UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI DIVISION 

CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/Torres 

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. 

____________________________________/ 

JOINT RESPONSE BY DEFENDANTS 450 NORTH RIVER DRIVE, LLC, 

D/B/A KIKI ON THE RIVER, ROMAN JONES, AND RJ RIVER, LLC, IN 

OPPOSITION TO CORRECTED MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL 

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

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

respective undersigned counsel, hereby file their Response in opposition to the Corrected Motion 

to Withdraw as Counsel (“Motion to Withdraw”) [ECF No. 235]1, filed by Brian H. Pollock, 

Esq., (“Mr. Pollock”) and FairLaw Firm (“the Firm”) (jointly referred to herein as “Plaintiff’s 

Counsel”), and state as follows in opposition. 

1 Plaintiff’s Counsel filed his initial Motion to Withdraw as Counsel on December 20, 2023. 

[ECF No. 233]. Plaintiff’s Counsel subsequently filed a Corrected Motion to Withdraw as 

Counsel on December 22, 2023, [ECF No. 235], and the Court then issued an Order denying as 

moot the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel [ECF No. 236]. As a result, Defendants are 

responding to the Corrected Motion to Withdraw as Counsel, [ECF No. 235]. 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 237 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2023 Page 1 of 16
CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/Torres 

2 

INTRODUCTION 

A motion to withdraw is typically unopposed under normal circumstances. However, 

Plaintiff’s Counsel’s filing and subsequent litigation of this case for approximately fifteen 

months is anything but normal. That said, Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff’s Counsel 

withdrawing from this case as long as it occurs after the Rule 11 motion that was served on 

Plaintiff’s Counsel prior to filing the Motion to Withdraw is resolved during the twenty-one (21) 

day safe harbor period or thereafter by the Court. As discussed in more detail below, Plaintiff’s 

Counsel files the Motion to Withdraw within days of hearing sworn testimony from his client 

that establishes the claims alleged in the Third Amended Complaint as well as the preceding 

three complaints, are meritless and frivolous. Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw 

facilitates the potential for him to withdraw from this case to avoid responsibility and the 

potential resulting sanctions for his frivolous filings while pretending to care for Plaintiff and the 

conditional class by seeking forty-five (45) days for them to find new counsel for claims that 

were refuted and are defeated by Plaintiff’s representative and individual testimony. Also, the 

requested extension means that the current discovery deadline of February 6, 2024, and trial date 

of June 3, 2024, will have to be continued so that another attorney can review Plaintiff’s 

deposition, interrogatory, and approximately 40,000 documents to realize what is already 

painfully apparent, this case is over and the only thing missing is a formal order by the Court. 

As the Court is aware from the extensive litigation that has resulted from Plaintiff’s 

Counsel’s three amended complaints, the claims in this case involve alleged violations of the 

Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the Florida Minimum Wage Act (“FMWA”), and Florida 

common law. The three claims are based on allegations that Defendants unlawfully retained and 

distributed tips and failed to pay the Florida minimum wage. 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 237 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2023 Page 2 of 16
CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/Torres 

3 

On December 12, 2023, however, Defendants counsel deposed Plaintiff for the first of 

two days of deposition ordered by Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes. [ECF No. 231]. 

Significantly, Magistrate Judge Otazo-Reyes’ also ordered that Plaintiff’s deposition testimony 

“shall bind him and all of the Opt-in Plaintiff” since he was testifying in a representative 

capacity. [Id.]. Lastly, the order directed Plaintiff to answer Kiki’s interrogatories. [Id.]. 

Plaintiff’s sworn deposition testimony established that the allegations pertaining to 

Defendants improperly retaining and/or distributing tips are entirely devoid of merit and 

frivolous. First, Plaintiff testified in a representative capacity that only tipped employees 

received and handled cash tips and that none of the tipped employees gave their cash tips to 

anyone prohibited from receiving tips. [See Collado’s Deposition Transcript dated December 12, 

2023 (“Collado Dep.”) attached hereto as composite Exhibit “A” at 38:1-42:8, 46:11-47:21, 

52:1-54:11, 56:13-5, 59:2-22, 61:17-64:6, 66:9-67:16, 72:4-73:7, 74:14-76:9, 77:20-79:7]. 

Second, Plaintiff testified that he received all the credit card tips that were left by Kiki’s 

customers. [Collado Dep. at 229: 8-14]. Specifically, Plaintiff testified as follows: 

Question: I’m not talking about service charges; I’m talking about discretionary 

credit card tips that were left by customers. Is it true, based on your 

testimony today [and] record exhibits that Kiki paid you all the credit card 

tips that were left by customers; is that true? 

Answer: Yes. Are we done here today? 

[Id.]. Third, Plaintiff testified that all credit card tips were entered and processed through Kiki’s 

POS system and that he was unaware of Mr. Jones or anyone else manipulating the POS to 

unlawfully retain and/or distribute credit tips: 

Question: Did you ever see anyone from Kiki’s changing the customer tips that were 

inserted or inputted into Kiki’s POS? 

Answer: No. 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 237 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2023 Page 3 of 16
CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/Torres 

4 

Question: Did you know of anybody in the class that ever witnessed anyone 

changing the customer tips that were inserted into Kiki’s POS? 

 

Answer: No. 

[Id. at 206:14-07:8]. Finally, Plaintiff provided a sworn interrogatory answer conveying that he 

was always paid an hourly rate that was above the Florida and federal minimum wage. 

Specifically, Plaintiff responded Kiki’s interrogatory as follows: 

Question: For each [week] of your employment during the 5 years prior to the filing 

of the initial Complaint through the present, do you contend that the 

combination of your hourly wage and the percentage of the service charge 

you were paid fell below the Florida or federal minimum wage? If the 

answer is yes, please state the week(s) at issue and the amount you 

contend fell below the Florida or federal minimum wage. 

Answer: No. 

[See Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant’s Request for Interrogatories (“Collado Interrogatory 

Answers”) attached hereto as “Exhibit B” at No. 6]. 

The aforementioned sworn testimony provided on December 12, 2023, and interrogatory 

answer served on December 8, 2023, establish that the allegations contained in the Third 

Amended Complaint, which is the operative pleading, as well as the allegations in the prior three 

complaints filed and signed by Plaintiff’s Counsel, are meritless and frivolous. Instead of 

voluntarily dismissing the Third Amended Complaint, however, Plaintiff’s Counsel seeks to 

withdraw from the case and to provide Plaintiff, and the conditional class pertaining to Count I, 

time to seek new counsel on claims that are refuted and defeated entirely by Plaintiff’s sworn 

deposition testimony and interrogatory answer. Significantly, Plaintiff’s Counsel “sent a letter 

sent [sic] to Mr. Collado . . . confirm[ing] his discharge” on December 13, 2023, the day 

immediately following Plaintiff’s deposition. [ECF No. 233 at 4]. 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 237 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2023 Page 4 of 16
CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/Torres 

5 

Against this backdrop, Plaintiff’s Counsel seeks an order permitting him to withdraw in 

hopes that the problems he created or allowed to occur, become the problems of another 

attorney. Plaintiff’s Counsel should not be permitted to walk away from fifteen months of 

frivolous litigation that cost several hundred thousand dollars to defend. Additionally, Plaintiff’s 

Counsel’s false and frivolous pleadings took from the Court’s time and resources to adjudicate 

two motions to dismiss [ECF No. 55, 56, 63, 137], motion for conditional certification under the 

FLSA [ECF No. 44, 65, 127], motion to certify a Rule 23 class action of the state law claims 

[ECF No. 164], and several discovery disputes [ECF No. 145, 231]. 

The forgoing demonstrates that this Motion to Withdraw is not a normal, run of the mill 

motion. As a result, Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny or stay the Motion to 

Withdraw to afford Plaintiff’s Counsel time to address the Rule 11 motion Defendants served 

prior to the filing of the Motion to Withdraw, and if the Third Amended Complaint is not 

voluntarily dismissed with prejudice during the safe harbor period, to provide Defendants the 

opportunity to file the Rule 11 motion and have it adjudicated by the Court. Should the Court 

decide to grant the Motion to Withdraw, however, Defendants respectfully request that the Court 

retain jurisdiction over the served and pending Rule 11 motion to address the fifteen months 

Defendants were forced to defend frivolous claims that were based on allegations that are 

unequivocally false as established by Plaintiff’s sworn deposition testimony and interrogatory 

answer. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF FALSE AND FRIVOLOUS FILINGS 

The conduct of Plaintiff’s Counsel in litigating this case for approximately fifteen 

months without ascertaining whether Plaintiff’s tip and minimum wage claims are viable prior 

to filing four separate frivolous complaints is demonstrated by the following procedural history. 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 237 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2023 Page 5 of 16
CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/Torres 

6 

Plaintiff’s Counsel filed a one count Complaint on September 23, 2022, claiming a violation of 

the FLSA based on the false and frivolous theory that Defendants allegedly unlawfully retained 

and/or distributed tips. [ECF No. 1]. Defendants filed an answer denying the allegations of 

unlawful conduct and liability. [ECF No. 27]. 

Plaintiff’s Counsel then filed a Statement of Claim on October 13, 2022, falsely alleging 

that Plaintiff was entitled to $174,000.00 in unpaid tips, and opt-in plaintiffs Yordan Acosta was 

owed $86,000.00 and Francis Taylor $45,000.00, which equaled a total of $305,000.00 in alleged 

unpaid tips. [ECF No. 10]. Thereafter, Plaintiff’s counsel served Defendants with the FMWA 

required pre-suit written communication on November 10, 2022, falsely claiming that the 

putative class was owed $18,928,000.00 in alleged unpaid tips. [See Plaintiff’s Minimum Wage 

Demand dated November 10, 2022 (“the Demand”), attached as Exhibit “C”]. As previously 

noted, Plaintiff disavowed the Statement of Claim and the Demand by admitting that he received 

all cash and credit card tips, and that the class had no knowledge of Mr. Jones or anyone else 

manipulating the Point of Sale (POS) to unlawfully retain and/or distribute credit tips. [See 

Collado Dep at 38:1-42:8, 46:11-47:21, 52:1-54:11, 56:13-5, 59:2-22, 61:17-64:6, 66:9-67:16, 

72:4-73:7, 74:14-76:9, 77:20-79:7, 206:14-07, 229:8-14]. 

Plaintiff’s Counsel subsequently filed an Amended Complaint on December 7, 2022, 

which falsely alleged that Plaintiff and the proposed class were entitled to recover tips under the 

FLSA (Count I), FMWA (Count II) even though the FMWA does not provide a cause of action 

to recover tips, and Florida common law (Count III). [ECF No. 40]. The Amended Complaint 

also falsely suggested that Plaintiff and the proposed class were entitled to federal minimum 

wages under the FLSA (Count I) and Florida minimum wages under the FMWA (Count II). 

[Id.]. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint asserting, among other 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 237 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2023 Page 6 of 16
CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/Torres 

7 

arguments, that Counts I and II failed to allege that Plaintiff was paid below the applicable 

federal and Florida minimum wage and that the FMWA does not create a cause of action to 

recover tips. [ECF No. 55 and 56]. 

Plaintiff’s Counsel decided not to contest Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Amended 

Complaint and instead opted to file a Second Amended Complaint that Defendants did not 

oppose to afford Plaintiff’s Counsel the opportunity to remedy the issues raised in the motion to 

dismiss the Amended Complaint. [ECF No. 57]. The Second Amended Complaint was filed on 

January 11, 2023, and again attempted to allege frivolous FLSA claims to recover tips and 

federal minimum wages (Count I); frivolous FMWA claims that sought to recover Florida 

minimum wages and/or tips (Count II), which again ignored that the FMWA does not provide a 

cause of action to recover tips; and a frivolous Florida common law claim to recover tips (Count 

III). [ECF No. 59]. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and 

again asserted, among other arguments, that Count I and II failed to allege that Plaintiff was paid 

below the applicable federal and Florida minimum wage and that the FMWA does not provide a 

cause of action to recover tips. [ECF No. 63]. 

The Court dismissed the entire Second Amended Complaint based on Defendants’ 

motion to dismiss but without prejudice to file another amended complaint. [ECF No. 112]. The 

Court explained to Plaintiff’s Counsel at the hearing that he could not establish a FMWA claim 

based on alleged unlawfully retained or distributed tips unless he alleged Plaintiff was paid on a 

tip credit basis. 

Thereafter, on April 7, 2023, Plaintiff’s Counsel filed the Third Amended Complaint, 

which is the current operative pleading. [ECF No. 122]. The Third Amended Complaint alleged 

for the fourth time an FLSA claim in Count I and for the third time a Florida common law claim 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 237 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2023 Page 7 of 16
CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/Torres 

8 

in Count III based on the false allegations that Defendants unlawfully retained and/or distributed 

tips. [Id.]. Count II of the Third Amended Complaint alleged for the third time a minimum 

wage violation under the FMWA but this time it was based on the false allegations that Plaintiff 

and the proposed class were paid on a tip credit basis and that Defendants unlawfully retained 

and/or distributed tips. [Id.]. 

Critically, the Third Amended Complaint was the first time Plaintiff’s Counsel alleged 

that Plaintiff was paid below the Florida minimum wage on a tip credit basis. [ECF No. 1, 40, 

59]. In fact, in the three prior versions of the complaints he signed and filed, Plaintiff’s Counsel 

claimed that Plaintiff was paid an hourly wage that was supplemented by a service charge. [Id.] 

In the Third Amended Complaint, however, Plaintiff’s Counsel conveniently failed to mention 

the commissions Plaintiff was paid from the service charge. [ECF No. 122]. It is clear 

Plaintiff’s Counsel omitted the reference to the service charge, which he previously recognized 

in the three prior signed and filed complaints, to suggest in bad faith that Plaintiff was paid on a 

tip credit basis below the Florida minimum wage. That false allegation was intended to 

circumvent the basis for the Court’s prior dismissal of the FMWA claim included in the Second 

Amended Complaint. 

As established by the previously quoted deposition testimony and interrogatory answer, 

Plaintiff’s Counsel’s claims in the Third Amended Complaint alleging Defendants improperly 

retained and/or distributed cash tips and failed to pay the Florida minimum wage are entirely 

devoid of merit and frivolous. As a result, Defendants respectfully submit that Plaintiff’s 

Counsel cannot be allowed to wash his hands of the pleadings that he signed and filed by 

withdrawing from this case even if the withdrawal is based, as alleged in the Motion to 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 237 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2023 Page 8 of 16
CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/Torres 

9 

Withdraw but not supported with a written exhibit, on Plaintiff discharging Mr. Pollock and the 

Firm. 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

 

I. Legal Standard for Motion to Withdraw 

This Court’s Local Rules explain that “no attorney shall withdraw the attorney’s 

appearance in any action or proceeding except by leave of Court after notice is served on the 

attorney’s client and opposing counsel.” S.D. Fla. L. R. 11.1(d)(3)(A). Additionally, the 

Eleventh Circuit has held that “it is incumbent on the court to assure that . . . the withdrawal of 

counsel is for good cause.” Mekdeci v. Merrell Nat’l Laboratories, Div. of Richardson-Merrell, 

Inc., 711 F.2d 1510, 1522-23 (11th Cir. 1983) (quoting Broughten v. Voss, 634 F.2d 880, 882-83 

(5th Cir. 1981). Therefore, the court is afforded discretion in determining whether counsel is 

permitted to withdraw from pending litigation. Innovative Genetics, LLC v. Flavocure Biotech, 

LLC, No. 21-21457-CV-Williams, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70300, at *1-2 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 10, 

2023) (denying the attorney’s motion to withdraw because the attorney failed to show good 

cause and the client was a limited liability corporation that could not proceed pro se). 

Generally, courts in the Southern District of Florida rely on several factors when 

evaluating whether a motion to withdraw should be granted or denied. The factors that the 

courts typically consider are the following: “1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; 2) the 

prejudice that might result from withdrawal; 3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the 

administration of justice; and 4) the degree to which withdrawal will cause a delay in the 

resolution of the case.” See United States v. Travers, 996 F. Supp. 6, (S.D. Fla. 1998) (emphasis 

added); see also, Bowes v. Haymore, No. 13-14304-CIV-2015-Graham/Lynch, 2015 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 195617, at *3-4 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 31, 2015). 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 237 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2023 Page 9 of 16
CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/Torres 

10 

II. Argument 

The facts and procedural history of this case establish that the four factors courts consider 

when evaluating an attorney’s request to withdraw weigh in favor of denying or staying the 

Motion to Withdraw to afford Plaintiff’s Counsel time to address the Rule 11 motion Defendants 

served prior to the filing of the Motion to Withdraw, and if the Third Amended Complaint is not 

voluntarily dismissed with prejudice during the safe harbor period, to provide Defendants the 

opportunity to file the Rule 11 motion and have it adjudicated by the Court. 

A. The Reasons why Withdrawal is Sought Weighs in Favor of Denying 

or Staying the Motion to Withdraw. 

As previously stated, Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw facilitates the potential 

for him to withdraw from this case to avoid responsibility and the potential resulting sanctions 

for the false and frivolous claims contained in the Third Amended Complaint. Considering the 

manner Plaintiff’s Counsel litigated this case for fifteen months, which included filing four 

signed complaints that contained false allegations pertaining to Defendants unlawfully retaining 

and distributing tips and failing to pay minimum wage, as well as demanding $18,928,000.00 in 

alleged unpaid tips in his FMWA required pre-suit demand, it is insufficient for Plaintiff’s 

Counsel to merely convey, without written proof, that he was “discharged.” See Mekdeci, 711 

F.2d at 522-23 (“it is incumbent on the court to assure that . . . the withdrawal of counsel is for 

good cause”) (emphasis added) (quoting Broughten 634 F.2d at 882-83). 

In fact, Defendants respectfully submit that it is plausible, if not an actual reason, that 

Plaintiff discharged Mr. Pollock and the Firm because he does not want to continue with this 

litigation considering he testified under oath on December 12, 2023, that he received all tips, he 

and the class have no knowledge of the POS being manipulated to take tips, and was paid above

the Florida minimum wage during his employment with Kiki. [Collado Dep. at 38:1-42:8, 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 237 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2023 Page 10 of 16
CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/Torres 

11 

46:11-47:21, 52:1-54:11, 56:13-5, 59:2-22, 61:17-64:6, 66:9-67:16, 72:4-73:7, 74:14-76:9, 

77:20-79:7, 206:14-07:8, 229: 8-14; Collado Interrogatory Answers at No. 6]. Then, on the day 

immediately after Plaintiff’s deposition, Plaintiff’s Counsel claims he sent a written 

communication to Plaintiff and the conditional class “to confirm his discharge.” [ECF No. 233 

at 4]. Those facts beg the question as to whether Plaintiff discharged Mr. Pollock and the Firm 

because he wants to dismiss his case. As a result, Plaintiff’s self-serving representation in the 

Motion to Withdraw about being discharged is insufficient to permit him to walk away from this 

case without first addressing the four false and frivolous complaints he filed, which include the 

no longer sustainable Third Amended Complaint. 

B. The Prejudice that Will Result from Withdrawal Weighs in Favor of 

Denying or Staying the Motion to Withdraw. 

In this case, it is imperative that the Court consider the prejudice to Defendants if 

Plaintiff’s Counsel is allowed to withdraw prior to addressing the false and frivolous pleadings 

that culminated in and includes the signed filing of the Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiff’s 

Counsel sustained this litigation for fifteen months on the patently false claims and allegations 

repeatedly presented even though Defendants challenged the sufficiency of the complaints 

through the filings of two motions to dismiss. [ECF No. 55, 56, 63, 137]. Nevertheless, 

Plaintiff’s Counsel continued this litigation and alleged “facts” and claims that have been proven 

to be untrue and meritless, as confirmed by Plaintiff’s deposition testimony and interrogatory 

answer. Plaintiff’s Counsel’s disregard of the facts or failure to ascertain them, resulted in the 

expenditure of several hundred thousand dollars defending against the false claims and 

allegations contained in the Third Amended Complaint, and an investment of an incredible 

amount of human capital that included the production of approximately forty thousand (40,000) 

documents during the litigation. See Rhinehart v. CBE Group, Inc., 714 F. Supp. 2d 1183, 1186 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 237 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2023 Page 11 of 16
CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/Torres 

12 

n. 5 (M.D. Fla. 2010) (emphasizing that “counsel’s obligations are not measured solely at the 

time of filing because a party or counsel has a continuing obligation to advise the court of any 

changes regarding the veracity of information before the court”) (emphasis added). Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s Counsel must be required to finish what he started by addressing the pending Rule 11 

motion that Defendants served prior to the filing of the Motion to Withdraw because permitting 

him to walk away without doing so is prejudicial to Defendants when considering the legal fees 

and costs spent defending against the frivolous claims and allegations contained in the pleadings 

he signed and filed, including the Third Amended Complaint. 

C. The Harm Withdrawal will Cause to the Administration of Justice 

Weighs in Favor of Denying or Staying the Motion to Withdraw. 

Looking forward in this case, the administration of justice will be significantly harmed 

should Plaintiff’s Counsel be allowed to withdraw prior to addressing the Rule 11 motion 

because it would permit him to exit the case in the face of sworn testimony and interrogatory 

answers that entirely and unequivocally defeat all the claims contained in the Third Amended 

Complaint that he signed and filed. Thus, Plaintiff’s Counsel gets to walk away while leaving a 

meritless and frivolous case pending before the Court, which will unnecessarily extend the 

duration of a case that does not belong on the docket and will result in additional work for the 

Court and the needless expenditure and waste of the Court’s time, judicial resources, and 

taxpayer dollars. 

Moreover, permitting Plaintiff’s Counsel to withdraw prior to addressing the pending 

Rule 11 motion also has broader implications beyond this case as it relates to the administration 

of justice. Such a scenario sends the message that an attorney’s conduct during litigation is only 

a motion to withdraw away from being beyond the reach of the Court for purposes of addressing 

and sanctioning attorney conduct that is subject to a Rule 11 motion. Defendants respectfully 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 237 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2023 Page 12 of 16
CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/Torres 

13 

submit that the long-term consequences of such a message is detrimental to the administration of 

justice in this and all future cases. 

D. The Degree to Which Withdrawal will Cause a Delay in the 

Resolution of the Case Weighs in Favor of Denying or Staying the 

Motion to Withdraw. 

Any delay in this case is unwarranted and prejudicial at this juncture because of 

Plaintiff’s sworn deposition testimony and interrogatory answer discrediting and defeating the 

claims contained in the Third Amended Complaint. Again, Plaintiff testified in a representative 

capacity that only tipped employees received and handled cash tips and that none of the tipped 

employees gave their cash tips to anyone prohibited from receiving tips. [See Collado Dep. at 

38:1-42:8, 46:11-47:21, 52:1-54:11, 56:13-5, 59:2-22, 61:17-64:6, 66:9-67:16, 72:4-73:7, 74:14-

76:9, 77:20-79:7]. Plaintiff also testified that he received all the credit card tips that were left by 

Kiki’s customers. [Collado Dep. at 229: 8-14]. Specifically, Plaintiff testified as follows: 

Question: I’m not talking about service charges; I’m talking about discretionary 

credit card tips that were left by customers. Is it true, based on your 

testimony today [and] record exhibits that Kiki paid you all the credit card 

tips that were left by customers; is that true? 

Answer: Yes. Are we done here today? 

[Id.]. Significantly, Plaintiff testified in a representative capacity as follows regarding the POS: 

Question: Did you ever see anyone from Kiki’s changing the customer tips that were 

inserted or inputted into Kiki’s POS? 

Answer: No. 

Question: Did you know of anybody in the class that ever witnessed anyone 

changing the customer tips that were inserted into Kiki’s POS? 

 

Answer: No. 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 237 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2023 Page 13 of 16
CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/Torres 

14 

[Id. at 206:14-07:8]. Finally, Plaintiff provided a sworn interrogatory answer conveying that he 

was always paid an hourly rate that was above the Florida and federal minimum wage. [See

Collado Interrogatory Answers at No. 6]. 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s Counsel’s request to afford Plaintiff and the conditional class fortyfive (45) days to seek new counsel means that the current discovery deadline of February 6, 

2024, and trial date of June 3, 2024, will have to be continued so that another attorney can 

review Plaintiff’s deposition, interrogatory, and approximately 40,000 documents to realize what 

is already known, this case is over and the only thing missing is a formal Court order. 

Accordingly, any continuances of the existing deadlines and trial date will unnecessarily delay 

the resolution of this case and result in additional prejudice to Defendants. 

CONCLUSION 

WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully requests that the Court enter an Order: (a) 

denying or staying the Motion to Withdraw until such time as Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions 

is resolved by Plaintiff’s Counsel during the twenty-one (21) day safe harbor period or thereafter 

by the Court, or (b) should the Court grant the Motion to Withdraw, retaining jurisdiction of the 

served and pending Rule 11 motion to address the fifteen months Defendants were forced to 

defend frivolous claims that were based on allegations that are unequivocally false as established 

by Plaintiff’s sworn deposition testimony and interrogatory answer, and (c) granting such further 

relief as the Court deems appropriate. 

Dated: December 22, 2023 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 237 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2023 Page 14 of 16
CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/Torres 

15 

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 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

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

December 22, 2023, on all counsel of record on the Service List below via transmission of 

Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. 

 s/ Roman Sarangoulis 

 Roman Sarangoulis, Esq. 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 237 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2023 Page 15 of 16
CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/Torres 

16 

SERVICE LIST 

Brian Pollock, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 174742 

Email: brian@fairlawattorney.com 

FAIRLAW FIRM 

135 San Lorenzo Ave. 

Coral Gables, Florida 33146 

Telephone: (305) 230-4884 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Reynaldo Velazquez, Esq. 

Florida Bar No.: 069779 

Email: rey.velazquez@jacksonlewis.com 

Roman Sarangoulis, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 1011944 

Email: roman.sarangoulis@jacksonlewis.com

JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 

One Biscayne Tower 

2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3500 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Telephone: 305-577-7600 

Counsel for 450 North River Drive, LLC, d/b/a 

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 

Attorneys for RJ River, LLC

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 237 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2023 Page 16 of 16