135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

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

OCTAVIO COLLADO,

Plaintiff,

vs.

450 NORTH RIVER DRIVE, LLC 

D/B/A KIKI ON THE RIVER 

AND ROMAN JONES,

Defendants.

______________________________/

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §1927

AGAINST BRIAN H. POLLOCK, ESQ. AND FAIRLAW FIRM

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 250 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2024 Page 1 of 22
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

I. INTRODUCTION

The undersigned did not engage in any bad faith conduct for which sanctions could be 

imposed under 28 U.S.C. §1927 or the Court’s inherent authority. The undersigned did not 

multiply these proceedings, pursue them vexatiously, or act in bad faith. Defendants do not claim 

that the undersigned had any prior knowledge that Mr. Collado would testify inconsistent with the 

information he previously disclosed to the undersigned, reviewed with the undersigned, or 

provided by the members of the collective he was appointed to represent. The reason is likely 

because no such evidence exists. The Defendants tacitly acknowledge that the undersigned was

blindsided by Mr. Collado’s deposition testimony but, despite their purported outrage, ignore Mr. 

Collado’s culpability. Although Mr. Collado’s surprise deposition testimony contrasted with the 

declarations and interrogatory answers he signed under penalty of perjury, Defendants have given

him a complete pass for the testimony he gave for reasons unknown to the undersigned. [Compare

ECF Nos. 44-1 (also filed at 127-1), 65-1, 234-4, with Depo. Collado appended hereto as Exhibit

“1”.] The Court properly determines that the undersigned engaged in no sanctionable conduct.

Defendants’ suggestion that the undersigned “should have been able to determine from the 

outset of this case that Plaintiff did not have any viable claims” is absurd. [ECF No. 243 at 2.] First, 

there has been no disposition on the merits or the viability of any claims. In fact, discovery was 

never completed: Mr. Collado’s deposition was not completed, Defendants never produced any 

witnesses for deposition, and not all written discovery was conducted. Next, 450 North River Drive, 

LLC admitted to the claims alleged in its answers to Plaintiff’s initial Interrogatories Nos. 4 and 19

by conceding to have misappropriated tips. [ECF No. 122-1.] Lastly, the Court never made a 

dispositive adverse ruling on any pending claims, rendering Defendants’ reliance on the viability 

of the claims pled purely speculative. If the Court dismisses Mr. Collado’s claims for his failure to 

comply with the Order entered on January 9, 2024 [ECF No. 241], as Defendants request in their 

other pending Motion [ECF No. 249], there likely will be no substantive merits rulings.

Defendants also contend that the undersigned vexatiously multiplied these proceedings by 

delaying Mr. Collado’s answer to Interrogatory No. 6, wherein he acknowledged that the hourly 

wage and service charges he received exceeded the FMWA’s minimum wage. [ECF No. 243-4.]

This is a red herring argument; that Mr. Collado’s hourly wages and service charges exceeded the 

FMWA amount was never disputed. Plus, Defendants created and maintained Mr. Collado’s time 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 250 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2024 Page 2 of 22
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

and pay records, so the notion that they needed Mr. Collado’s answer to Interrogatory No. 6 is 

disingenuous. The timing (and contents) of Mr. Collado’s interrogatory answer was meaningless

because they already had better and more information than what he attested to.

Defendants blame the undersigned for the continued prosecution of the FMWA claim 

contained in the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”). However, Defendants have yet to identify 

any authority decided since the Consolidated Appropriations Act amended the FLSA (by including 

29 U.S.C. §203(m)(2)(B)) precluding a claim under the FMWA to recover only (and all of) the tips 

unlawfully distributed or withheld. Without any authority addressing whether the FMWA 

incorporated §203(m)(2)(B) to allow a claim to recover only misappropriated tips, regardless of the

wage paid, Defendants cannot legitimately claim that omitting unnecessary allegations from the 

TAC prevented an adverse decision by the Court (or provide a basis to sanction the undersigned).

The court never reached this novel legal issue due to the Defendants’ procedural blunder of 

violating Rule 12(g) by filing a motion to strike followed by a motion to dismiss. [See ECF No. 152.] 

Even if the Court considered their motion to dismiss and ruled for Defendants, there would still be 

no reason to impose 28 U.S.C. §1927 or the Court’s inherent authority for the undersigned’s 

legitimate pursuit of a novel legal theory.

The undersigned litigated this case ethically and appropriately and then promptly withdrew

upon being discharged by Mr. Collado. With the multiple witness interviews conducted, thousands 

of pages of documents reviewed and analyzed, multiple conversations with Mr. Collado, and sworn 

statements received, the undersigned could not know that Mr. Collado would commit litigation 

suicide in his deposition on December 12, 2023. Mr. Collado testified contrary to the information 

he provided to the undersigned, the information discussed during his pre-deposition conference, 

his prior sworn statements, the analysis of the documents exchanged in discovery, the sworn 

Declarations of record, seemingly intending to commit as much collateral damage as possible.

[Compare ECF Nos. 44-1 (also filed at 127-1), 65-1, 234-4, with Exhibit “1”.]

The Court properly denies the Defendants’ requests for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. §1927 

and its inherent authority, just like it denied their prior request to sanction the undersigned under 

Rule 11. The Defendants lack any – let alone clear or convincing – evidence establishing any bad 

faith conduct by the undersigned. The circumstances presented and baseless nature of Defendants’

motion are more properly address by the court’s inherent authority to impose sanctions.

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 250 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2024 Page 3 of 22
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

II. BACKGROUND

Undersigned counsel has appeared as counsel of record in over 550 cases in this Court since 

his admission to this Court without being sanctioned. The undersigned respects the integrity of this 

Court, his ethical obligations, and the legal process by devoting resources to investigating cases 

before filing them, abandoning baseless claims, and conducting himself professionally during 

litigation. This case reflected more of the same by the undersigned. Although Defendants pursue

sanctions against the undersigned after being blindsided by Mr. Collado’s testimony, information 

they already had, and for pursuing a novel legal theory, they inexplicably seek no recourse against 

Mr. Collado for mysteriously disavowing nearly all pertinent facts to which he attested in his 

deposition. As explained in more detail below, the factual and procedural history of this case dispels 

any notion of impropriety by the undersigned.

III. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1. The undersigned first spoke with Mr. Collado on July 8, 2022. 

2. Mr. Collado explained that he had experience working in restaurants in South 

Florida before working for the Defendants, including Joe’s Stone Crab, and that he knew the 

difference between tips and service charges due to his acknowledgment of the “Salt Bae case” that 

was decided several months before and its impact on the distribution of service charges.1

3. During this initial consultation, Mr. Collado described how Defendants print out a 

sheet containing small print identifying, for each payroll period, everyone who received tips from 

the tip pool and the amount distributed to each after he started working at Kiki on the River 

(“Kiki”). Mr. Collado recognized people listed on the printout as getting tips who should not have 

been in the tip pool. 

4. Mr. Collado explained that he complained to Roman Jones about the distribution 

of the tips to non-tipped employees and discussed Mr. Jones’ response to him.

5. Mr. Collado was adamant that he was owed a lot of money in tips from Kiki, urged 

1 The “Salt Bae case” reference was to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Compere v. Nusret 

Miami, LLC, 28 F.4th 1180 (11th Cir. 2022). The significance of his reference to the “Salt Bae” case is to demonstrate 

Mr. Collado’s ability to distinguish distinction between a service charge and a tip/gratuity/overtip. The undersigned’s 

discussions with Mr. Collado and the other former employees at Kiki revealed consistent themes, including that Kiki 

misappropriated the voluntary gratuities left by patrons (tips), that Roman Jones would be considered an “employer” 

under the FLSA and the FMWA, and that the misappropriated tip damages at issue would be significant. 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 250 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2024 Page 4 of 22
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

the undersigned to claim as many years back as possible, and actively urged those who worked at 

Kiki to contact the undersigned about recovering the tips misappropriated at Kiki.

6. The undersigned discussed with Mr. Collado that although the distribution of tips

is regulated by law, no laws protect or restrict the distribution of service charges and that he would 

only be able to seek recovery of the gratuities voluntarily left by patrons as tips but not a portion of 

the service charges Kiki automatically included in the bills.

7. Before filing the complaint, the undersigned further investigated the claims to be 

pursued by collecting documents from him, and by speaking with others who contacted the 

undersigned concerned about the distribution of tips at Kiki (Yordan Acosta and Francis Taylor),

by reviewing their documents, and by conducting legal and other factual research. 

8. Messrs. Collado,. Acosta, and. Taylor each separately talked about problems with 

the distribution of tips, that the tips they received did not seem accurate, why the tips they received 

did not seem accurate, that ineligible persons received tips from the tip pool, tips that they believed 

never were deposited into the tip pool, and Roman Jones’ involvement in their work.

9. After multiple individuals separately confirmed Mr. Collado’s information about 

the improper retention and distribution of tips, and after reviewing documentation, the 

undersigned filed the instant lawsuit on September 23, 2022. [ECF No. 1.]

10. The undersigned emailed a letter to Mr. Collado on September 29, 2022, 

explaining the status of his case and enclosing a copy of the Complaint.

2

11. At times, someone who consulted and/or retained the undersigned’s law firm would 

complain about how Kiki collected, did not collect, or distributed the service charge it imposed on 

customers. The undersigned either personally clarified or made sure his staff explained and 

clarified the difference between a tip and a service charge, and that the case only involved tips. 

12. After working with Mr. Collado, Mr. Acosta, and Mr. Taylor to discuss the tips at 

issue and the amounts each estimated to be at issue, the undersigned prepared the Statement of 

Claim [ECF No. 10]. The undersigned emailed each a letter explaining the Statement of Claim, 

enclosed a copy, and requested they advise him of any problems with it. [ECF No. 10.] None

2 The undersigned provided a copy of the operative Complaint to Mr. Collado and each other person who 

joined this lawsuit, and at no time did Mr. Collado or anyone else inform the undersigned of any factual inaccuracies 

in any of the operative Complaints.

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 250 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2024 Page 5 of 22
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

informed the undersigned of any problems with or inaccuracies in the Statement of Claim.

13. The undersigned’s investigation into the facts underlying this case did not end with

the filing of the initial Complaint, as the undersigned and other members of his office spoke with 

more former employees of the Defendants about their experiences involving the tips at Kiki.

14. For instance, the undersigned also spoke with Ines Berzina, Jovana Majetic, Andrea 

Compaoresi, and Andreas Bouras to discuss the information they had about the distribution and 

retention of tips, and they provided information that paralleled the information provided by 

Messrs. Collado, Acosta, and Taylor.

15. In a conversation with one former Kiki employee who was eligible to participate in 

the tip pool who did not join the case, the undersigned learned that managers (specifically naming 

Xandra Hollow) would log into the Point of Sale (“POS”) system as Captains, receive points as if 

they were Captains, and receive distribution of tips from the tip pool, even though they were 

ineligible managers.

16. Others who worked at Kiki informed the undersigned that members of Sia 

Hemmati’s family did not actually work in tipped positions at the restaurant but still received tips 

from the tip pool.3 One person identified Mr. Hemmati’s daughter as someone who did not work 

in a tipped position at Kiki but who received tips from the tip pool.

17. Meanwhile, the office of the undersigned worked with Mr. Collado, Mr. Acosta, 

Mr. Taylor, Augusto Guerra, and Patricia Buraschi to help estimate and calculate the tips at issue 

under the FMWA before sending a letter demanding the recovery of tips for them and others 

similarly situated to the Defendants on November 10, 2022, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §448.110 and 

Art. X, §24, Fla. Const., while providing copies to each person named in the letter as a claimant.

None thereafter identified any factual inaccuracies with the letter.

18. This letter estimated 56 eligible employees for 260 weeks, and was based on the 

information obtained from Mr. Collado, Mr. Acosta, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Guerra, and Ms. Buraschi, 

and “subject to revision/adjustment based on the records” maintained by Defendants.4 The letter 

also stated that it was based on “the absence of actual paychecks to [my clients] and the class and 

3 Sia Hemmati is the Managing Partner of 450 North River Drive, LLC. [122-1 at 6.] 4 On July 24, 2023, Defendants identified another 358 people who had not yet joined the lawsuit and who 

were eligible to receive notice of their rights of the assemblage of a collective action for the three years at issue in 

Count I.

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 250 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2024 Page 6 of 22
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

the records reflecting the gratuities left by patrons and the gratuities paid out.” 

19. The undersigned filed an Amended Complaint on December 7, 2022, to include 

claims to recover the tips unlawfully retained or distributed under the FLSA, the Florida Minimum 

Wage Act, and Florida common law after the deadline to resolve the FMWA demand letter passed. 

[ECF No. 40.] A copy of this letter was sent to Mr. Collado, who did not identify any factual 

inaccuracies to the undersigned.

20. Mr. Collado remained in contact with the undersigned. During one telephone 

conversation that occurred on December 7, 2022, Mr. Collado recounted a situation in which Ciro 

Constanzo, a former General Manager, told him $900,000 in tips was distributed amongst Roman 

Jones, Aris Nanos, and Sia Hemmatti in one year, and that another owner – Lee Lyons – was not 

aware of this situation. Mr. Collado also identified Defendants as using Unify Employee as their 

payroll company and City National Bank for their corporate accounts during the call.

21. During the same conversation with Mr. Collado on December 7, 2022, he recalled 

and described a situation when he complained to Roman Jones and John Maria about the 

distribution of the tips at Kiki.

22. The undersigned then sent a corrected FMWA demand letter to Defendants on 

December 8, 2022, to address a scrivener’s error in the prior FMWA demand letter, again emailing 

copies of it to those identified in the letters as a claimant, and none advised the undersigned of any 

facts incorrectly stated therein.

23. To assemble a collective action, the undersigned filed a Motion for Conditional 

Certification on January 19, 2022 [ECF No. 44].

24. Mr. Collado executed a Declaration on December 13, 2022, and Mr. Guerra on 

December 19, 2022, after each confirmed the facts contained therein were true and correct. [ECF 

Nos. 44-1, 44-2.] 

25. Each described, in his Declaration, the differences between the service charges 

imposed by Kiki and gratuities (tips or overtips) left by customers, and that each was paid with “an 

hourly wage less than the applicable minimum wage, commissions (or service charges), and tips,”

along with other factual details. [ECF Nos. 44-1 at ¶¶11, 15, 16; 44-2 at ¶¶14, 16, 17.]

26. The undersigned then filed the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on January 

11, 2023 [ECF No. 59] and provided copies of it by email to Mr. Collado and the others who had 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 250 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2024 Page 7 of 22
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

joined the case by then. The SAC alleged that Defendants paid a direct hourly wage that was “less 

than” or “below” the federal and Florida minimum wages. Id. at ¶¶8, 28, 40, 90, 98, 109. 

27. Defendants requested the Court to dismiss the SAC by contending that they were 

confused about whether Count I sought relief under 29 U.S.C. §203(m)(2)(B) as a claim for tip 

confiscation and retention or for recovery of minimum wages, by contending that Count II was 

not viable because the FMWA does not permit a claim for tip confiscation and retention absent a 

minimum wage violation, and by claiming that Count III was not viable because Florida law does 

not consider tips as wages. [ECF No. 63.] 

28. The undersigned filed a Response in Opposition to the Defendants’ Motion to 

Dismiss directed to the SAC, to which the Defendants filed a Reply. [ECF Nos. 64, 69.]

29. To assemble a collective action for Count I of the SAC, the undersigned file a 

Renewed Motion for Conditional Certification on January 27, 2022 [ECF No. 65.]Messrs. 

Collado, Guerra, and Taylor executed Declarations in support of the Motion, wherein each 

described his experiences at Kiki, the differences between the service charges (imposed by Kiki) 

and gratuities (tips or overtips left by customers), and identified how each received as pay “an 

hourly wage less than the applicable minimum wage, commissions (or service charges), and tips.” 

[ECF Nos. 65-1 at ¶¶13, 17; 65-2 at ¶¶17-19; 65-3 at ¶22.] Messrs. Collado, Guerra, and Taylor 

each attested to not receiving all the tips they should have received because Defendants improperly 

or failed to distribute them. [ECF Nos. 65-1 at ¶18, 65-2 at ¶21, 65-3 at ¶23.]

30. Defendants then admitted to liability by conceding that discrepancies existed in the 

distribution of the tips at issue in this lawsuit in their February 8, 2023, Answers to Plaintiff’s 

Interrogatories Nos. 4 and 19, validating the basis for pursuing recovery of tips for Mr. Collado 

and the others who worked at Kiki. [ECF No. 122-1.] 

31. The Court directed the parties to conduct a settlement conference on March 1, 

2023.5 In preparation, the undersigned discussed with Mr. Collado and others who attended the 

event’s significance, the nature of the claims being pursued (for tips and not service charges), and 

the potential for resolution. 

32. After the settlement conference was adjourned, the undersigned emailed a letter to 

5 If compelled, the undersigned would divulge certain information discussed during the settlement conference 

and its impact on his view of the viability of the claims alleged.

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 250 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2024 Page 8 of 22
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

Mr. Collado and the other former employees at Kiki who attended to remind them of the 

confidential nature of the proceedings, discuss the claims in the lawsuit, and specify that the claims 

were for recovery of “tips” under three different legal theories. 

33. The Court conducted a hearing on the Joint Motion to Dismiss on March 23, 2023, 

and dismissed the SAC without prejudice for the reasons stated on the record. [ECF No. 112.]

34. Defendants objected to the initial discovery, resulting in a discovery hearing on 

April 5, 2023, wherein the Court required them to provide better and more complete responses. 

[ECF Nos. 121, 145.]

35. The Third Amended Complaint (TAC) was filed on April 7, 2023 [ECF No. 122].6

36. Like the SAC, the TAC reiterated that Defendants paid a direct hourly wage that 

was “less than” or “below” the applicable Florida minimum wage(s). Id., at ¶¶95, 99, 101, 108, 

110, 120, 122.7 The TAC removed the references to the payment/receipt of a service charge as 

immaterial and unnecessary to the FMWA claims asserted based on the undersigned’s 

understanding of how the FMWA incorporated 29 U.S.C. §203(m)(2)(B), and created a similar 

cause of action for recovery of tips improperly retained or distributed regardless of the wages paid.

8

37. Priya Krishna interviewed Mr. Collado and the undersigned on April 11, 2023, for 

an article to be published in the New York Times. Ms. Krishna discussed with Mr. Collado his 

experiences while working at Kiki, the differences between tips and service charges, and his 

thoughts on them. Mr. Collado responded to several of Ms. Krisna’s follow-up questions by 

confirming how he told diners to tip in cash to ensure he would receive the money and asked the 

owners at Kiki about who received money from the service charges and tips without a response.

9

38. The Second Renewed Motion for Conditional Certification was filed on April 21, 

2023, and included Mr. Collado’s Declaration from December 13, 2022, and Declarations from 

6 Defendants misrepresent that the TAC alleged “that Defendants failed to pay minimum wages” in 

paragraphs 102, 111, and 123 of Count II. [ECF No. 243 at ¶7.]

7 The TAC omitted the references from the SAC to the payment of a reduced direct hourly wage (or “tip 

credit”) in Count I as immaterial. [Compare ECF Nos. 59, 122.] 8 Defendants always had (and then produced in this case) the payroll records identifying how and how much 

they paid Mr. Collado and the other members of the Collective. Defendants also had Declarations wherein Mr. 

Collado attested to receiving an hourly wage below the applicable minimum wage, supplemented by a part of the 

service charges, and tip. [ECF Nos. 44-1, 65-1.] 9 The article, The Restaurant Service Charge Isn’t Going Anywhere, was published in the New York Times on May 

15, 2023, and includes statements attributable to Mr. Collado. 

(https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/15/dining/restaurant-service-charges.html.)

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 250 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2024 Page 9 of 22
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

Samantha Mehew, Hiosmel Zayas, and Brenna Wagnon [ECF Nos. 127, 127-1, 127-3, 127-4, 

127-5]. Each separately attested to receiving an hourly wage below the applicable minimum wage, 

plus services charges and tips, and to receiving paystubs reflecting their hourly wages, service 

charges received, and tips distributed. Id.

39. Defendants responded to the TAC with their Motion to Strike [ECF No. 136] 

followed by their Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 137]. Defendants argued inter alia that certain 

language in Count II of the TAC should be stricken, while arguing that the Claim at Count II was 

not viable. Id.

40. Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to the Motion to Strike elaborated on the 

position that the FMWA incorporated the FLSA’s definition of wage, thereby incorporating 29 

U.S.C. §203(m)(2)(B), and similarly created a cause of action for improper tip retention or 

distribution regardless of the total non-tip wages paid exceeded the minimum wage required by 

Florida law [ECF No. 143].

41. Defendants’ procedural blunder of filing a Motion to Strike and then a Motion to 

Dismiss [ECF Nos. 136, 137] precluded the Court from reaching the issue of whether the FMWA 

allows for recovery of tips improperly retained or distributed by an employer regardless of whether 

a tip credit is taken. [ECF No. 152: “Accordingly, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that Defendants’ 

second Rule 12 motion—the Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [147]—must be denied as being 

improperly filed.”]10

42. The Court specifically considered Defendants’ argument that “employees may 

recover only up to the tip credit and not the actual tips” and found “that the cases Defendants cites 

for this proposition provide weak support, as they discuss the FLSA rather than the FMWA.”

[ECF No. 152 at fn. 1.] [Emphasis added.]

43. No court has yet ruled on the issue presented in Count II, whether the FMWA 

incorporates 29 U.S.C. §203(m)(2)(B), rendering it a novel issue of first impression.

10 Defendants’ procedural error precluded the Court from making a substantive ruling on the viability of 

Plaintiff’s FMWA claim alleged at Count II. The Court declined to address Defendants’ arguments for dismissal of 

Count II because of their mistake, and so they are not “without blame” in allowing the FMWA claim to persist. Compare 

Caiazza v. Marceno, 2021 WL 1193166, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 30, 2021) (Denying sanctions under 28 U.S.C. §1927 and 

finding the Defendant “is not without blame. He could have moved for summary judgment on the matter but did not 

do so. This left the exemption for trial.”) 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 250 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2024 Page 10 of 22
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

44. The undersigned diligently pursued discovery in this case, including serving 

interrogatories and requests for production on Defendants on January 9, 2023, and then timely 

obtaining a hearing to address Defendants’ deficient responses thereto. [See e.g. ECF Nos. 120, 121, 

145.] The undersigned then served a second request for production on Defendants on March 14, 

2023. In response to the disclosure requirements imposed by Rule 26 and the discovery requests 

served on them, Defendants produced tens of thousands of documents in digital format. 

45. After going back and forth, and initially claiming that the documents could not be 

located, Defendants ultimately located and produced digital copies of the handwritten reports the 

Captains at Kiki would complete at the end of each shift to document their total sales, service 

charges collected, and tips collected for the three of the four weeks the undersigned 

requested/identified (Kiki Captain Closeout). The undersigned analyzed the Captain Closeouts to 

calculate the total tips reported as having been received in each of the three identified weeks against 

the tips Defendants reported as having distributed during those weeks in their Sales By Range and 

Sales Summary reports. The undersigned found accounting discrepancies between the amounts 

reported as collected in tips and the amounts distributed in tips each week, calling into question 

the accuracy of Defendants’ records and accounting of the tips at issue in this lawsuit:

a. The total tips reported in the Kiki Captain Closeouts for the week of January 20-

26, 2020, reflected a discrepancy of $2,984.72 with the tips Kiki reported as paying 

out in the Sales Summary report for the same week;

b. The total tips reported in the Kiki Captain Closeouts for the week of November 22-

28, 2021, reflected a discrepancy of $9,387.25 with the tips Kiki reported as paying 

out in Sales By Range Report for the same week; and

c. The total tips reported in the Kiki Captain Closeouts for the week of February 22-

27, 2022, reflected a discrepancy of $3,460.62 with the tips Kiki reported as paying 

out with the Sales Summary Export for the same week.

46. Defendants, on the other hand, did not “work[] diligently” in seeking discovery and 

instead lollygagged by waiting until June 16, 2023, to propound any written discovery before the 

looming discovery cut-off of October 9, 2023. [ECF Nos. 26, 243 at ¶8.] 

47. Defendants possibly delayed serving written discovery because they always had the 

time and pay records for Mr. Collado. They created or possessed nearly all other records relevant 

to the case claims and defenses. See, e.g., Statement of Earnings at KIKI000008-000014 and 

KIKI000040-003808 (produced in discovery by Defendants as “Confidential.”)

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 250 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2024 Page 11 of 22
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

48. Defendants mislead the Court by claiming that the undersigned unreasonably 

delayed responding to their written discovery served on June 16, 2023. 

a. Defendants neglected to acknowledge initially serving 25 initial interrogatories plus 

43 requests for production (excluding sub-parts) directed to Mr. Collado and 29 

Opt-Ins, totaling 750 interrogatories and 1,200 requests for production. 

b. Defendants served revised discovery requests on July 21, 2023, that included 6 

interrogatories and 10 requests for production, totaling 120 interrogatories and 300 

requests for production. 

c. Defendants failed to acknowledge the prior informal verbal agreement amongst 

counsel for an informal stay of discovery in favor of devoting efforts to mediate the 

case. (Exhibit “2.”)

49. Once the undersigned requested dates from Defendants to depose Sia Hemmati in 

the event the mediation proved unsuccessful on September 22, 2023, they responded by refusing 

to provide dates for his deposition until after they (i) received discovery responses and (ii) deposed 

Mr. Collado and reneged on the agreement previously struck. Id.

50. The parties engaged in email exchanges not reflected on the record to confer about 

the pending discovery issues between October 13-18, 2023. The undersigned then prepared for 

and attended trial before Judge Dimitrouleas from October 30, 2023, to November 1, 2023, in 

Valdivieso Figuera vs. All VIP Care Inc., S.D.Fla. Case No.: 0:22-CV-61553-WPD. 

51. The undersigned obtained verified answers to the interrogatories from Mr. Collado 

in compliance with the Court’s Order [ECF No. 231] after an extensive process that started long 

before the hearing held on November 27, 2023, and his responses revealed information consistent 

with the claims pursued.

11 (See Exhibit Declaration of Steffany Sanguino as Exhibit “3.”)

52. Mr. Collado’s verified Answers to Interrogatories [ECF No. 243-4] resulted from 

many discussions, including in-person discussions, with the undersigned law firm’s paralegal, 

Steffany Sanguino. (Exhibit “3.”)

53. The undersigned coordinated to meet with Mr. Collado in person to prepare him 

for his deposition on Thursday, December 7, 2023. 

54. Mr. Collado discussed that the Captain had the financial responsibility to account 

for the money collected/charged for food and drinks, service charges, and tips. He described 

11 Defendants sought no sanctions during the November 27, 2023, discovery discovery regarding these 

interrogatory answers, waiving the issue. [ECF No. 243-2.]

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 250 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2024 Page 12 of 22
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

turning in the receipts to the Manager on Duty, writing the total amounts received for each type 

of revenue on an envelope, and how he would distribute cash tips to people who were not eligible 

to receive tips – such as those working in the kitchen. Mr. Collado also discussed how he was 

reprimanded for asking patrons to tip in cash after having done so because Defendants were not 

properly distributing the credit card tips.

55. Mr. Collado explained that besides guests who paid at the time of dining, Kiki 

allowed certain other guests to pay at the end of the month or weeks after dining. He explained 

that when those checks/accounts were paid, the money would go to the office, the office would log 

the money as “no revenue,” and he would not see any no tips distributed from the money collected.

56. Mr. Collado further stated that Mr. Hemmati had financial management 

responsibilities at Kiki before they hired their CFO, and that he was “siphoning” tips and 

distributing them to Roman Jones, Aris Nanos, and himself, based on a discussion he had with 

Ciro Constanza. Mr. Collado described overhearing the conversation Mr. Constanza had with 

Petra Stepanik (Bar Manager) and Petra. He specifically recalled Petra’s remark “You have no 

idea what I’ve seen,” in regard to improprieties at Kiki. 

57. Although Mr. Collado said he believed Mr. Hemmati’s daughter improperly 

received money from the tip pool, he acknowledged not having personal knowledge of this fact.

58. Mr. Collado further explained how Mr. Jones would direct him and others at Kiki 

to not charge customers for certain items (including costly ones such as bottles of wine, champagne, 

or alcohol), to attend to certain things he observed, and to take certain actions to improve the guest 

experience at Kiki.

59. The undersigned also discussed with Mr. Collado the difference between tips and 

service charges, the discrepancy between the tips the Captains reported as having received and the 

tips that Defendants paid out, showed him the spreadsheets reflecting the discrepancies, and 

discussed the significance of the discrepancy (indicating financial irregularities). 

60. Mr. Collado’s two-day deposition commenced but was not completed on Tuesday, 

December 12, 2023 [Exhibit “1”].

61. The morning session of Mr. Collado’s deposition was largely innocuous, and during 

the lunch break, the undersigned ate with Mr. Collado. Although Mr. Collado disclosed certain 

facts he intended to bring out later that afternoon, he did not later testify to them.

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 250 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2024 Page 13 of 22
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

62. Mr. Collado’s deposition issues evolved from at first seeming to omit facts previously 

disclosed (whether in a sworn statement or a statement to the undersigned), to explicitly 

contradicting his prior sworn statements (and statements to the undersigned), to drawing 

conclusions from incomplete documents that did not allow such a conclusion to be drawn,

12 to 

claiming confusion and that he (and everyone else) received all they tips they were entitled to 

receive, to ultimately acknowledging Kiki paid him all the tips left by customers.

13 [Exhibit “1” at 

pp. 229.]

63. After his deposition was adjourned, and while waiting for the elevator with Mr. 

Collado after his deposition concluded for the day, and without the undersigned saying anything, 

Mr. Collado remarked “I had to tell the truth.” 

64. Mr. Collado discharged the undersigned the next day. [ECF No. 233, 234.] 

III. THE LAW

A. Sanctions Under 28 U.S.C. §1927.

As a penal statute, 28 U.S.C. §1927 is strictly construed. Peterson v. BMI Refractories, 124 F.3d 

1386, 1395 (11th Cir. 1997). “[T]he statute sets out a three-prong, conjunctive test: (1) 

unreasonable and vexatious conduct; (2) such that the proceedings are multiplied; and (3) a dollar 

amount of sanctions that bears a financial nexus to the excess proceedings.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 

208 F. App’x 781, 785-86 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing Peterson, 124 F.3d at 1396.) “All three 

requirements must be met before sanctions are imposed.” Id. at 786. “Something more than a lack 

of merit is required for § 1927 sanctions or they would be due in every case.” McMahan v. Toto, 256 

F.3d 1120, 1129 (11th Cir. 2001), amended on reh'g, 311 F.3d 1077 (11th Cir. 2002). That 

“something” is bad faith. Schwartz v. Millon Air, Inc., 341 F.3d 1220, 1225 (11th Cir. 2003) (“‘Bad 

12 Defendants introduced excerpted pages from their payroll records that contained the payroll details 

identifying the amounts paid to Mr. Collado each week from September 6, 2019, to December 31, 2021, as Exhibits 

6-9 (designated as “Confidential”). There was no way Mr. Collado could have actually verified (or calculated) whether 

he received all tips to which he was entitled based on the deposition Exhibits offered by Defendants. Missing was 

evidence or information that would have allowed for a comparison of the total weekly tips received against the total 

amount distributed in payroll, calculations for how the tips received were distributed, and calculations performed to 

go from the total tips received to the tips reported on Mr. Collado’s weekly payrolls. 13 Mr. Collado testified that he had no basis to dispute that the amount of tips Defendants reported as having 

received in Exhibits 9-12 were inaccurate [Exhibit 1, pp. 192-3], despite his Answers to Interrogatories [ECF No.122-

1], and his discussions with the undersigned, and his review of the spreadsheets reflecting the discrepancies between 

the tips calculated as having been received the Captain Reports and those reported as having been received in the 

Sales Summary Reports and Sales by Range Reports.

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 250 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2024 Page 14 of 22
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

faith’ is the touchstone. Section 1927 is not about mere negligence.”) The Eleventh Circuit Court 

of Appeal stated, “§ 1927 is not a ‘catch-all’ provision for sanctioning objectionable conduct by 

counsel.” Peterson, 124 F.3d at 1396.

We have consistently held that an attorney multiplies proceedings “unreasonably and 

vexatiously” within the meaning of the statute only when the attorney’s conduct is so 

egregious that it is “tantamount to bad faith.” Avirgan v. Hull, 932 F.2d 1572, 1582 (11th 

Cir. 1991); see also Schwartz v. Millon Air, Inc., 341 F.3d 1220, 1225 (11th Cir. 2003) (“‘Bad 

faith’ is the touchstone.”).

* * *

Thus, an attorney’s conduct must be particularly egregious to warrant the imposition of 

sanctions—the attorney must knowingly or recklessly pursue a frivolous claim or needlessly 

obstruct the litigation of a non-frivolous claim. [Emphasis in original.]

Amlong & Amlong, P.A. v. Denny's, Inc., 500 F.3d 1230, 1239-1242 (11th Cir. 2007). The imposition

of sanctions under §1927 requires egregious conduct:

A “high standard of bad faith” is required under § 1927. H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 1234 at 8; 

e.g., Amlong, 500 F.3d at 1241-42 (holding that “bad faith is the touchstone”). “Thus, an 

attorney's conduct must be particularly egregious to warrant the imposition of sanctions –

the attorney must knowingly or recklessly pursue a frivolous claim or needlessly obstruct the 

litigation of a non-frivolous claim.” Amlong, 500 F.3d at 1241-42 (citing Schwartz, 341 F.3d 

at 1225). Specifically, an attorney's conduct “must have a manifold effect on court 

processes, such as causing the multiplication of proceedings by abusive discovery tactics, 

reassertion of meritless claims and any other conduct resulting in the lengthening of trial 

proceedings.” Jenkins v. Jury, 2009 WL 248232, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 2, 2009). And the 

attorney's conduct must have caused the multiplication of proceedings. Peterson, 124 F.3d 

at 1396.

Herederos de Roberto Gomez Cabrera, LLC v. Teck Res. Ltd., 2022 WL 1203562, at *10 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 

29, 2022), report and recommendation adopted in part, 2022 WL 1793573 (S.D. Fla. June 2, 2022).

B. The Court’s Inherent Power To Sanction.

The Court’s inherent authority does not expand the availability of sanctions beyond 

situations contemplated by 28 U.S.C. §1927. Cole-Parmer Instrument Co., LLC v. Prof'l Labs., Inc., 2023 

WL 2915810, at *8 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 12, 2023) (“[T]he Court’s inherent power to sanction is no 

broader than the authority to sanction under § 1927.”) “[I]f § 1927 sanctions are impermissible, 

then sanctions under the court's inherent powers are also impermissible.” Agudelo v. Padron, 2019 

WL 4694145, at *5 (S.D. Fla. July 8, 2019) (citing Amlong, 500 F.3d at 1252.) “[T]he failure of § 

1927 to support sanctions means the same is true of the Court's inherent power.” Amlong, 500 F.3d 

at 1239. Produce Pay Inc. v. Agrosale, Inc., 2021 WL 8895283, at *8 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 10, 2021), report 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 250 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2024 Page 15 of 22
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

and recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 5050398 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2021)

C. A Hearing Is Required Before Sanctioning Counsel.

An attorney threatened with §1927 is entitled to a hearing before sanctions are awarded. 

Reynolds, 207 F.3d 1302. No hearing is required if the Court determines that sanctions are not 

warranted. See, e.g., Allen v. Robert F. DeLuca, M.D., P.A., 2019 WL 5578100, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 

29, 2019) (denying §1927 sanctions without a hearing). 

IV. ARGUMENT

No basis exists to find that the undersigned engaged in any bad faith or vexatious conduct 

that would support the imposition of sanctions under 28 U.S.C. §1927 or the Court’s inherent 

authority. Defendants go on for pages about about their contention that Mr. Collado’s testimony 

renders the claims not viable, improperly presuming that his testimony is dispositive of the claims 

alleged while ignoring the stark contradictions with his prior sworn statements upon which the 

undersigned was entitled to rely.

14 Mr. Collado’s testimony certainly convolutes the evidentiary 

record but does not invalidate the claims alleged. Discovery has not been completed, the discovery 

period has not expired, and the Court has not made a substantive determination that the pending 

claims are not viable. Thus, the Defendants’ arguments that the undersigned knew the claims 

asserted were frivolous are nothing more than wishful thinking based on postulation. The 

undersigned’s actions were objectively reasonable throughout these proceedings. The only 

problematic conduct involves Mr. Collado’s testimony and the curious decision by Defendants and 

their counsel to pardon Mr. Collado for it.

A. Defendants’ Motion Is Untimely.

Defendants rely on Peer v. Lewis, 606 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2010), to argue that they can 

pursue sanctions under §1927 after the undersigned was permitted to withdraw from the case. The 

Eleventh Circuit did not address whether the district court could award sanctions under §1927 

based on a motion filed after it permitted Rosenbaum to withdraw from representation in Peer. 

Rather, it determined that sanctions were not warranted under §1927 and were unavailable under 

14 Mr. Collado also testified inconsistent with prior statements to the undersigned, including about Mr. Jones’ 

involvement in the day-to-day operations at Kiki (such as directing employees to bring out bottles to tables as no 

charge, to comp food and other items, and to bring out rounds of shots to patrons at no charge), about the cash tips 

he distributed to back-of-the house-employees, about Mr. Hemmati’s daughter receiving tips from the tip pool, and 

why he believed that Mr. Hemmati was skimming tips. 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 250 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2024 Page 16 of 22
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

Rule 11. Id. The Eleventh Circuit specifically found that Rosenbaum received documentation 

establishing (and therefore knew) that the defendant never accessed the plaintiff’s credit report 

before filing the federal lawsuit, but nonetheless proceeding to allege a violation of the Fair Credit 

Reporting Act in the complaint filed in the district court the next day. After further finding 

“overwhelming evidence” that Rosenbaum “knowingly pursued a frivolous claim and thus acted 

in bad faith,” the Court remanded the case to the district court with instructions to reconsider 

imposing sanctions under its inherent authority. Id. at 1316-17.

While the recommendation to consider sanctions under the Court’s inherent powers in Peer

was based on “overwhelming evidence” that went undiscovered until long after Rosenbaum

withdrew, Defendants have no evidence that the undersigned knew Mr. Collado would perjure 

himself, disregard statements by those he was appointed to represent, or draw seemingly impossible 

conclusions from Exhibits of excerpted records lacking key information.15 [ECF Nos. 243-3, 243-

4, and Exhibit “1” at p 229.] 

Defendants’ receipt of Mr. Collado’s verified Answers to Interrogatories on December 8,

2023, does not result in any parallels to Peer. Although the defendant in Peer did not obtain 

information that Rosenbaum knew the complaint was futile until much later, these Defendants 

had all the (time, pay, tip, and payroll) records for Mr. Collado and the other members of the 

Collective before this case was even filed but delayed 15 months, until after Mr. Collado’s 

deposition (and after the undersigned withdrew from representation), to seek sanctions.

If Defendants sincerely believed that TAC was frivolous or drafted to prolong the 

proceedings, they needed to serve a Rule 11 motion, move for summary judgment, or seek

sanctions shortly after it was filed on April 10, 2023 [ECF No. 122]. Hyde v. Irish, 962 F.3d 1306, 

1311 (11th Cir. 2020) (considering the defendant’s delay in denying sanctions based on the “falsity 

of the allegations was obvious from the face of the complaint.”) Defendants’ inexplicable delay 

renders their request for sanctions untimely, requiring denial.

B. The Undersigned Never Knowingly Or Recklessly Pursued Frivolous Claims.

Critically absent from the Defendants’ Motion is any actual evidence that the 

15 Mr. Collado testified to receiving all tips left by customers without any information about who participated

in the tip pool each week, the amounts or percentages assigned to each, the calculations performed, nor the total tips 

paid out each week according to the payroll records. [But see ECF No. 122-1 at 10-13.] 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 250 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2024 Page 17 of 22
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

undersigned knew the claims pursued were “frivolous.” An award of sanctions under §1927 

requires the type of “clear and convincing” evidence Defendants lack. See Peer v. Liberty Life Assurance 

Co. of Boston, 2022 WL 329217, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 18, 2022) (“awarding fees pursuant to § 1927 

requires clear and convincing evidence establishing objective bad faith conduct.”) (citing Hyde, 962 

F.3d at 1310.) Defendants never claim when or how the undersigned knew any claims were futile,

and their inability to identify actual evidence is because the undersigned pursued valid claims

against the Defendants supported by testimonial and documentary evidence. 

i. The evidence established that Defendants misappropriated tips.

Defendants disregard sworn statements from the parties in misrepresenting that 

“Defendants did not unlawfully retain and/or distribute tips.” [ECF No. 243 at 15.] Through 

December 11, 2023, the evidence of record included:

• Declarations signed under penalty of perjury in which Mr. Collado and others 

formerly employed at Kiki attested to Defendants misappropriating their tips. [See 

ECF Nos. 44-1, 44-2, 65-1, 65-2, 65-3, 127-1, 127-3, 127-4, and 127-5.] 

• Answers to Interrogatories by 450 North River Drive, LLC, wherein it attested that 

it did not “intentionally fail to distribute any tips it processed” and that any 

“variance” either had an explanation or was “inadvertent.” [ECF No. 122-1 at 

Nos. 4, 19.]16 

Mr. Collado attested to his Answers to Interrogatories on December 8, 2023, wherein he 

attested to accounting discrepancies with the tips Defendants collected, the persons he believed 

misappropriated tips, and described a pertinent conversation regarding Defendants’

misappropriation of tips. [ECF No. 234-4.] The undersigned’s analysis of the records produced by 

Defendants revealed accounting abnormalities, more specifically that the amount Defendants 

collected in tips differed from the amounts it distributed in tips for the representative weeks

reviewed. The discrepancies signaled that Defendants failed to properly and accurately account 

for all tips received, necessitating further discovery – including through depositions of Defendants’ 

personnel as previously requested – had the undersigned continued as counsel in the case.

ii. The Undersigned was blindsided by Mr. Collado’s deposition testimony, which 

16 Under the FLSA, a party’s intent is not a defense to liability or damages, but only considered to 

determine whether to impose liquidated damages or the applicable limitations period. See e.g., Alvarez Perez 

v. Sanford-Orlando Kennel Club, Inc., 515 F.3d 1150, 1162 (11th Cir. 2008). Under the FMWA, a party’s intent 

is similarly relevant only to the imposition of liquidated damages and the applicable limitations period, not 

liability. Fla. Stat. §§95.11; 448.110(6).

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 250 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2024 Page 18 of 22
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

contradicted his verified interrogatory answers, sworn Declarations, prior 

discussions with the undersigned, and other witness accounts.

Defendants do not support their argument that it was “objectively unreasonable” for the 

undersigned to rely on Mr. Collado’s sworn and unsworn statements, statements of others who 

worked for Defendants, or the discovery exchanged. Defendants rely exclusively on Mr. Collado’s 

deposition testimony from December 12, 2023, to disclaim liability and baselessly contend the 

undersigned solely relied on Mr. Collado. [ECF No. 243.] Defendants cite Estrada v. FTS USA, LLC

for the proposition that “Plaintiffs’ counsel’s singular reliance on what their client evidently told 

them was not a reasonable inquiry.” 2018 WL 3697491, at *5 (S.D. Fla. July 20, 2018), report and 

recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 4777160 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 9, 2018), aff'd, 810 Fed. Appx. 743 (11th 

Cir. 2020). But Estrada is distinguishable because, among many reasons, the undersigned did not 

rely solely on Mr. Collado’s unsworn statements. Defendants don’t identify any “overwhelming” 

evidence that the claims were frivolous other than Mr. Collado’s testimony. Stated another way, 

“there is not enough evidence to find that the [the undersigned’s] actions are tantamount to bad 

faith.” Sutakovic v. CG RYC, LLC, 2018 WL 2766206, at *5 (S.D. Fla. June 8, 2018).

C. The Undersigned Did Not Cause Or Multiply Any Proceedings.

The imposition of sanctions pursuant to Section 1927 requires a finding that counsel caused 

“proceedings which would not have been conducted otherwise.” Daniels v. Sodexo, Inc., 2013 WL 

4008744, at *7 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 5, 2013) (citing Peterson, 124 F.3d at 1396.) Here again, Defendants 

fail to establish that the undersigned’s conduct prolonged any proceedings. Defendant’s procedural 

error precluded the Court from addressing their substantive arguments against Count II in the 

Motion to Dismiss filed at ECF No. 137. [ECF No. 152.] Defendants could have taken steps to 

have the Court rule on the novel issues involving the FMWA but did not. Clearly, the undersigned 

is not responsible for Defendants’ procedural errors or tactical decisions.

i. Mr. Collado’s tip recovery claim under the FMWA is unaffected by his receipt of 

services charges.

Mr. Collado’s receipt of a service charge plus a reduced hourly wage does not affect 

Defendants’ liability under the FMWA for misappropriating tips. Defendants cannot legitimately 

contend that they first learned that the combination of Mr. Collado’s hourly wages and service 

charges exceeded the applicable Florida minimum wage upon receipt of his Interrogatory Answers, 

given that they paid him, had his time records, and produced his payroll records on December 20, 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 250 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2024 Page 19 of 22
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

2022. Regardless, the undersigned’s theory of recovery under the FMWA was not dependent upon 

the amount Mr. Collado received in total wages. By contending the FMWA incorporated 29 

U.S.C. §203(m)(2)(B) upon its enactment in 2018, which provision permits recovery of tips 

improperly distributed regardless of the wage paid, the total wage paid is immaterial. The 

arguments that the FMWA permits a cause of action for tip recovery by incorporating 29 U.S.C. 

§203(m)(2)(B) were argued in the Responses filed at ECF Nos. 142 and 143.

ii. Advancing a novel claim that has not been decided precludes sanctions.

The law does not permit the imposition of sanctions against counsel for pursuing a novel 

legal theory. Suazo v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd., 822 F.3d 543, 556 (11th Cir. 2016)(“Where an appeal 

requires a court to decide an issue of first impression in a circuit court, it is not frivolous”); see also

Baker v. Alderman, 158 F.3d 516, 524 (11th Cir. 1998) (“However, the purpose of Rule 11 is to deter 

frivolous lawsuits and not to deter novel legal arguments or cases of first impression.”)).

Where no previous court has considered a particular or novel issue, sanctions under § 1927 

generally are disfavored. See Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Amway Corp., 280 F.3d 519, 531-32 (5th 

Cir.2002); Serrato by & Through Serrato v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 882, 887 n. 2 (9th 

Cir.1994).

Torres v. City of Madera, 2006 WL 3257491, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2006). Advancing a novel legal 

theory does not amount to the objectively bad faith conduct. Tolliver v. Youfit Health Clubs, LLC, 

2019 WL 13246553, at *5 (M.D. Fla. June 11, 2019) (denying §1927 sanctions for pursuing “a 

somewhat novel issue.”) Defendants postulate that the undersigned’s theory of liability is not viable, 

but cannot point to a dispositive ruling by this or any Court on the issue.

D. Sanctions Under 28 U.S.C. §1927 Are Unavailable For The Filing Of The Third 

Amended Complaint.

Defendants request the Court sanction the undersigned for filing the Third Amended 

Complaint. They contend that filing that pleading was “frivolous,” but 28 U.S.C. §1927 does not 

authorize the Court to sanction counsel for filing a complaint. 

“The filing of a complaint may be sanctioned pursuant to Rule 11 or a court’s inherent 

power, but it may not be sanctioned pursuant to § 1927.” In re Keegan Mgmt. Co., Sec. Litig.,

78 F.3d 431, 435 (9th Cir.1996).

Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781, 786 (11th Cir. 2006); see also Fox v. Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co., 

LLC, 2022 WL 2802910, at *5 (S.D. Fla. July 18, 2022) (“Initially, challenges to the merits or good 

faith bases for the filing of pleadings are more appropriately asserted pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 250 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2024 Page 20 of 22
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

Civil Procedure 11, which addresses frivolous and legally unsupported claims, defenses and other 

legal contentions.”) Therefore, Defendants cannot recover sanctions based on the filing of any 

iteration of the complaints filed herein. Defendants likewise waived any issue with any of the 

Complaints by failing to pursue the recourse provided by Rule 11 in a timely manner. Hyde, 962

F.3d 1310-11. 

E. The Court Properly Considers The Imposition Of Sanctions Against 

Defendants And Their Counsel For Vexatiously Pursuing Sanctions Only 

Against The Undersigned In Bad Faith. 

Defendants and their counsel unnecessarily prolonged these proceedings by improperly 

seeking hundreds of thousands of dollars in sanctions from the undersigned without any evidence 

of misconduct. After the undersigned (and the members of the Collective) were victimized by Mr. 

Collado’s apparent epiphanies in deposition on December 12, 2023, Defendants now seem to

reward him by seeking sanctions from the undersigned. Their baseless pursuit of the undersigned

while pardoning Mr. Collado is troubling. But see Purchasing Power, LLC v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., 851 

F.3d 1218, 1223 (11th Cir. 2017). While Mr. Collado’s testimony created disputed issues of fact 

that did not previously exist, other members of the Collective have already and may hereafter offer 

contrary testimonial and documentary evidence. Defendants and their counsel know that disputed 

record evidence does not render a claim futile or pursued in bad faith. Yet, they pursue the 

undersigned (only). The undersigned urges the Court to consider whether its inherent authority is 

more appropriately employed to sanction Defendants and their counsel for vexatiously prolonging 

the undersigned’s exit from this case. Osorio v. Art Landscaping, Corp., 2017 WL 3730989, at *2 (S.D. 

Fla. Aug. 11, 2017) (citing Barnes v. Dalton, 158 F.3d 1212, 1214 (11th Cir. 1998).

V. CONCLUSION

The undersigned requests the Court deny the Defendants’ request for sanctions pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. §1927 and the Court’s inherent authority. The undersigned further requests the Court 

to impose the appropriate sanctions on Defendants and their counsel based on its inherent 

authority for vexatiously and unnecessarily engaging in bad faith conduct that has unnecessarily 

prolonged these proceedings.

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 250 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2024 Page 21 of 22
135	San	Lorenzo	Avenue,	Suite	770,	Coral	Gables,	Florida	33146

TEL 305.230.4884			FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

Respectfully submitted this 9th day of February 2024,

Brian H. Pollock, Esq.

Brian H. Pollock, Esq.

Fla. Bar No. 174742

brian@fairlawattorney.com

FAIRLAW FIRM

135 San Lorenzo Avenue

Suite 770

Coral Gables, FL 33146

Tel: 305.230.4884

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 250 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2024 Page 22 of 22