UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI DIVISION 

CASE NO. 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES 

OCTAVIO COLLADO 

For himself and all others 

similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

450 NORTH RIVER DRIVE, LLC, 

D/B/A KIKI ON THE RIVER, 

RJ RIVER, LLC, AND 

ROMAN JONES, 

Defendants. 

_______________________________________/

DEFENDANTS 450 NORTH RIVER DRIVE, LLC, D/B/A KIKI ON THE RIVER, RJ 

RIVER, LLC, AND ROMAN JONES’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 

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

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

undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), hereby file their joint Motion for 

Protective Order. Defendants state the following in support thereof. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

Plaintiff Octavio Collado’s (“Mr. Collado”) and his counsel, Plaintiff’s counsel Brian 

Pollock’s, Esq. (“Mr. Pollock”), should be prohibited in their communications with putative class 

members. Specifically, Mr. Pollock continues to communicate with putative class members via 

TikTok1 videos relating to the pending action, which are posted on his law firm’s public account. 

1

 TikTok is a popular social media and video-sharing application that allows users to create 

and share videos that can be viewed by the public and/or other TikTok users. TikTok accounts 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2023 Page 1 of 7
CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES 

2 

On February 12, 2023, Mr. Pollock uploaded his first TikTok video relating this action (the 

“February 12 TikTok”).2 The February 12 TikTok includes misleading information because it 

implies Defendants improperly distributed tips, which is not accurate. On February 17, 2023, the 

day Defendants filed their Response to the Motion for Conditional Certification of a Collective 

Action (the “Response”), Mr. Pollock uploaded a second video relating to this case and the 

Response (the “February 17 TikTok”). The February 17 TikTok also contains misleading 

information about the reasons why Defendants opposed the Motion for Conditional Certification 

of a Collective Action.3 

As a result, the Court should (1) prohibit Mr. Pollock’s, and his clients’, communications 

with putative class members until there is a ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion for Conditional 

Certification of a Collective Action; (2) require that Mr. Pollock cease the posting of any further 

videos, posts, tweets, messages, etc. on any social media platforms, including TikTok, about the 

pending action; and (3) order that any and all currently posted videos, posts, tweets, messages, etc. 

relating to this action be deleted from any and all social media platforms in his control or the 

control of his law firm. 

ARGUMENT AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW 

“[D]istrict courts are empowered with relatively broad discretion to prohibit 

communications between parties and putative class members.” Longcrier v. HL-A Co. 595 F. 

Supp. 2d 1218, 1226 (S.D. Ala. 2008); See also, Martin v. Partsbase, Inc., No. 20-80235-CivBrannon, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 248626, at *16-17 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 7, 2020). “This is particularly 

can be private or public. The account maintained by Plaintiff’s Counsel’s firm, @fairlawfirm, is 

a public account at the time of this filing. 

2

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

3

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

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2023 Page 2 of 7
CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES 

3 

true to limit ‘communications with putative collective members when such communications cross 

the boundaries of propriety, including when the communications are unbalanced, misleading, or 

factually inaccurate.'” Id. The purpose of prohibiting communications with putative class 

members is to allow the court to oversee the action. Martin v. Partsbase, Inc., 2020 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 248626, at *17. If a court does not oversee communications between parties or counsel 

and putative class members the communications can “obstruct [the] Court in the discharge of its 

duties to oversee [the] collective action, and [it] undermines the integrity of the judicial process.” 

Id. To be entitled to relief from contacting putative class members the moving party must show 

(1) a communication occurred or be threatened to occur and (2) the communication at issue 

threatens the proper functioning of litigation. Jones v. Jeld-Wen, Inc., 250 F.D.R. 554, 561-62 

(S.D. Fla. 2008). Here, both prongs are met. 

Mr. Pollock has communicated with putative class members through uploading of the 

February 12 and 17 TikToks. See 

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

https://www.tiktok.com/@fairlawfirm/video/7201226796317084970. As noted above, Mr. 

Pollock’s law firm’s TikTok account is a public account that can be accessed and viewed by 

anyone, including putative class members. It is apparent that this video reached its intended 

audience of putative class members because since the February 12 TikTok was posted six (6) new 

individuals have opted into this lawsuit. Therefore, the first prong is established. 

Further, Mr. Pollock’s videos are misleading and only provide his audience with one side 

of the story while leaving Defendants with no opportunity for Defendants to respond. For example, 

in the February 12 TikTok Mr. Pollock misleads his audience by stating the following: 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2023 Page 3 of 7
CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES 

4 

We filed this lawsuit in federal court and we’re proceeding against Kiki on the 

River and its corporate owners to recover the tips that were either unlawfully 

retained or improperly distributed to traditionally non-tipped employees. 

See https://www.tiktok.com/@fairlawfirm/video/7200398055902924074. However, there 

has been no adjudication pertaining to the tips at issue in this case and Defendants have no redress 

to respond to these claims. Accordingly, Mr. Pollock’s statement conveys a one-sided story that is 

misleading and subject to the incorrect interpretation that Kiki and its “corporate owners” violated 

the law. 

Further, Mr. Pollock states in the February 17 TikTok that Kiki has opposed Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Conditional Certification of a Collective Action, and that such opposition "means" 

defendants do not want to let opposing counsel inform current and former employees of their 

rights about this lawsuit. https://www.tiktok.com/@fairlawfirm/video/7201226796317084970. 

Mr. Pollock’s statement is (1) not true and (2) a gross oversimplification of the issues associated 

with Kiki's right to and the reasons for disputing conditional class certification. Mr. Pollock’s 

statement again portrays Jones and Kiki in a negative light to indirectly solicit current and former 

restaurant employees. 

Said point is illustrated later in the February 17 TikTok when Mr. Pollock essentially 

invites current and former non-party employees to the courthouse for the settlement 

conference. Not surprisingly, non-parties appeared at the settlement conference and 

Defendants objected to their participation. As a result, the Court was required to add the nonparties as opt-in plaintiffs during the settlement conference to facilitate their 

participation. Opposing counsel’s February 17 TikTok, as reflected by the appearance of nonparties at the settlement conference, amounts to a second successful end run and willful 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2023 Page 4 of 7
CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES 

5 

undermining of the Court's authority to determine whether, how, and when to provide notification 

of the option to join this lawsuit. 

Mr. Pollock’s continued posting of videos relating to this action leave Defendants with no 

choice but to file the instant motion. Mr. Pollock should be prohibited from disseminating onesided and inaccurate information about the case to putative class members—especially when there 

has been no ruling on whether this case will be conditionally certified as a collective action. 

Plaintiff is attempting to use his online presence to usurp the Court’s authority to oversee and 

mange this case, and has effectively done so as is demonstrated by the influx of putative class 

member since the February 12 posting. As a result, Defendant requests the Court grant its Motion 

for Protective Order. 

CONCLUSION 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2023 Page 5 of 7
CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES 

6 

CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH 

Defendants hereby certify that movant attempted to conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel 

regarding the matters set forth in this Motion via email on March 2, 2023. Plaintiff’s counsel has 

not responded to the conferral; however, based on prior communications regarding the issues 

presented in this Motion Defendants anticipate Plaintiff objecting to the relief sought. 

Nevertheless, due to the nature of the requested relief and time being of the essence Defendants 

submit this motion in good faith. 

Dated: March 2, 2023 

Respectfully submitted, 

JACKSON LEWIS P.C. Levine & Partners, P.A. 

One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3500 3350 Mary Street 

Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33133 

Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone: (305) 372-1352 

Telephone: (305) 577-7600 

/s/ Reynaldo Velazquez /s/ Allan Reiss________________ 

Reynaldo Velazquez, Esq. Allan Reiss, Esq 

Florida Bar No.: 069779 Florida Bar No. 858500 

Email: rey.velazquez@jacksonlewis.com Email: asr@levinelawfirm.com

Roman Sarangoulis, Esq. Counsel for RJ River, LLC

Florida Bar No. 1011944 

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 

March 2, 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 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2023 Page 6 of 7
CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES 

7 

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 

Facsimile: 305-373-4466 

Counsel for 450 North River Drive, LLC, Kiki on 

the River and Roman Jones

Allan Reiss, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 858500 

Email: Asr@Levinelawfirm.com 

Levine & Partners, P.A. 

3350 Mary Street 

Miami, Florida 33133 

Telephone: (305) 372-1352 

Facsimile: (305) 372-1352 

Attorneys for RJ River, LLC

4886-5059-4388, v. 1

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2023 Page 7 of 7