COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PAGE 1 OF 29

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT

OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION

JANIUSRY CABRERA, DAYANA AGUIAR, 

ALEXA PIERRE-LOUIS, GRACIELA 

CUEVAS, ANNYCHRISTINA DOWNS, 

MARLIZ NEVAREZ, JESSICA THOMAS, 

TEQUILLA RAMEY, YITSEL VEGA, 

ANGELETE WILLIAMS, KRISTINA 

WOODMANSEE individually and on behalf of 

all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BT’S ON THE RIVER, LLC dba BOOBY

TRAP ON THE RIVER, a Florida Limited 

Liability Company; BTS NORTH, INC. dba 

BOOBY TRAP DORAL AREA, a Florida

Corporation; BOOBY TRAP, INC., dba 

BOOBY TRAP POMPANO BEACH a Florida 

Corporation; PHILIP GORI, an individual; 

P.T.G. ENTERTAINMENT, INC. dba 

BOOBY TRAP, a Florida Corporation; 

GREGG BERGER, an individual; B&G OPA 

LAND HOLDINGS, LLC dba BOOBY 

TRAP, a Florida Limited Liability Company; 

THE GORI FAMILY LIMITED 

PARTNERSHIP dba BOOBY TRAP, a 

Florida Limited Partnership; PG 

INVESTMENTS, INC., a Florida Corporation; 

PG INVESTMENTS II, INC., a Florida

Corporation; MIKE BRUSO, an individual; 

MIKE ARZA, an individual.

Defendants.

 /

Case No.:

COLLECTIVE ACTION

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1. Failure to Pay Minimum

Wages, 29 U.S.C. § 206;

2. Failure to Pay Overtime

Wages, 29 U.S.C. § 207; and

3. Unlawful Taking of

Tips, 29 U.S.C. § 203

4. Forced Tipping 29 

C.F.R. §531.35

5. Violation of Florida 

Constitution, ART. X, 

§24

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Janiusry Cabrera, Dayana Aguiar, Alexa Pierre-Louis, Graciela Cuevas, 

Annychristina Downs, Marliz Nevarez, Jessica Thomas, Tequilla Ramey, Yitsel Vega, Angelete 

Case 1:22-cv-23111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2022 Page 1 of 29
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PAGE 2 OF 29

Williams, Kristina Woodmansee (“Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated, allege the following upon information and belief, based upon investigation of counsel, 

published reports, and personal knowledge:

I. NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Plaintiffs allege causes of action against defendants BT’S ON THE RIVER, LLC 

dba BOOBY TRAP ON THE RIVER, a Florida Limited Liability Corporation, BTS NORTH,

INC. dba BOOBY TRAP DORAL AREA, a Florida Corporation, BOOBY TRAP, INC., a Florida 

Corporation; PHILLIP GORI, an individual, P.T.G. ENTERTAINMENT, INC. dba BOOBY 

TRAP dba BOOBY TRAP POMPANO BEACH, a Florida Corporation, PHILIP GORI, an 

individual, P.T.G ENTERTAINMENT, INC., dba BOOBY TRAP, a Florida Corporation, 

GREGG BERGER, an individual, B&G OPA LAND HOLDINGS, LLC dba BOOBY TRAP, a 

Florida Limited Liability Corporation, THE GORI FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP dba 

BOOBY TRAP, a Florida Limited Partnership, PG INVESTMENTS, INC., a Florida Corporation, 

PG INVESTMENTS II, INC., a Florida Corporation, MIKE BRUSO, an individual and MIKE 

ARZA, an individual, (collectively, “Defendants” or “Booby Trap”) for damages due to

Defendants evading the mandatory minimum wage and other provisions of the Fair Labor 

Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq.(“FLSA”), illegally absconding with Plaintiffs’ tips.

2. Defendants own and operate strip clubs named Booby Trap on The River, Booby 

Trap South Miami, Booby Trap Pompano and Booby Trap Doral. Plaintiff Janiusry Cabrera 

worked from approximately July 20, 2017 through June 11, 2020 at Booby Trap Doral Area.

Plaintiff Dayana Aguiar worked at BT’s Gentlemen’s club from. February 1, 2020 through March 

2022. Plaintiff Alexa Pierre-Louis worked at Booby Trap on the River from 2014-2018. Plaintiff 

Graciela Cuevas worked at Booby Trap on the River from 2018-2020. Plaintiff Annychristina 

Downs worked at Booby Trap on the River and Booby Trap Doral Area from 2013-2019. Plaintiff 

Case 1:22-cv-23111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2022 Page 2 of 29
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PAGE 3 OF 29

Marliz Nevarez worked at Booby Trap Pompano Beach from 2009 through December 2019.

Plaintiff Jessica Thomas started working at the Booby Trap on the River in 2017. Plaintiff Tequilla 

Ramey worked at Booby Trap on the River and Booby Trap Doral Area from 2009 through 2017. 

Plaintiff Yitsel Vega worked at Booby Trap Doral Area from 2018-2020. Plaintiff Angeleta 

Williams worked from July 5, 2013 through July 10, 2019. Plaintiff Kristina Woodmansee worked 

at Booby Trap Pompano Beach from 2017 through 2020. These causes of action arise from

Defendants’ willful actions while Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants. These actions still 

continue to this day. Throughout their employment with Defendants, Plaintiffs have been denied 

minimum wage payments as part of Defendants’ scheme to classify Plaintiffs and other 

dancers/entertainers as “independent contractors.” As the Department of Labor explained in a

recent Administrative Interpretation:

Misclassification of employees as independent contractors is found in an increasing 

number of workplaces in the United States, in part reflecting larger restructuring of 

business organizations. When employers improperly classify employees as 

independent contractors, the employees may not receive important workplace 

protections such as the minimum wage, overtime compensation, unemployment 

insurance, and workers’ compensation. Misclassification also results in lower tax

revenues for government and an uneven playing field for employers who properly 

classify their workers. Although independent contracting relationships can be 

advantageous for workers and businesses, some employees may be intentionally

misclassified as a meansto cut costs and avoid compliance with labor laws.1

As alleged in more detail below, that is exactly what the Defendants are doing in this case.

3. Plaintiff Cabrera worked at Defendants’ principal place of business located at 5325 

NW 77th Ave., Doral, Florida 33166.

4. Plaintiff Aguiar worked at Defendants’ principal place of business located at 5922 

S. Dixie Highway, S. Miami, Florida 33143.

5. Plaintiff Pierre-Louise worked at Defendants’ principal place of business located at 

1 United States Department of Labor, Administrator’s Interpretation No. 2015-1 (July 14, 2015).

Case 1:22-cv-23111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2022 Page 3 of 29
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PAGE 4 OF 29

3615 NW S River Drive, Miami, Florida 33142.

6. Plaintiff Cuevas worked at Defendants’ principal place of business located at 3615 

NW S River Drive, Miami, Florida 33142.

7. Plaintiff Downs worked at Defendants’ principal place of business located at 3615 

NW S River Drive, Miami, Florida 33142 and at 5325 NW 77th Ave., Doral, Florida 33166.

8. Plaintiff Nevarez worked at Defendants’ principal place of business located at 2840 

Hammondville Rd., Pompano Beach, Fl 33069.

9. Plaintiff Thomas worked at Defendants’ principal place of business located at 3615 

NW S River Drive, Miami, Florida 33142.

10. Plaintiff Ramey worked at Defendants’ principal place of business located at 3615 

NW S River Drive, Miami, Florida 33142, and at 5325 NW 77th Ave., Doral, Florida 33166.

11. Plaintiff Vega worked at Defendants’ principal place of business located at 5325 

NW 77th Ave., Doral, Florida 33166.

12. Plaintiff Williams worked at Defendants’ principal place of business located at 

2840 Hammondville Rd., Pompano Beach, Fl 33069.

13. Plaintiff Woodmansee worked at Defendants’ principal place of business located at 

3615 NW S River Drive, Miami, Florida 33142, and at 5325 NW 77th Ave., Miami, Florida 33166

14. Defendantsfailed to pay Plaintiffs minimum wagesfor all hours worked in violation 

of 29 U.S.C. §§ 206 of the FLSA.

15. Furthermore, Defendants’ practice of failing to pay tipped employees pursuant to 

29 U.S.C. § 203(m), violates the FLSA’s minimum wage provision. See 29 U.S.C. § 206.

16. Defendants also charged Plaintiffs to work. Yes, in the United States, Plaintiffs 

were required to pay just to work. This illegal kickback was designated a house fee and would 

Case 1:22-cv-23111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2022 Page 4 of 29
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PAGE 5 OF 29

range in costs/tax to the Plaintiffs depending on the time they arrived. So, it was also used as a 

method of control. This violates the “free and clear” requirement of 29 C.F.R. § 531.35.

17. Defendants also would have the Plaintiffs and other dancers subsidize the clubs’ 

employment costs by forcing them to tip DJs, managers, security and other personnel. The 

Defendants saved labor costs by having one set of their employees pay another set.

18. Defendants took a percentage of the gratuities and tips earned by the Plaintiffs, also 

in violation of the FLSA.

19. Plaintiffs bring a collective action to recover the unpaid overtime compensation and 

minimum wage owed to them individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees,

current and former, of Defendants. Members of the Collective Action are hereinafter referred to as 

“FLSA Class Members.”

20. As a result of Defendants’ violations, Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class Members seek

to recover double damages for failure to pay minimum wage, overtime liquidated damages, 

interest, and attorneys’ fees.

II. PARTIES

21. At all times relevant, Plaintiffs were individual adult residents of the State of 

Florida. Furthermore, Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants and qualify as “employees” of 

Defendants as defined by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(1). Their consents to this action are

attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

22. The FLSA Class Members are all current and/or former exotic dancers who worked 

at Booby Trap on the River located at 3615 NW S River Drive, Miami, Florida 33142, Booby Trap 

South Miami located at 5922 S. Dixie Highway, S. Miami, FL 33143, Booby Trap Pompano Beach 

located at 2840 Hammondville Road, Pompano Beach, FL 33069 and Booby Trap Doral, located

at 5325 NW 77th Avenue, Miami, Florida 33166 at any time

Case 1:22-cv-23111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2022 Page 5 of 29
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PAGE 6 OF 29

23. Defendant BT’S ON THE RIVER, LLC dba BOOBY TRAP ON THE RIVER 

(“BT River”) is Florida Limited Liability Company with its principal place of business located at

3615 NW S River Drive, Miami, Florida 33142. At all times mentioned herein, BT River was an 

“employer” or “joint employer” as defined by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d) and (g). BT River 

may be served via its agent for service of process, Gregg Berger, 5325 NW 77 Ave., Miami, FL 

33166.

24. Defendant BTS NORTH, INC. dba BOOBY TRAP DORAL AREA (“BT Doral”) 

is a Florida Corporation with its principal place of business located at 5325 NW 77th Avenue,

Miami, Florida 33166. At all times mentioned herein, BT Doral was an “employer” or “joint

employer” as defined by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d) and (g). BT Doral may be served via its 

agent for service of process, Gregg Berger, 5325 NW 77 Ave., Miami, FL 33166.

25. BT’S GENTLEMENS’ CLUB-SOUTH MIAMI (“BT’S”) is Florida Limited 

Liability Company with its principal place of business located at 5922 S. Dixie Highway, South 

Miami, FL 33143. At all times mentioned herein, BT’S was an “employer” or “joint employer” as 

defined by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d) and (g). BT’S may be served via its agent for service of 

process, Gregg Berger, 5325 NW 77 Ave., Miami, FL 33166.

26. Defendant BOOBY TRAP, INC. (“BT, Inc.”) is a Florida Corporation with its 

principal place of business located at 2840 Hammondville Road, Pompano Beach, Florida 33069. 

At all times mentioned herein, BT, Inc. was an “employer” or “joint employer” as defined by the 

FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d) and (g). BT, Inc. may be served via its agent for service of process, 

Gregg Berger, 5325 NW 77 Ave., Miami, FL 33166.

27. Defendant PHILLIP GORI (“Gori”) was/is one of the main manager(s)/owner(s) 

who executed the policies regarding payment to dancers and management of dancers, including 

Case 1:22-cv-23111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2022 Page 6 of 29
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PAGE 7 OF 29

Plaintiffs. Gori resides at 195 W. Alexander Palm Road, Boca Raton, Florida 33432.

28. Defendant P.T.G. ENTERTAINMENT, INC. dba BOOBY TRAP (“P.T.G.”) is a 

Florida Corporation, owned/controlled by Gori. P.T.G.’s principal place of business is located at 

2840 Hammondville Road, Pompano Beach, Florida 33069. At all times mentioned herein, P.T.G.

was an “employer” or “joint employer” as defined by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d) and (g). P.T.G. 

may be served via its agent for service of process, Gregg Berger, 5325 NW 77 Ave., Miami, FL 

33166.

29. Defendant GREGG BERGER (“Berger”) was/is one of the main 

manager(s)/owner(s) who executed the policies regarding payment to dancers and management of 

dancers, including Plaintiffs. Berger resides at 3500 Mystic Pointe Drive, Aventura, Florida 33180.

30. Defendant B&G OPA LAND HOLDINGS, LLC dba BOOBY TRAP (“B&G”) is 

a Florida Limited Liability Company with its principal place of business located at 5325 NW 77th

Avenue, Miami, Florida 33166. At all times mentioned herein, B&G was an “employer” or “joint 

employer” as defined by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d) and (g). B&G may be served via its agent 

for service of process, Gregg Berger, 5325 NW 77 Ave., Miami, FL 33166.

31. Defendant THE GORI FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP dba BOOBY TRAP 

(“Gori LP”) is a Florida Limited Partnership with its principal place of business is located 2840 

Hammondville Road, Pompano Beach, Florida 33069. At all times mentioned herein, Gori LP was 

an “employer” or “joint employer” as defined by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d) and (g) and may 

be served via its agent for service of process, Gregg Berger, 5325 NW 77 Ave., Miami, FL 33166.

32. Defendant PG INVESTMENTS, INC. (“PG I”) is a Florida Corporation with its 

principal place of business is located 2840 Hammonville Road, Pompano Beach, Florida 33069. 

At all times mentioned herein, PG I was an “employer” or “joint employer” as defined by the 

Case 1:22-cv-23111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2022 Page 7 of 29
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PAGE 8 OF 29

FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d) and (g) and may be served via its agent for service of process, Gregg 

Berger, 5325 NW Ave., Miami, FL, 33166.

33. Defendant PG INVESTMENTS II, INC. (“PG II”) is a Florida Corporation with 

their principal place of business is located 2840 Hammondville Road, Pompano Beach, Florida 

33069. At all times mentioned herein, PG I was an “employer” or “joint employer” as defined by

the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d) and (g) and may be served via its agent for service of process, Gregg 

Berger, 5325 NW 77 Ave., Miami, FL 33166

34. Defendant Mike Bruso is one of the manger/owners who executed the policies

regarding payment to dancers and management of dancers, including Plaintiffs. Mike Bruso may 

be served at 5325 NW 77 Ave., Miami, FL 33166.

35. Defendant Mike Arza is one of the manger/owners who executed the policies

regarding payment to dancers and management of dancers, including Plaintiffs. Mike Bruso may 

be served at 5325 NW 77 Ave., Miami, FL 33166.

36. Gori, Bruso and Arza and Berger acted directly or indirectly on behalf of Booby 

Trap, and, at all times mentioned herein were “employer(s)” or “joint employer(s)” of Plaintiffs

within the meaning of the FLSA. They exerted operational and management control over Booby 

Trap, including day to day management. They were, and are, frequently present at, owned, 

directed, controlled, and managed the operations at Booby Trap. They also controlled the nature, 

pay structure, and employment relationship of Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class Members. Gori and 

Berger had at all times relevant to this lawsuit, the authority to hire and fire employees at Booby 

Trap, the authority to direct and supervise the work of employees, the authority to sign on the 

business’ checking accounts, including payroll accounts, and the authority to make decisions 

regarding employee compensation and capital expenditures. Additionally, they were responsible 

Case 1:22-cv-23111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2022 Page 8 of 29
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PAGE 9 OF 29

for the day-to-day affairs of Booby Trap. In particular, they were responsible for determining 

whether Booby Trap complied with the FLSA.

37. The true names, capacities, or involvement, whether individual, corporate, 

governmental, or associate, of all managers and owners of the Defendants named are unknown to

Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs pray for leave to amend this Complaint to show their true names and capacities 

when the same have been finally determined. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and upon such

information and belief alleges thereon, that each of the unknown Defendants is negligently, 

intentionally, strictly liable, or otherwise legally responsible in some manner for the events and 

happenings herein referred to, and negligently, strictly liable intentionally or otherwise caused 

injury and damages proximately thereby to Plaintiffs, as is hereinafter alleged.

38. At all material times, Defendants have been an enterprise in commerce or in the 

production of goods for commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203(r)(1) of the FLSA 

because they have had employees at their club engaged in commerce, which has travelled in

interstate commerce. Moreover, because of Defendants’ interrelated activities, they function in 

interstate commerce. 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1).

39. Furthermore, Defendants have had, and continue to have, an annual gross business 

volume in excess of the statutory standard.

40. At all material times during the three (3) years prior to the filing of the original 

action, Defendants categorized all dancers/entertainers employed by Defendants as “independent 

contractors” and have failed and refused to pay wages or compensation to such 

dancers/entertainers. Plaintiffs were individual employees who engaged in commerce or in the 

production of goods for commerce as required by 29 U.S.C. §§ 206.

41. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that, at all relevant times herein, Defendants 

Case 1:22-cv-23111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2022 Page 9 of 29
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PAGE 10 OF 29

engaged in the acts alleged herein and/or condoned, permitted, authorized, and/or ratified the 

conduct of its employees and agents, and other Defendants and are vicariously or strictly liable for 

the wrongful conduct of its employees and agents as alleged herein.

42. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege that, each of the 

Defendants acted, in all respects pertinent to this action, as the agent or employee of each other, 

and carried out a joint scheme, business plan, or policy in all respect thereto and, therefore, the 

acts of each of these Defendants are legally attributable to the other Defendants, and that these 

Defendants, in all respects, acted as employers and/or joint employers of Plaintiffs in that each of 

them exercised control over their wage payments and control over their duties.

43. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege that, at all relevant 

times, each and every Defendant has been the agent, employee, representative, servant, master, 

employer, owner, agent, joint venture, and alter ego of each of the other and each was acting within 

the course and scope of his or her ownership, agency, service, joint venture and employment.

44. At all times mentioned herein, each and every Defendant was the successor of the 

other and each assumes the responsibility for the acts and omissions of all other Defendants.

III. VENUE AND JURISDICTION

45. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 28 U.S.C. §

1331 because this action arises under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq.

46. Venue is proper in this District because all or a substantial portion of the events 

forming the basis of this action occurred in this District. Defendants’ club is located in this District 

and Plaintiffs worked in this District.

Case 1:22-cv-23111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2022 Page 10 of 29
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PAGE 11 OF 29

IV. ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

(Against all Defendants)

A. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

47. Defendants operate adult-oriented entertainment facilities located at 3615 NW S 

River Drive, Miami, Florida 33142, 5922 S. Dixie Highway, South Miami, Florida 33143, 2840 

Hammondville Road, Pompano Beach, Florida 33069 and at 5325 NW 77th Avenue, Miami, 

Florida 33166.

48. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants were “employer(s)” or “joint 

employer(s)” of Plaintiffs.

49. At all times during the three (3) years prior to the filing of the instant action, 

Defendants categorized all dancers/entertainers employed by Defendants as “independent 

contractors” and have failed and refused to pay wages to such dancers.

50. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants exercised a great deal of operational

and management control over the subject clubs, particularly in the areas of terms and conditions of 

employment applicable to dancers and entertainers.

51. Plaintiff Cabrera was employed by Defendants from approximately July 20, 2017 

through June 11, 2020. Plaintiff Aguiar was employed by Defendants from approximately

February 2, 2020 through March 2022. Plaintiff Pierre-Louis was employed by Defendants from 

approximately 2014-2018. Plaintiff Cuevas was employed by Defendants from 2018-2020.

Plaintiff Downs was employed by Defendants from approximately 2013-2019. Plaintiff Nevarez 

was employed by Defendants from approximately 2009 though December 2019. Plaintiff Thomas 

began working for Defendants in approximately 2017. Plaintiff Ramey was employed by 

Defendants from approximately 2009-2017. Plaintiff Vega was employed by Defendants from 

approximately 2018-2020. Plaintiff Williams was employed by Defendants from approximately 

Case 1:22-cv-23111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2022 Page 11 of 29
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PAGE 12 OF 29

July 5, 2013 until July 10, 2019. Plaintiff Woodmansee was employed by Defendants from 

approximately 2017-2020. 

52. The primary duty of an entertainer is to dance and entertain customers, and give 

them a good experience. Specifically, an entertainer performs stage and table dances, and 

entertains customers on an hourly basis.

53. Stated differently, entertainers dance on stage, perform table dances, and entertain 

customers in VIP rooms, all while nude or semi-nude.

54. Plaintiffs worked and performed at the adult-oriented entertainment facilities

multiple shifts per week. Plaintiffs were an integral part of Defendants’ business which operated 

solely as an adult-oriented entertainment facilities featuring nude or semi-nude female entertainers.

55. Defendants did not pay entertainers on an hourly basis.

56. Defendants exercised significant control over Plaintiffs during their shifts and 

would demand that Plaintiffs stay until late in the morning if they worked.

57. Defendants set prices for all VIP performances.

58. Defendants set the daily cover charge for customers to enter the facility and had 

complete control over which customers were allowed in the facility.

59. Defendants controlled music for Plaintiffs’ performances.

60. Defendants controlled the means and manner in which Plaintiffs could perform.

61. Defendants placed Plaintiffs on a schedule.

62. Defendants had the authority to suspend, fine, fire, or otherwise discipline 

entertainers for non-compliance with their rules regarding dancing.

63. Defendants actually suspended, fined, fired, or otherwise disciplined entertainers 

for non-compliance with their rules regarding dancing.

Case 1:22-cv-23111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2022 Page 12 of 29
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PAGE 13 OF 29

64. Although Defendants allowed entertainers to choose their own costumes, 

Defendants reserved the right to decide what a particular entertainer was allowed to wear on the 

premises. In order to comply with Booby Trap’s dress and appearance standards, Plaintiffs

typically expended approximately one (1) hour of time each shift getting ready for work without 

being paid any wages for such time getting ready.

65. Plaintiffs were compensated exclusively through tips from Defendants’ customers. 

That is, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff whatsoever for any hours worked at their establishment.

66. Defendants also required Plaintiffs to share their tips with Defendants, and other 

non-service employees who do not customarily receive tips, including the managers, disc jockeys, 

and the bouncers.

67. Defendants are in violation of the FLSA’s tipped-employee compensation 

provision, 29 U.S.C. § 203(m), which requires employers to pay a tipped employee a minimum of 

$2.13 per hour. Defendants also violated 29 U.S.C. § 203(m) when they failed to notify the 

Plaintiffs about the tip credit allowance (including the amount to be credited) before the credit was 

utilized. That is, Defendants’ exotic dancers were never made aware of how the tip credit 

allowance worked or what the amounts to be credited were. Furthermore, Defendants violated 29 

U.S.C. § 203(m) because they did not allow Plaintiffs to retain all of their tips and instead required

that they divide their tips amongst other employees who do not customarily and regularly receive 

tips. Because Defendants violated the tip-pool law, Defendants lose the right to take a credit toward 

minimum wage.

68. Defendants exercised significant control over Plaintiffs through written and 

unwritten policies and procedures. Defendants had visibly posted in the employees’ locker room 

the written employee rules for late arrivals and early leaves and the corresponding fees for which 

Case 1:22-cv-23111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2022 Page 13 of 29
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PAGE 14 OF 29

performers would be responsible.

69. Defendants provided and paid for all advertising and marketing efforts undertaken 

on behalf of Defendants.

70. Defendants paid for the buildings used by Defendants’ maintenance of the facilities, 

the sound systems, stages, lights, beverages and inventory used at the facilities.

71. Defendants made all hiring decisions regarding wait staff, security, entertainers, 

managerial and all other employees on the premises.

72. Defendants’ opportunity for profit and loss far exceeded Plaintiffs’ opportunity for 

profit and loss from work at Defendants’ clubs.

73. Nude dancing is an integral part of Defendants’ operations. Defendants’ advertising

and logo prominently displays nude dancing for its customers. Booby Trap and all of its locations

are well known as a “strip club.”

74. Defendants need entertainers to successfully and profitably operate the Booby Trap 

business model.

75. The position of entertainer requires no managerial skill of others.

76. The position of entertainer requires little other skill or education, formal or 

otherwise.

77. The only requirements to become an entertainer at Booby Trap are “physical 

attributes” and the ability to dance seductively. Plaintiffs did not have a formal interview but 

instead were glanced over “up and down” and participated in a brief audition by the manager 

before being offered an employment opportunity. The amount of skill required is more akin to an

employment position than that of a typical independent contractor. Defendants do not require prior

experience as an entertainer or any formal dance training as a job condition or prerequisite to 

Case 1:22-cv-23111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2022 Page 14 of 29
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PAGE 15 OF 29

employment. Defendants do not require the submission of an application or a resume as part of the 

hiring process. In fact, Plaintiffs have little or no formal dance training and experience before 

auditioning to dance at Booby Trap.

78. Defendantsfailed to maintain records of wages, fines, fees, tips and gratuities and/or 

service charges paid or received by entertainers.

79. Plaintiffs were not paid an hourly minimum wage or any hourly wage or salary 

despite being present at Defendants’ facilities and required to work and entertain its customers at 

any time during an eight-plus (8+) hour work shift.

80. Plaintiffs were not paid overtime wages at one-and-a-half (11⁄2) times the regular 

minimum wage rate for any hours worked despite being present at Defendants’ facilities and 

required to work and entertain its customers for longer than eight (8) hours per shift.

81. Plaintiffs were not paid an hourly minimum wage for the typical one (1) hour of 

time expended prior to each shift to get ready for work, including applying makeup and hair, and 

to comply with Defendants’ dress and appearance standards. Plaintiffs estimate that they spent 

approximately five hundred U.S. Dollars ($500.00) annually on makeup, hair-related expenses,

and outfits.

82. Plaintiffs were not paid an hourly minimum wage for the time they were required

to wait at Booby Trap until the premises and the parking lot were cleared of customers.

83. The FLSA Class Members had the same pay structure and were under the same 

controls as Plaintiffs.

84. Plaintiffs and FLSA Class Members would work over forty (40) hours in some 

weeks each worked for Defendants.

85. Defendants have never paid Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class Members any amount as

Case 1:22-cv-23111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2022 Page 15 of 29
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PAGE 16 OF 29

wages whatsoever, and have instead unlawfully required Plaintiffs and FLSA Class Members to 

pay them for the privilege of working.

86. The only source of monies received by Plaintiffs (and the class they seek to 

represent) relative to their employment with Defendants came in the form of gratuities received 

directly from customers, a portion of which Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class Members were required 

to pay to Defendants.

87. Although Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class Members are required to and do in fact 

frequently work more than forty (40) hours per workweek, they are not compensated at the FLSA 

mandated time-and-a-half rate for hours in excess of forty (40) per workweek. In fact, they receive 

no compensation whatsoever from Defendants and thus, Defendants violate the minimum wage 

requirement of FLSA. See 29 U.S.C. § 206.

88. Defendants’ method of paying Plaintiffs in violation of the FLSA was willful and 

was not based on a good faith and reasonable belief that its conduct complied with the FLSA. 

Defendants misclassified Plaintiffs with the sole intent to avoid paying them in accordance to the

FLSA; the fees and fines described herein constitute unlawful “kickbacks” to the employer within

the meaning of the FLSA, and Plaintiffs are entitled to restitution of such fines and fees.

89. Plaintiffs and FLSA Class Members who worked at Booby Trap performed 

precisely the same job duties - dancing and entertaining at Booby Trap.

90. Plaintiffs and FLSA Class Members who worked at Booby Trap during the 

applicable limitations period(s) were subject to the same work rules established by the Defendants 

as identified above.

91. Plaintiffs and FLSA Class Members at Booby Trap were subject to the terms and 

conditions of employment and the same degree of control, direction, supervision, promotion and 

Case 1:22-cv-23111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2022 Page 16 of 29
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PAGE 17 OF 29

investment imposed or performed by Defendants.

92. Plaintiffs and FLSA Class Members at Booby Trap during the applicable 

limitations period(s) were subject to the same across-the-board, uniformly applied corporate policy 

mandated by Defendants.

93. Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class Members at Booby Trap, during the applicable 

limitations period, were subject to the same fees and fines imposed by Defendants.

94. As a result of Defendants’ across-the-board, standard operating procedure of 

mischaracterizing dancers/entertainers as “independent contractors” and their consequent failure 

to pay any wages or compensation whatsoever, it is a certainly that numerous other current and 

former dancers and entertainers who worked at Booby Trap during the applicable limitations 

period would elect to participate in this action if provided notice of same.

95. Upon information and belief, more than one hundred (100) dancers and entertainers

have worked at Booby Trap during the three (3) to five (5) years prior to the filing of this action.

96. Plaintiffs are “similarly situated” to the 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) class of persons they

seek to represent and will adequately represent the interests of the class.

97. Plaintiffs have hired Counsel experienced in class actions and in collective actions 

under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) who will adequately represent the class.

98. Defendants failed to keep records of tips, gratuities and/or service charges paid to 

Plaintiffs or any other entertainer and failed to maintain and furnish wage statements to Plaintiffs.

99. Federal law mandates that an employer is required to keep for three (3) years all 

payroll records and other records containing, among other things, the following information:

a. The time of day and day of week on which the employees’ work week

begins;

b. The regular hourly rate of pay for any workweek in which overtime

compensation is due under section 7(a) of the FLSA;

Case 1:22-cv-23111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2022 Page 17 of 29
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PAGE 18 OF 29

c. An explanation of the basis of pay by indicating the monetary amount paid 

on a per hour, per day, per week, or other basis;

d. The amount and nature of each payment which, pursuant to section 7(e)

of the FLSA, is excluded from the “regular rate”;

e. The hours worked each workday and total hours worked each workweek;

f. The total daily or weekly straight time earnings or wages due for hours 

worked during the workday or workweek;

g. The total additions to or deductions from wages paid each pay period 

including employee purchase orders or wage assignments;

h. The dates, amounts, and nature of the items which make up the total

additions and deductions;

i. The total wages paid each pay period; and

j. The date of payment and the pay period covered by payment. 29 C.F.R. 

516.2, 516.5.

100. Defendants have not complied with federal law and have failed to maintain such 

records with respect to Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class Members. Because Defendants’ records are 

inaccurate and/or inadequate, Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class Members can meet their burden under 

the FLSA by proving that they, in fact, performed work for which they were improperly 

compensated, and produce sufficient evidence to show the amount and extent of their work “as a 

matter of a just and reasonable inference.” See, e.g., Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328

U.S. 680, 687 (1946). Plaintiffs seek to put Defendants on notice that they intend to rely on

Anderson to provide the extent of their unpaid work.

B. INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY UNDER THE FLSA

101. In Lamonica v. Safe Hurricane Shutters, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Eleventh Circuit held that individuals can be liable for FLSA violations under an expansive 

interpretation of “employer” for directors and officers. Lamonica v. Safe Hurricane Shutters, Inc., 

711 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2013). The FLSA defines “employer” as “any person acting directly or 

Case 1:22-cv-23111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2022 Page 18 of 29
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PAGE 19 OF 29

indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(d). The Ninth

Circuit stated that the definition of “employer” under FLSA is not limited by the common law

concept of “employer” but “is to be given an expansive interpretation in order to effectuate the 

FLSA’s broad remedial purposes.”

102. Where an individual exercises “control over the nature and structure of the 

employment relationship,” or “economic control” over the relationship, that individual is an 

employer within the meaning of the FLSA, and is subject to liability. Lambert v. Ackerley, 180 

F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 1999). Factors related to “economic control,” which included ownership 

interest, operational control of significant aspects of the day-to-day functions, the power to hire 

and fire employees, determine salaries, and the responsibility to maintain employment records.

103. Gori and Berger are individually liable for failing to pay Plaintiffs their wages.

V. COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS

104. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference and re-allege each and every allegation

set forth in each and every preceding paragraph as though fully set forth herein.

105. Plaintiffs bring this action as an FLSA collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 

216(b) on behalf of all persons who were or are employed by Defendants as exotic 

dancers/entertainers at any time during the three (3) years prior to the commencement of this action, 

or when Plaintiffs first brought their claims to Defendants attention, to present. 

106. Plaintiffs have actual knowledge that FLSA Class Members have also been 

denied pay at the federally mandated minimum wage rate. That is, Plaintiffs worked with other 

dancers/entertainers at Defendants facilities. As such, they have firsthand personal knowledge of 

the same pay violations throughout Defendants’ club. Furthermore, other exotic 

dancers/entertainers at Defendants’ clubs. Furthermore, other exotic dancers/entertainers at 

Case 1:22-cv-23111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2022 Page 19 of 29
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PAGE 20 OF 29

Defendants facilities have shared their similar pay violation experiences as those described in this 

Complaint.

107. Other employees similarly situated to Plaintiffs work or have worked at 

Defendants facilities but were denied pay at the federally mandated minimum wage rate. The other 

employees were forced to pay house fees, subsidize Defendants employment costs by being forced 

to pay their tips to other employers, and then to pay a percentage of their tips to Defendants.

108. Although Defendants permitted and/or required the FLSA Class Members to 

work in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek, Defendants have denied them full compensation

for their hours worked over forty (40). Defendants have also denied them full compensation at the 

federally mandated minimum wage rate.

109. FLSA Class Members perform or have performed the same or similar work as 

the Plaintiffs.

110. FLSA Class Members regularly work or have worked in excess of forty (40) 

hours during a workweek.

111. FLSA Class Members regularly work or have worked and did not receive 

minimum wage.

112. FLSA Class Members are not exempt from receiving overtime and/or pay at the 

federally mandated minimum wage rate under the FLSA.

113. As such, FLSA Class Members are similar to Plaintiffsin terms of job duties, pay 

structure, misclassification as independent contractors and/or the denial of overtime and minimum 

wage.

114. The experiences of the Plaintiffs, with respect to their pay, are typical of the 

experiences of the FLSA Class Members.

Case 1:22-cv-23111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2022 Page 20 of 29
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PAGE 21 OF 29

115. The specific job titles or precise job responsibilities of each FLSA Class Member 

does not prevent collective treatment.

116. All FLSA Class Members, irrespective of their particular job requirements, are 

entitled to overtime compensation for hours worked at the federally mandated minimum wage rate.

117. Although the exact number of damages may vary among FLSA Class Members, 

the damages for the FLSA Class Members can be easily calculated by a simple formula. The claims

of all FLSA Class Members arise from a common nucleus of facts. Liability is based on a 

systematic course of wrongful conduct by the Defendants that caused harm to all FLSA Class 

Members.

118. As such, Plaintiffs bring their FLSA claims as a collective action on behalf of the 

following class:

All of Defendants’ current and former exotic dancers/entertainers who 

worked at the Booby Trap locations in Miami, Florida, Pompano Beach, 

Florida, S. Miami Beach, Florida and Doral, Florida at any time starting three 

years before this Complaint was filed.

VI. DEFENDANTS WAIVED ARBITRATION

119. Based on the undersigned counsel’s experience, similarly situated Defendants 

typically have entertainers such as Plaintiffs and any opt-in plaintiffs sign agreements that require 

claims against Defendants to be brought through arbitration. Accordingly, Plaintiffs first requested 

to arbitrate the claims alleged in this Complaint with Defendants on December 14, 2021. 

Defendants did not respond to Plaintiffs’ initial request to arbitrate or subsequent follow up 

requests. Thus, Defendants waived their right to arbitrate the claims alleged in this Complaint by 

failing to respond to Plaintiffs’ requests. 

120. Alternatively, Defendants should be sanctioned by requiring them to pay for 

Plaintiffs’ costs expended pursuing this lawsuit because Defendants failed to respond to Plaintiffs’

Case 1:22-cv-23111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2022 Page 21 of 29
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PAGE 22 OF 29

requests to arbitrate the claims alleged in this Complaint.

VII. EQUITABLE TOLLING AND EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL

121. Amongst other FLSA violations described herein, Defendants misrepresented to 

Plaintiffs and potential opt-in plaintiffs that they did not have to pay them. Based on the 

undersigned counsel’s experience, similarly situated Defendants typically have entertainers such 

as Plaintiffs and any opt-in plaintiffs sign agreements in order to mislead them into thinking they 

have given up their right to wages by agreement.

122. As such, the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled for Plaintiffs and any

opt-in plaintiffs such that the date of filing for the purposes of the statute of limitations is held to 

be the date Plaintiffs first requested arbitration from Defendants—December 14, 2021—and/or 

Defendants should be equitably estopped from asserting a statute of limitations defense regarding 

any opt-in plaintiffs. At a minimum, the equitable tolling doctrine and equitable estoppel doctrine 

should apply to Plaintiffs and any opt-in plaintiffs who worked for Defendants from December 14, 

2018 to the present.

VIII. CAUSES OF ACTION

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGES PURSUANT TO THE FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 206

(By Plaintiffs Individually and on Behalf of the Collective Against All Defendants)

123. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference and re-allege each and every allegation

set forth in the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

124. Defendants are engaged in “commerce” and/or in the production of “goods” for 

“commerce” as those terms are defined in the FLSA.

125. Defendants operate an enterprise engaged in commerce within the meaning of the 

FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1), because it has employees engaged in commerce, and because its 

Case 1:22-cv-23111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2022 Page 22 of 29
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PAGE 23 OF 29

annual gross volume of sales made is more than five hundred thousand U.S. Dollars ($500,000).

126. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the minimum wage in violation of 29 U.S.C.

§206.

127. Based upon the conduct alleged herein, Defendants knowingly, intentionally and

willfully violated the FLSA by not paying Plaintiffs the minimum wage under the FLSA.

128. Throughout the relevant period of this lawsuit, there is no evidence that Defendants’

conduct that gave rise to this action was in good faith and based on reasonable grounds. In fact, 

Defendants continued to violate the FLSA long after it learned that its misclassification scheme 

and compensation policies were illegal.

129. Due to Defendants’ FLSA violations, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from 

Defendants, minimum wage compensation and an equal amount in the form of liquidated damages,

as well as reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of the action, including interest, pursuant to 29 

U.S.C. § 216(b).

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

UNLAWFUL TAKING OF TIPS IN VIOLATION OF THE FLSA, 29U.S.C. § 203

(By Plaintiffs Individually and on Behalf of the Collective Against All Defendants)

130. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference and re-allege each and every allegation 

set forth in the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

131. Plaintiffs customarily and regularly received more than thirty U.S. Dollars ($30.00)

a month in tips and therefore is a tipped employee as defined in the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(t), see 

also 29 C.F.R. § 531.50.

132. At all relevant times, each Defendants were “employer(s)” or “joint employer(s)” 

of Plaintiffs within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).

133. Defendants are engaged in “commerce” and/or in the production of “goods” for 

Case 1:22-cv-23111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2022 Page 23 of 29
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PAGE 24 OF 29

“commerce” as those terms are defined in the FLSA. Defendants operate enterprises engaged in 

commerce within the meaning for the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1), because they have employees

engaged in commerce, and because its annual gross volume of sales made is more than five 

hundred thousand U.S. Dollars ($500,000).

134. Under TIPA:

[a]n employer may not keep tips received by its employees for any purpose 

including allowing managers or supervisors to keep any portion of 

employees’ tips, regardless of whether or not it takes a tip credit.

29 U.S.C. § 203.

135. Defendants kept a portion of tips paid to Plaintiffs by Defendants’ customers in the 

form of fees, fines, mandatory charges and other payments to management, house moms, disc 

jockeys, and floor men in violation of TIPA.

136. Defendants required Plaintiffs to participate in an illegal tip pool, which included 

employees who do not customarily and regularly receive tips, and do not have more than a de 

minimis, if any, interaction with customers leaving the tips (such as the Club DJs, security, and 

management). See U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, “Fact Sheet # 15: Tipped 

employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).”

137. The contribution the Defendants required Plaintiffs to make after each shift was 

arbitrary and capricious and the distribution was not agreed to by Plaintiffs or other dancers; but

rather, was imposed upon Plaintiffs and other dancers.

138. By requiring Plaintiffs to pool their tips with club management, including the 

individual Defendants named herein, Defendants “retained” a portion of the tips received by 

Plaintiffs in violation of the FLSA.

139. Defendants did not make any effort, let alone a “good faith” effort, to comply with 

Case 1:22-cv-23111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2022 Page 24 of 29
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PAGE 25 OF 29

the FLSA as it relates to compensation owed to Plaintiffs.

140. At the time of their illegal conduct, Defendants knew or showed reckless disregard 

that the tip-pool which they required Plaintiffs to contribute included non-tipped employees and,

therefore, was statutorily illegal. In spite of this, Defendants willfully failed and refused to pay 

Plaintiffs the proper amount of the tips to which they were entitled.

141. Defendants’ willful failure and refusal to pay Plaintiffs the tips they earned violates 

the FLSA.

142. Defendants kept a portion of tips paid to Plaintiffs by Defendants’ customers in the 

form of fees, fines, mandatory charges and other payments to management, house moms, disc 

jockeys, and door men in violation of TIPA.

143. As a result of the acts and omissions of the Defendants as alleged herein, and 

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 216(b) and 260, Plaintiffs are entitled to damages in the form of all 

misappropriated tips, plus interest; as liquated damages, an amount equal to all misappropriated 

tips, mandatory attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

ILLEGAL KICKBACKS, 29 C.F.R. § 531.35

(By Plaintiffs Individually and on Behalf of the Collective Against All Defendants)

144. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference and re-allege each and every allegation 

set forth in the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

145. Defendants required Plaintiffs to pay monetary fees to Defendants and other Booby 

Trap employees who did not work in positions that are customarily and regularly tipped, in 

violation of 29 U.S.C. § 203(m).

146. Defendants’ requirement that Plaintiffs pay fees to Defendants and other Booby 

Trap employees violated the “free and clear” requirement of 29 C.F.R. § 531.35.

Case 1:22-cv-23111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2022 Page 25 of 29
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PAGE 26 OF 29

147. Because Defendants violated the “free and clear” requirement of 29 C.F.R. § 531.35 

as alleged above, they were not entitled to utilize the FLSA’s tip-credit provision with respect to 

Plaintiffs wages.

148. Because Defendants violated the “free and clear” requirement of 29 C.F.R. § 

531.35, all monetary fees imposed on Plaintiffs are classified as illegal kickbacks. 

149. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Defendants all fees that Defendants required 

Plaintiffs to pay in order to work at Booby Trap, involving but not limited to house fees and tip 

sharing.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FORCED TIPPING, 29 C.F.R. § 531.35

(By Plaintiffs Individually and on Behalf of the Collective Against All Defendants)

150. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference and re-allege each and every allegation 

set forth in the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

151. Defendants required Plaintiffs to pay monetary fees to other Booby Trap’s 

employees who did not work in positions that are customarily and regularly tipped, in violation of 

29 U.S.C. § 203(m).

152. Defendants’ requirement that Plaintiffs pay fees to other Booby Trap’s employees 

violated the “free and clear” requirement of 29 C.F.R. § 531.35.

153. Because Defendants violated the “free and clear” requirement of 29 C.F.R. § 531.35 

as alleged above, they were not entitled to utilize the FLSA’s tip-credit provision with respect to 

Plaintiffs wages.

154. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Defendants all fees that Defendants required 

Plaintiffs to pay other employees in order to work at Booby Trap, involving but not limited to 

forced tip sharing.

Case 1:22-cv-23111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2022 Page 26 of 29
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PAGE 27 OF 29

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF FLORIDA CONSTITUTION, ART. X, § 24

(By Plaintiffs Individually Against All Defendants)

155. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference and re-allege each and every allegation

set forth in the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

156. Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiffs any wages whatsoever constitutes a willful

violation of Article X, § 24 of the Florida Constitution.

157. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to recover the applicable minimum hourly rate

specified under Florida law for each hour worked during the five (5) years preceding the filing of 

this action, restitution of fees and fines unlawfully exacted from them by the Defendants, plus

liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs of litigation.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request of this Court the following relief:

1. For compensatory damages according to proof at trial of at least $100,000;

2. For special damages according to proof at trial;

3. For restitution of unpaid monies;

4. For attorneys’ fees;

5. For costs of suit incurred herein;

6. For statutory penalties;

7. For civil penalties;

8. For pre-judgment interest;

9. For post-judgement interest;

10. For general damages in an amount to be proven at trial;

11. For declaratory relief;

Case 1:22-cv-23111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2022 Page 27 of 29
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PAGE 28 OF 29

12. For injunctive relief; and

13. For such other and further relief as the tribunal may deem just and proper.

Dated: September 21, 2022 /s/ Raymond R. Dieppa

Raymond R. Dieppa, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 27690

FLORIDA LEGAL, LLC

12550 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 405

North Miami, FL 33181-2536

Telephone: (305) 901-2209

Fax: (786) 870-4030

ray.dieppa@floridalegal.law

Frank M. Mihalic

California Bar No. 344691

CARPENTER & ZUCKERMAN

8827. West Olympic Boulevard

Beverly Hills, California 90211

Telephone: (310) 273-1230

fmihalic@cz.law

(Pro Hac Vice forthcoming)

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 1:22-cv-23111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2022 Page 28 of 29
COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PAGE 29 OF 29

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury for all such triable claims.

Dated: September 21, 2022 /s/ Raymond R. Dieppa

Raymond R. Dieppa, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 27690

FLORIDA LEGAL, LLC

12550 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 405

North Miami, FL 33181-2536

Telephone: (305) 901-2209

Fax: (786) 870-4030

ray.dieppa@floridalegal.law

Frank M. Mihalic

California Bar No. 344691

CARPENTER & ZUCKERMAN

8827. West Olympic Boulevard 

Beverly Hills, California 90211

Telephone: (310) 273-1230

fmihalic@cz.law

(Pro Hac Vice forthcoming)

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 1:22-cv-23111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2022 Page 29 of 29