disagree, nothing could be gained by personally appearing at a settlement conference. 

While Defendants argue that an in-person settlement conference would be more likely to foster a 

resolution anywhere, they do not support that argument with any factual or legal basis. In contrast, 

Local Rule 16.2(a)(2) provides that the default for a Court Annexed Mediation shall be “by videoconference” if the parties cannot agree. 

Given that attorneys’ fees are at issue in this case, it would be more efficient for the parties 

to appear remotely than to travel to the Courthouse to go through the same process, albeit at a 

different location.

CONCLUSION

The Court properly denies the Defendants’ Joint Motion to Compel and to conduct the 

settlement conference through video conference.

Respectfully submitted this 8th day of February 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 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/08/2023 Page 4 of 4