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

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

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

OCTAVIO COLLADO,

For himself and all others

similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

450 NORTH RIVER DRIVE, LLC,

D/B/A KIKI ON THE RIVER, 

RJ RIVER, LLC, AND 

ROMAN JONES,

Defendants.

______________________________/

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Octavio Collado, for himself and all others similarly situated, sues Defendants, 450 

North River Drive, LLC d/b/a Kiki On The River, RJ River, LLC, and Roman Jones, as both a 

proposed “opt-in” collective action as to their FLSA claim and as a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

23 class action as to their Florida law claims as follows:

Overview

1. Plaintiff brings this Second Amended Complaint for himself and other similarly 

situated employees who were entitled to receive and who received tips while working for 

Defendants at their restaurant known as “Kiki on the River”.

2. Plaintiff asserts the following three (3) claims for himself and for the others similarly 

situated to recover the gratuities (tips and/or overtips) that were improperly distributed by 

Defendants:

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 1 of 36
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

2

Count I: A proposed “opt-in” collective action for the recovery of the tips/overtips 

that Defendants improperly distributed pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b); see 

also Lopez v. Fun Eats and Drinks, LLC, 2021 WL 5302361 (N.D. Tex. 2021);

Count II: A proposed Rule 23 class action to address Defendants’ violations of the 

Florida Minimum Wage Act (“FMWA”), Fla. Stat. §448.110 et seq., in 

conjunction with Article X, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution; and

Count III: A proposed Rule 23 class action for unpaid wages under Florida common 

law to address Defendants’ improper distribution of the wages 

(tips/overtips) earned by Plaintiff and the class, as well as their attorneys’ 

fees pursuant to Fla. Stat. §448.08. See Hamann v. Little Italy's Meatballs, LLC, 

2021 WL 1931257 (M.D. Fla. 2021).

3. Plaintiff brings his FLSA minimum wage claim (Count I) as a proposed “opt-in” 

collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b) and seeks to recover tips/overtips, liquidated 

damages, declaratory relief, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for himself and all other 

similarly situated tipped captains, servers, and bussers who eventually opt into the class and who 

worked for the Defendants within the three (3) years preceding the filing of this action (the 

“Collective Action Class”).

4. Plaintiff brings his Florida Minimum Wage Act Claim (Count II) and his Florida 

Common Law Claim for Wages (Count III) as proposed Rule 23 classes for himself and all other 

similarly situated tipped captains, servers, and bussers who worked for Defendants during the five 

(5) years preceding the filing of this action for Count II and during the four (4) years preceding the 

filing of this action for Count III.

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 2 of 36
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

3

5. Plaintiff knows of (and the undersigned counsel also currently represents) others

similarly situated who have and/or who are interested in opting into the collective being proposed 

in Count I with the Court supervising the process.

6. Plaintiff also knows of (and the undersigned counsel currently represents) other 

similarly situated individuals who currently work or have worked for Defendants and would seek 

recovery of damages in any Rule 23 classes created to pursue a claim under the Florida Minimum 

Wage Act and a Florida common law claim for unpaid wages and who, even if no Rule 23 classes 

were to be certified by the Court, intend to pursue their legal claims under the aforementioned 

laws either individually or as part of a multi-plaintiff litigation. 

Parties

7. Plaintiff and the others similarly situated are sui juris adults who worked or who work 

for Defendants at their restaurant known as Kiki on the River as tipped employees (who serviced 

tables for Defendants as captains, servers, and bussers).

8. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a server and then as a captain at Kiki on the 

River, serving tables, attending to customer concerns, and taking payment from them, for which 

Defendants paid him a direct hourly wage that was less than the applicable minimum wage, plus 

a portion of the service charges they collected, and distributed to him tips from a shared or pooled 

aggregation of tips that Defendants established, maintained, and/or controlled.

9. Plaintiff was an “employee” of Defendants, as the term “employee” is defined by 

29 U.S.C. §203(e)

10. Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee of the Defendants.

11. Defendants are believed to have records identifying the exact dates on which they 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 3 of 36
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

4

employed Plaintiff and the other similarly situated captains, servers, and bussers.

12. Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, is a sui juris Florida for-profit limited 

liability company that was authorized to conduct and conducted its for-profit restaurant business 

in Florida, at all times material. 

13. Defendant, RJ River, LLC, is a sui juris Florida for-profit limited liability 

company that was authorized to conduct and conducted its for-profit restaurant business in 

Florida, at all times material.

14. Defendants, 450 North River Drive, LLC and RJ River, LLC, operate under the 

fictitious name of “Kiki On The River”, a restaurant in Miami, Florida.

15. Defendants, 450 North River Drive, LLC and RJ River, LLC, use the same 

mailing/business address, with RJ River, LLC as the managing member of 450 North River Drive, 

LLC, and with both LLC’s sharing membership/ownership/direction/control through at least one 

member – Roman Jones. 

16. Defendant, Roman Jones, was and is an owner/officer/director/manager of 

Kiki On The River for the time relevant to this lawsuit. He ran its day-to-day operations, was 

responsible for operational decisions, and was partially or totally responsible for paying Plaintiff’s 

wages and the wages of other similarly situated security officers.

17. Defendants were the direct employers, joint employers, and co-employers of 

Plaintiff, as the term “employer” is defined by 29 U.S.C. §203(d). 

18. Defendants also were the direct employers, joint employers, and co-employers of 

the other similarly situated employees who worked at Kiki on the River as captains, servers, and 

bussers.

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 4 of 36
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

5

19. Defendants maintained the control, oversight, and direction over Plaintiff and the 

other similarly situated tipped employees, including the ability to hire, fire, and discipline them.

20. Defendants regularly employed two or more employees for the relevant time that 

handled goods or materials that traveled through interstate commerce or used instrumentalities of 

interstate commerce, thus making Defendants’ business an enterprise covered under the Fair Labor 

Standards Act. 

Jurisdiction and Venue

21. Defendants have been, at all material times, an enterprise engaged in interstate 

commerce in their marketing, preparation, cooking, service, and sale of foodstuffs, produce, meats, 

fish, beverages, coffees, teas, alcoholic beverages, and products that moved through interstate 

commerce. 

22. Defendants cooked, prepared, and stored perishables and alcoholic beverages while 

using machinery, appliances, refrigeration, goods, and materials that also have moved through 

interstate commerce. 

23. Furthermore, Defendants regularly and recurrently obtained, solicited, exchanged,

and sent funds to and from outside of the State of Florida, used telephonic transmissions going 

outside of the State of Florida to conduct business, and transmitted electronic information through 

computers, the internet, via email, and otherwise outside of the State of Florida.

24. Defendants’ annual gross revenues derived from this interstate commerce are 

believed to exceed $1,000,000.00 for the relevant time and/or exceeded $125,000.00 for each 

fiscal quarter in which Plaintiff and the other similarly situated servers worked. 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 5 of 36
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

6

25. As evidence of its gross annual revenues, Defendant, 450 North River Drive LLC, 

received over $2.4 million in forgiven PPP loans – meaning that its operating expenses alone,

during a limited window of several months, exceeded the jurisdictional threshold.

26. This Court has original jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s federal question claim at 

Count I pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 and 26 U.S.C. §201, et seq., and pendent/supplemental 

jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s class claims at Counts II and III arising under Florida law pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. §1367 and/or 28 U.S.C. §1343.

27. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(ii) because Defendants transact 

business in this District, because Plaintiff and other similarly situated tipped employees (captains, 

servers, and bussers) worked in Miami-Dade County, were paid in Miami-Dade County, and were 

due to be paid the tips that they earned in Miami-Dade County.

Background Facts

28. Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiff and the other similarly situated captains, servers, 

and bussers a direct hourly rate of pay that was less than the applicable Florida or federal minimum 

wage, supplemented by a portion of a non-discretionary service charge Defendants received, and 

further supplemented by portion of the gratuities left at the discretion of Defendants’ patrons. 

a. Defendants paid their tipped employees an hourly wage that was less than the 

applicable Florida or federal minimum wage.

b. Defendants included a mandatory service charge on the bills given to their 

customers.

c. Defendants shared a portion of the mandatory service charge they collected from 

their customers with Plaintiff and the others similarly situated.

d. Defendants also gave their customers the ability to leave discretionary gratuities 

(tips) beyond the mandatory service charge.

e. Defendants’ customers in fact left gratuities (tips and overtips) for Plaintiff and the 

other captains, servers, and bussers who worked for Defendants.

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 6 of 36
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

7

29. The discretionary gratuities (tips) that Defendants’ patrons left were above and 

beyond the mandatory service charge and are referred to as “tips” or “overtips”.

30. Defendants also allowed certain patrons to accumulate their bills into “house 

accounts”, whereby Defendants allowed patrons to accumulate their bills into larger aggregate bills 

and to pay those aggregate bills periodically, but with less frequency than each dining visit – such 

as monthly.

31. Defendants’ patrons with “house accounts” paid tips and /or overtips above and 

beyond the Defendants’ mandatory service charge.

32. Defendants exercised complete control over the tips and overtips left for their tipped 

employees, accumulating them in a “tip pool” or other aggregate arrangement over which 

Defendants exercised complete control, and then either retained a portion of the tips and overtips 

collected (by failing to distribute all tips and overtips collected) and/or distributed a portion of the

tips and overtips to traditionally non-tipped employees (such as owners, officers, directors, partners, 

managers, or supervisors). 

33. The result of Defendants’ unlawful pay practices deprived Plaintiff and the other 

similarly situated tipped employees of the wages (tips and overtips) that they earned and should 

have received in a significant sum when aggregated.

34. Plaintiff retained the undersigned counsel and agreed to pay a reasonable attorneys’ 

fee for all services related to this matter.

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 7 of 36
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

8

COUNT I

VIOLATION(S) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

Satisfaction of Conditions Precedent

35. Plaintiff complied with all conditions precedent to bringing his claim under the 

FLSA, as the FLSA imposes no condition precedent to bringing a lawsuit.

Collective Action Allegations

36. Defendants employed more than 50 other captains, servers, and bussers in South 

Florida during the three (3) years prior to the filing of the initial Complaint through the present.

37. The FLSA specifically provides for a cause of action against each employer who 

violates the provisions of 29 U.S.C. §203(m)(2)(B) on either an individual or collective basis:

Any employer who violates section 203(m)(2)(B) of this title shall be liable to the employee 

or employees affected in the amount of the sum of any tip credit taken by the employer and 

all such tips unlawfully kept by the employer, and in an additional equal amount as 

liquidated damages. An action to recover the liability prescribed in the preceding sentences 

may be maintained against any employer (including a public agency) in any Federal or 

State court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more employees for and in behalf of 

himself or himself and other employees similarly situated

29 U.S.C. §216(b). Each Defendant is an “employer”.

38. Plaintiff brings this Count I as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) 

for himself and all other similarly situated individuals who are part of the following:

All persons who worked, were employed by, or engaged as captains, servers, and/or bussers 

by 450 North River Drive, LLC, RJ River, LLC, and Roman Jones, at Kiki On The River 

any time during the three (3) years prior to the filing of the Complaint and up through the 

rendition of a judgment in this matter.

39. These individuals identified in paragraph 38 are referred to as the “Collective”.

40. The Collective includes the persons who worked for Defendants as captains, servers, 

and/or bussers at the Kiki on the River restaurant during the three (3) years prior to the filing of 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 8 of 36
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

9

the initial Complaint through the present, who were paid on an hourly basis, who Defendants paid 

a direct hourly wage that was below the $7.25 per hour minimum wage required by the FLSA, 

who Defendants paid at least in part with a portion of the service charge they collected, whose 

were entitled to share in the tips and overtips that Defendants collected and aggregated into a “tip 

pool”, and who were subject to the same pay practices as Plaintiff.

41. Plaintiff performed the same type of work under the same procedures, rules, and 

regulations, as the Defendants’ other similarly situated captains, servers, and bussers who worked 

for them at their Kiki on the River restaurant in Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida.

42. The Collective of similarly situated workers who may become plaintiffs in this action 

are the currently and formerly employed captains, servers, and bussers who worked for Defendants 

but who Defendants did not pay all the tips and overtips that they earned.

43. The Collective of similarly situated captains, servers, and bussers of Defendants are 

readily identifiable from records maintained by Defendants and necessarily will present legal and 

factual issues which are nearly the same, if not identical to those presented by Plaintiff.

44. The similarly situated workers are known to Defendants and can be located through 

the mailing addresses, email addresses, and/or telephone records that Defendants collected. 

45. Notice should be sent to the Collective pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b), with the 

Court managing the Notice process.

46. Collective Action treatment of Count I is appropriate because Plaintiff and the 

Collective were subjected to the common business practices referenced in this Count I, and the 

success of their FLSA claim depends on the resolution of common issues of law and fact, including, 

inter alia, whether Defendants’ companywide practices resulted in their failure to properly 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 9 of 36
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

10

pay/distribute the tips and overtips that Defendants received, that the Collective earned and were 

entitled to receive, but which the Defendants either retained or failed to properly distribute.

COUNT IA

VIOLATION(S) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

(450 NORTH RIVER DRIVE, LLC)

47. Plaintiff reincorporates and re-alleges all preceding paragraphs as though set forth 

fully herein.

48. Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, employed Plaintiff and other similarly 

situated captains, servers, and bussers in its restaurant, “Kiki on the River”.

Liability

49. The FLSA always precluded employers like Defendant, 450 North River Drive, 

LLC, from retaining any portion of the tips and/or overtips and from distributing any tips and/or 

overtips to traditionally non-tipped employees.

50. The FLSA was amended in April 2018 at 29 U.S.C. §203(m)(2)(B) to confirm that 

employers may not keep any portion of the tips and/or overtips earned by their employees for any 

reason – even if in situations in which employers pay their employees more than the minimum 

wage:

An employer may not keep tips received by its employees for any 

purposes, including allowing managers or supervisors to keep any portion of 

employees’ tips, regardless of whether or not the employer takes a tip 

credit.

51. Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, disregarded the FLSA’s prohibition on 

retaining the tips when it kept a portion of the tips and/or overtips and/or when it distributed such 

tips and/or overtips to traditionally non-tipped employees (such as owners, officers, directors, 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 10 of 36
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

11

partners, managers, or supervisors).

52. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC,

retaining a portion of the tips and/or overtips received by its employees and/or distributing a 

portion of the tips and/or overtips to traditionally non-tipped employees, Defendant, 450 North 

River Drive, LLC, violated the FLSA and damaged Plaintiff and the Collective.

53. Plaintiff and the Collective are entitled to recover as damages all tips and overtips 

that Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, improperly retained and/or that Defendant, 450 

North River Drive, LLC, improperly distributed to traditionally non-tipped employees.

54. Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, willfully and intentionally refused to pay 

Plaintiff and the Collective all the tips and/or overtips they earned/received during the relevant 

time.

55. Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, either knew from prior experience as a 

result of its being previously sued for violating the FLSA by improperly sharing tips with 

traditionally non-tipped employees in Arriaga vs. 450 North River Drive, LLC, S.D. Fla. Case No.: 

1:19-CV-25174-MARTINEZ, or it recklessly failed to investigate whether its failure to pay Plaintiff 

and the Collective all of the tips and overtips they earned and/or that its patrons left (a) violated 

the FLSA, (b) it either knew from prior experience or recklessly failed to investigate whether the 

aforementioned practice violated the FLSA, (c) it either knew from prior experience or recklessly 

failed to investigate whether their failure to distribute the tips (and overtips) received from and paid 

by patrons with “house” accounts during the relevant time period violated the FLSA, (d) and then 

it failed to timely correct its violation(s).

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 11 of 36
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

12

COUNT IB

VIOLATION(S) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

(RJ RIVER, LLC)

56. Plaintiff reincorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 46 as though set forth 

fully herein.

57. Defendant, RJ River, LLC, employed Plaintiff and other similarly situated captains, 

servers, and bussers in its restaurant, “Kiki on the River”.

Liability

58. The FLSA always precluded employers like Defendant, RJ River, LLC, from 

retaining any portion of the tips and/or overtips and from distributing any tips and/or overtips to 

traditionally non-tipped employees.

59. The FLSA was amended in April 2018 at 29 U.S.C. §203(m)(2)(B) to confirm that 

employers may not keep any portion of the tips and/or overtips earned by their employees for any 

reason – even if in situations in which employers pay their employees more than the minimum 

wage:

An employer may not keep tips received by its employees for any 

purposes, including allowing managers or supervisors to keep any portion of 

employees’ tips, regardless of whether or not the employer takes a tip 

credit.

60. Defendant, RJ River, LLC, disregarded the FLSA’s prohibition on retaining the 

tips and/or overtips left by patrons by retaining a portion of the tips and/or overtips and/or by 

distributing such tips and/or overtips to traditionally non-tipped employees (such as owners, 

officers, directors, partners, managers, or supervisors).

61. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant, RJ River, LLC, retaining a portion 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 12 of 36
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

13

of the tips and/or overtips received by its employees and/or distributing a portion of the tips 

and/or overtips to traditionally non-tipped employees, Defendant, RJ River, LLC, violated the 

FLSA and damaged Plaintiff and the Collective.

62. Plaintiff and the Collective are entitled to recover as damages all tips and overtips 

that Defendant, RJ River, LLC, improperly retained and/or that Defendant, RJ River, LLC,

improperly distributed to traditionally non-tipped employees.

63. Defendant, RJ River, LLC, willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff and 

the Collective all the tips and overtips they earned/received during the relevant time.

64. Defendant, RJ River, LLC, either knew from prior experience as a result of its being 

previously sued for violating the FLSA by improperly sharing tips with traditionally non-tipped 

employees in Arriaga vs. 450 North River Drive, LLC, S.D. Fla. Case No.: 1:19-CV-25174-

MARTINEZ, or it recklessly failed to investigate whether its failure to pay Plaintiff and the 

Collective all of the tips (and overtips) they earned and/or that its patrons left (a) violated the FLSA, 

(b) it either knew from prior experience or recklessly failed to investigate whether the 

aforementioned practice violated the FLSA, (c) it either knew from prior experience or recklessly 

failed to investigate whether their failure to distribute the tips and overtips received from and paid 

by patrons with “house” accounts during the relevant time period violated the FLSA, (d) and then 

it failed to timely correct its violation(s).

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 13 of 36
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

14

COUNT IC

VIOLATION(S) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

(ROMAN JONES)

65. Plaintiff reincorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 46 as though set forth 

fully herein.

66. Defendant, Roman Jones, is an officer, director, member, and/or managing 

member of Defendants, 450 North River Drive, LLC and RJ River, LLC.

67. Defendant, Roman Jones, had operational control over Defendants, 450 North 

River Drive, LLC and RJ River, LLC, and is jointly liable for the damages sustained by Plaintiff 

and the Collective.

68. Defendant, Roman Jones, made significant operational decisions on behalf of 

Defendants, 450 North River Drive, LLC and RJ River, LLC, he had signatory authority for them, 

and he maintained the right to hire, fire, and make decisions regarding the employment of Plaintiff 

and the Collective.

Liability

69. The FLSA always precluded employers like Defendant, Roman Jones, LLC, from 

retaining or receiving any portion of the tips and/or overtips and from distributing any tips and/or 

overtips to traditionally non-tipped employees.

70. The FLSA was amended in April 2018 at 29 U.S.C. §203(m)(2)(B) to confirm that 

employers may not keep any portion of the tips and/or overtips earned by their employees for any 

reason – even if in situations in which employers pay their employees more than the minimum 

wage:

An employer may not keep tips received by its employees for any 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 14 of 36
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

15

purposes, including allowing managers or supervisors to keep any portion of 

employees’ tips, regardless of whether or not the employer takes a tip 

credit.

71. Defendant, Roman Jones, disregarded the FLSA’s prohibition on retaining the tips 

and/or overtips left by patrons by retaining or receiving a portion of the tips and/or overtips 

and/or by distributing such tips and/or overtips to traditionally non-tipped employees (such as 

owners, officers, directors, partners, managers, or supervisors).

72. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant, Roman Jones, retaining or receiving 

a portion of the tips and/or overtips received by his tipped employees and/or by distributing a 

portion of the tips and/or overtips to traditionally non-tipped employees, Defendant, Roman 

Jones, violated the FLSA and damaged Plaintiff and the Collective.

73. Plaintiff and the Collective are entitled to recover as damages all tips and overtips 

that Defendant, Roman Jones, improperly retained, received, and/or that he improperly 

distributed to traditionally non-tipped employees.

74. Defendant, Roman Jones, willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff and the 

Collective all the tips (and overtips) they earned/received during the relevant time.

75. Defendant, Roman Jones, either knew from prior experience as a result of his being 

previously sued for violating the FLSA by improperly sharing tips with traditionally non-tipped 

employees in Arriaga vs. 450 North River Drive, LLC, S.D. Fla. Case No.: 1:19-CV-25174-

MARTINEZ, or he recklessly failed to investigate whether its failure to pay Plaintiff and the 

Collective all of the tips (and overtips) they earned and/or that its patrons left, (b) he either knew 

from prior experience or recklessly failed to investigate whether the aforementioned practice 

violated the FLSA, (c) he either knew from prior experience or recklessly failed to investigate 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 15 of 36
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

16

whether his failure to distribute the tips and overtips received from and paid by patrons with 

“house” accounts during the relevant time period violated the FLSA, (d) and then failed to timely 

correct his violation(s).

COUNT I

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

76. Plaintiff and the Collective are entitled to a back pay award of the tips and overtips 

they earned but that Defendants, 450 North River Drive, LLC, RJ River, LLC, and Roman Jones, 

improperly retained/received/distributed, plus an equal amount as liquidated damages, plus all 

attorneys’ fees and costs incurred.

WHEREFORE Plaintiff, Octavio Collado, demands the entry of a judgment in his favor 

and in favor of the Collective, and against Defendants, 450 North River Drive, LLC, RJ River, 

LLC, and Roman Jones, jointly and severally, after trial by jury and as follows:

a. Designating this Count as a Collective Action by Octavio Collado on behalf of the 

Collective he represents pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, issuing notice 

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) to all similarly situated members of the FLSA optin Collective apprising them of the pendency of this action, which will permit them 

to assert timely FLSA claims in this action by filing individual consent to sue forms 

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and equitably tolling the statute of limitations from 

the date of filing this Complaint until the expiration of the deadline for filing the 

consent to sue/join forms pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b);

b. Designating Plaintiff as the representative for the Collective;

c. Designating the undersigned as counsel for the Collective;

d. Awarding Plaintiff and the Collective the tips and overtips improperly 

withheld/distributed and an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, 

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§203(m)(2)(B) and 216(b);

e. Issuing a declaratory judgment that the practices complained of herein are unlawful 

under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq.;

f. Issuing an injunction prohibiting Defendants, 450 North River Drive, LLC, RJ 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 16 of 36
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

17

River, LLC, and Roman Jones, from continued unlawful practices, policies and 

patterns set forth herein; 

g. Awarding pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law;

h. Awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; 

i. Declaring Defendants, 450 North River Drive, LLC, RJ River, LLC, and Roman 

Jones, to be in willful violation of the minimum wage provisions of the FLSA; 

j. Declaring that the statute of limitations should be three (3) years; and

k. Awarding such other and further relief that this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT II – VIOLATION(S) OF THE FLORIDA MINIMUM WAGE ACT

Satisfaction of Conditions Precedent

77. While Plaintiff does not believe that the pre-suit notice requirements of Fla. Stat. 

§448.110(6) are constitutional, Plaintiff nevertheless complied with these requirements by serving 

Defendants with the notice required by the FMWA on November 10, 2022, and on December 8, 

2022. 

78. Defendants thereafter failed to resolve the FMWA claims to the Plaintiff’s

satisfaction within the time permitted by law. 

Class Action Allegations

79. Plaintiff seeks to bring this Count II on a class basis because, during the last five 

years, other he and other captains, servers, and bussers were subjected to the same wrongful pay 

practices and policies that operated to deprive him and the others similarly situated of the 

minimum wage guaranteed by Florida law.

80. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff seeks

certification of and is a member of the following putative class that he seeks to represent: 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 17 of 36
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

18

All persons who worked, were employed by, or engaged as captains, servers, and/or bussers 

by 450 North River Drive, LLC, RJ River, LLC, and Roman Jones, at Kiki On The River, 

any time during the five (5) years prior to the filing of the Complaint and up through the 

rendition of a judgment in this matter.

81. Subject to additional information obtained through further investigation and 

discovery, the foregoing definition of the Class may be expanded or narrowed by amendment or 

amended complaint. Specifically excluded from the Class are Defendants, their officers, directors, 

agents, trustees, parents, children, the Judge assigned to this action, and any member of the Judge’s 

immediate family.

82. This Count II is properly maintainable on a class basis pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3).

a. Numerosity: This Count II satisfies numerosity. The class defined above is 

sufficiently numerous that separate joinder of each member is impracticable, as the 

Class will be comprised of more than fifty (50) class members. Though the exact 

number and identity of Class members are not presently known, they can be 

identified through the records in Defendants’ possession, custody, and control.

b. Commonality: The named Plaintiff’s claims in Count II raise questions of law and 

fact common to each member of the class, which include, but are not limited to: 

i. whether Defendants paid a direct hourly wage below the minimum wage 

required by the FMWA;

ii. whether Defendants supplemented the direct hourly wage paid to their 

tipped employees with a portion of the service charges collected and with 

the tips collected;

iii. whether Defendants collected tips/overtips from patrons who paid upon 

completion of their dining;

iv. whether Defendants allowed patrons to accumulate bills into “house 

accounts:

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 18 of 36
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

19

v. whether Defendants collected tips/overtips when patrons settled their 

“house accounts”;

vi. whether Defendants took control over and pooled the tops/overtips left for 

their tipped employees;

vii. whether Defendants were required to distribute the tips/overtips they 

received to their employees; 

viii. whether Defendants improperly retained any portion of the tips/overtips 

they collected;

ix. whether Defendants improperly distributed any portion of the tips/overtips 

to managers or traditionally non-tipped employees; 

x. whether tips/overtips are included within the definition of minimum wages 

under the FMWA;

xi. whether Defendants owe any tips/overtips; and

xii. whether Defendants’ conduct willfully violated the FMWA.

c. Defendants’ defenses, to the extent that any such defenses apply, are commonly and 

generally applicable to Plaintiff and to the entire Class, and are not distinguishable 

or applicable against individual members of the proposed Class.

d. Typicality: The named Plaintiff’s claims in Count II are typical of the claims of the 

class members because the representative Plaintiff, like all members of the Class, 

worked as a captain and as a server who was paid a direct hourly wage that was 

below the applicable minimum wage required by the FMWA, received tips and/or 

overtips, and who did not receive all of the wages he earned due to the same and/or 

similar policies applied to all other captains, servers, and bussers who also were paid 

a direct hourly wage below the applicable Florida minimum wage and who received 

tips from a “tip pool” comprised of tips and/or overtips while working for 

Defendants during the past five years. 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 19 of 36
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

20

e. Adequacy: Plaintiff will vigorously pursue the claims alleged in Count II on behalf 

of himself and other similarly situated captains, servers, and bussers. Neither the 

Plaintiff nor his claims have any adverse interests to the proposed absent class 

members because he asserts the same claims under Florida law (FMWA) and seeks

the same relief as would the Class members if each were to bring a similar action 

individually. Plaintiff will adequately protect and represent the interests of each 

Class member. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s counsel is experienced in wage class 

actions and intimately familiar with Florida and federal wage laws.

f. Predominance: Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), class certification of Count II is 

appropriate because the FMWA claim alleged on behalf of the Class, as described 

in Count II, predominates over any question of law or fact affecting only individual 

members of the Class. The predominance questions of law or fact are clear, precise, 

well-defined, and applicable to the Plaintiff as well as every other member of the 

proposed Class.

g. Superiority: Class representation is superior to other available methods for the fair 

and efficient adjudication of the FMWA claim at Count II for a number of reasons 

including, but not limited to, the following: (1) the FMWA claim at Count II

challenges the policy of a long-time employer and therefore employees may be 

reluctant to bring claims individually for fear of retaliation; (2) some class members 

may have only worked for Defendants for a short period of time, and their 

individual damages would not be substantial enough to be worth the effort of 

bringing individual claims; (3) class members do not have the resources to bring 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 20 of 36
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

21

their claims individually; (4) the prosecution of separate actions by individual 

members of the Class would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications 

with respect to individual members of the proposed Class that would establish 

incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant; and (5) it would be an inefficient 

use of scarce judicial resources to require each employee affected by the practices 

challenged herein to bring his or her own individual claim. 

83. Notice of the Court’s certification of Count II as a Class Action and of any result or 

resolution of Count II can be provided to Class members by first-class mail, email, by the provision 

of notice in the paychecks/stubs to class members still employed by Defendants, by publication, 

and/or such other methods of notice as deemed appropriate by the Court.

The Law

84. The Florida Constitution provides that, “All working Floridians are entitled to be 

paid a minimum wage that is sufficient to provide a decent and healthy life for them and their 

families, that protects their employers from unfair low-wage competition, and that does not force 

them to rely on taxpayer-funded public services to avoid economic hardship.” Fla. Const., Art. X, 

§24(a).

85. Plaintiff and those similarly situated are/were entitled to be paid at least the

minimum wage established by the Florida Minimum Wage Act. Fla. Stat. §448.110; and Art. X, 

§24, Fla. Const.

86. The Florida Constitution, in Article X, Section 24, states that “the terms 

‘Employer,’ ‘Employee’ and ‘Wage’ shall have the meanings established under the federal Fair 

Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and its implementing regulations.”

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 21 of 36
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

22

87. The FLSA permits employers to consider part of the gratuities left by customers 

(tips and/or overtips) as part of the wages paid to their employees for purposes of satisfying the 

minimum wage requirements, 29 U.S.C. §203(m)(2)(A), and the FMWA incorporates that 

definition of “wage”. Art. X, §24(b) and (c). 

88. The Florida Minimum Wage Act, specifically provides that, “For tipped 

Employees meeting eligibility requirements for the tip credit under the FLSA, Employers may 

credit towards satisfaction of the Minimum Wage tips up to the amount of the allowable FLSA tip 

credit in 2003.” Art. X, §24(c).

COUNT IIA

VIOLATION(S) OF THE FLORIDA MINIMUM WAGE ACT

(450 NORTH RIVER DRIVE, LLC)

89. Plaintiff reincorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 34 and 77 through 88

as set forth fully herein and further alleges as follows:

Liability

90. Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, paid Plaintiff and the other similarly 

situated captains, servers, and bussers a direct hourly wage that was below the direct minimum 

hourly wage required by the FMWA.

91. Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, supplemented the direct hourly wage it 

paid to Plaintiff and the other similarly situated captains, servers, and bussers by distributing a 

portion of the service charges it collected and by distributing a portion of the tips and overtips it

collected and controlled to its tipped employees.

92. Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, violated the FMWA by paying a “tip 

credit” wage but retaining a portion of the tips and/or overtips patrons left for their tipped 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 22 of 36
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

23

employees and/or by distributing such tips and/or overtips to traditionally non-tipped employees 

(such as owners, officers, directors, partners, managers, or supervisors).

93. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC’s

retaining a portion of the tips and/or overtips received by its tipped employees and/or distributing 

a portion of the tips and/or overtips to traditionally non-tipped employees, Defendant, 450 North 

River Drive, LLC, violated the FMWA.

94. Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to payment of all tips and/or overtips that 

Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, improperly retained and/or that Defendant, 450 North 

River Drive, LLC improperly distributed to traditionally non-tipped employees (such as owners, 

officers, directors, partners, managers, or supervisors).

95. Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, willfully and intentionally refused to pay 

Plaintiff and the Class all tips and overtips they earned/received during the relevant time.

96. Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, either knew from prior experience as a 

result of its being previously sued for improperly sharing tips with traditionally non-tipped 

employees in Arriaga vs. 450 North River Drive, LLC, S.D. Fla. Case No.: 1:19-CV-25174-

MARTINEZ (a) violated the FLSA and therefore the FMWA, (b) it either knew from prior 

experience or recklessly failed to investigate whether the aforementioned practice violated the 

FMWA, (c) it either knew from prior experience or recklessly failed to investigate whether their 

failure to distribute the tips and overtips received from and paid by patrons with “house” accounts 

during the relevant time period violated the FMWA, (d) and then it failed to timely correct its

violation(s) of the FMWA.

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 23 of 36
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

24

COUNT IIB

VIOLATION(S) OF THE FLORIDA MINIMUM WAGE ACT

(RJ RIVER, LLC)

97. Plaintiff reincorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 34 and 77 through 88 

as set forth fully herein and further alleges as follows:

Liability

98. Defendant, RJ River, LLC, paid Plaintiff and the other similarly situated captains, 

servers, and bussers a direct hourly wage that was below the direct minimum hourly wage required 

by the FMWA.

99. Defendant, RJ River, LLC, supplemented the direct hourly wage it paid to Plaintiff 

and the other similarly situated captains, servers, and bussers by distributing a portion of the service 

charges it collected and by distributing a portion of the tips and overtips it collected and controlled 

to its tipped employees.

100. Defendant, RJ River, LLC, violated the FMWA by paying a “tip credit” wage and 

then retaining a portion of the tips and/or overtips patrons left for their tipped employees and/or 

by distributing such tips and/or overtips to traditionally tips and/or overtips non-tipped employees 

(such as owners, officers, directors, partners, managers, or supervisors).

101. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant, RJ River, LLC’s retaining a portion 

of the tips and/or overtips received by its tipped employees and/or distributing a portion of the 

tips and/or overtips to traditionally non-tipped employees, Defendant, RJ River, LLC, violated 

the FMWA.

102. Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to payment of all tips and overtips that 

Defendant, RJ River, LLC, improperly retained and/or that Defendant, RJ River, LLC,

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 24 of 36
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

25

improperly distributed to traditionally non-tipped employees (such as owners, officers, directors, 

partners, managers, or supervisors).

103. Defendant, RJ River, LLC, willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff and 

the Class all the tips and overtips they earned/received during the relevant time.

104. Defendant, RJ River, LLC, either knew from prior experience as a result of its being 

previously sued for improperly sharing tips with traditionally non-tipped employees in Arriaga vs. 

450 North River Drive, LLC, S.D. Fla. Case No.: 1:19-CV-25174-MARTINEZ (a) violated the FLSA 

and therefore the FMWA, (b) it either knew from prior experience or recklessly failed to investigate 

whether the aforementioned practice violated the FMWA, (c) it either knew from prior experience 

or recklessly failed to investigate whether their failure to distribute the tips and overtips received 

from and paid by patrons with “house” accounts during the relevant time period violated the 

FMWA, (d) and then it failed to timely correct its violation(s) of the FMWA.

COUNT IIC

VIOLATION(S) OF THE FLORIDA MINIMUM WAGE ACT

(ROMAN JONES)

105. Plaintiff reincorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 34 and 77 through 88 

as set forth fully herein and further alleges as follows:

106. Defendant, Roman Jones, is an officer, director, member, and/or managing 

member of Defendants, 450 North River Drive, LLC and RJ River, LLC.

107. Defendant, Roman Jones, had operational control over Defendants, 450 North 

River Drive, LLC and RJ River, LLC, and is jointly liable for the damages sustained by Plaintiff 

and the other similarly situated captains, bussers, and servers he employed at “Kiki on the River”.

108. Defendant, Roman Jones, made significant operational decisions on behalf of 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 25 of 36
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

26

Defendants, 450 North River Drive, LLC and RJ River, LLC, he had signatory authority for them, 

and he maintained the right to hire, fire, and make decisions regarding the employment of Plaintiff 

and the other similarly situated captains, servers, and bussers at “Kiki on the River”.

Liability

109. Defendants paid Plaintiff and the other similarly situated captains, servers, and 

bussers a direct hourly wage that was below the direct minimum hourly wage required by the 

FMWA.

110. Defendants supplemented the direct hourly wage it paid to Plaintiff and the other 

similarly situated captains, servers, and bussers by distributing a portion of the service charges it 

collected and by distributing a portion of the tips and overtips it collected and controlled to its 

tipped employees.

111. Defendant, Roman Jones, violated the FMWA by retaining a portion of the tips 

and/or overtips patrons left for their tipped employees and/or by distributing such tips and/or 

overtips to traditionally non-tipped employees (such as owners, officers, directors, partners, 

managers, or supervisors).

112. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant, Roman Jones’ retaining, receiving, 

and/or distributing a portion of the tips and/or overtips that should have been paid only to

traditionally non-tipped employees, Defendant, Roman Jones, violated the FMWA.

113. Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to payment of all tips and overtips that 

Defendant, Roman Jones, improperly retained, received, and/or that he improperly distributed to 

traditionally non-tipped employees.

114. Defendant, Roman Jones, willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff and the 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 26 of 36
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

27

Class all the tips and overtips they earned/received during the relevant time.

115. Defendant, Roman Jones, either knew from prior experience as a result of his 

having been previously sued for improperly sharing tips with traditionally non-tipped employees 

in Arriaga vs. 450 North River Drive, LLC, S.D. Fla. Case No.: 1:19-CV-25174-MARTINEZ (a) 

violated the FLSA and therefore the FMWA, (b) he either knew from prior experience or recklessly 

failed to investigate whether the aforementioned practice violated the FMWA, (c) he either knew 

from prior experience or recklessly failed to investigate whether their failure to distribute the tips 

and overtips received from and paid by patrons with “house” accounts during the relevant time 

period violated the FMWA, (d) and then he failed to timely correct his violation(s) of the FMWA.

COUNT II

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

116. Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to a back pay award of tips and overtips they 

earned, plus an equal amount as liquidated damages, plus all attorneys’ fees and costs incurred.

WHEREFORE Plaintiff, Octavio Collado, demands the entry of a judgment in their favor 

and in favor of the Class, and against Defendants, 450 North River Drive, LLC, RJ River, LLC, 

and Roman Jones, jointly and severally, after trial by jury and as follows:

a. Certifying this Count II as a Class Action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 

(b)(3) by Octavio Collado on behalf of the Class;

b. Designating Plaintiff as the representative for the Class;

c. Designating the undersigned as counsel for the Class;

d. Awarding Plaintiff and the Class the tips and overtips improperly 

withheld/distributed - and an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, 

pursuant to the FMWA;

e. Issuing a declaratory judgment that the practices complained of herein are unlawful 

under the FMWA;

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 27 of 36
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

28

f. Issuing an injunction prohibiting Defendants from continued unlawful practices, 

policies and patterns set forth herein; 

g. Awarding pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law;

h. Awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; 

i. Declaring Defendants to be in willful violation of the minimum wage provisions of 

the FMWA; 

j. Declaring that the statute of limitations should be five (5) or more years and/or that 

the limitations should be tolled, as appropriate; and

k. Awarding such other and further relief that this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT III – FLORIDA COMMON LAW CLAIM FOR UNPAID WAGES

117. Florida law considers tips to be “wages”. See Fla. Stat. §443.1217 (“wages... include 

tips or gratuities” for purposes of reemployment assistance); and Hamann v. Little Italy's Meatballs, 

LLC, 2021 WL 1931257, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 

1541086 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 20, 2021) (“In this instance, Hamann seeks her unpaid tips pursuant to 

Section 448.08. Hamann is entitled to such money as unpaid wages under Florida common 

law.”)(citing Coleman v. City of Hialeah, 525 So. 2d 435, 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (defining “wages” to 

include “tips”).)

118. In this Count III, Plaintiff seeks recovery of “wages” under the common law of 

Florida for himself and others similarly situated, for the tips and overtips that Defendants 

improperly retained and/or distributed. See Pastrana v. Level Up Fitness, LLC, 2021 WL 5631776, at 

*4 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 1, 2021) (recognizing claims for unpaid wages under Florida common law).

Satisfaction of Conditions Precedent

119. Plaintiff complied with all conditions precedent to bringing his claim under the 

common law of Florida, as the common law of Florida imposes no condition precedent to bringing 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 28 of 36
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

29

a lawsuit for unpaid wages.

Class Action Allegations

120. Plaintiff seeks to bring this Count III on a class basis because, during the last four

years, he and other captains, servers, and busses were subjected to the same wrongful pay practices 

and policies that deprived them and the others similarly situated of the wages (tips and overtips) 

they were entitled to receive according to the common law of Florida.

121. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff seeks

certification of and is a member of the following putative class that he seeks to represent: 

All persons who worked, were employed by, or engaged as captains, servers, and/or bussers 

by 450 North River Drive, LLC, RJ River, LLC, and Roman Jones at Kiki On The River 

any time during the four (4) years prior to the filing of the Complaint and up through the 

rendition of a judgment in this matter.

122. Subject to additional information obtained through further investigation and 

discovery, the foregoing definition of the Class may be expanded or narrowed by amendment or 

amended complaint. Specifically excluded from the Class are Defendants, their officers, directors, 

agents, trustees, parents, children, the Judge assigned to this action, and any member of the Judge’s 

immediate family.

123. This Count III is properly maintainable on a class basis pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23b)(3).

a. Numerosity: This Count III satisfies numerosity. The class defined above is 

sufficiently numerous that separate joinder of each member is impracticable, as the 

Class will be comprised of more than fifty (50) Class members from the last four

years. Though the exact number and identity of Class members is not presently 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 29 of 36
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

30

known, they can be identified through the records in Defendants’ possession, 

custody, and control.

b. Commonality: The named Plaintiff’s claims in Count III raise questions of law and 

fact common to each member of the class, which include, but are not limited to: 

i. whether Defendants collected tips/overtips from patrons who paid upon 

completion of their dining;

ii. whether Defendants allowed patrons to accumulate bills into “house 

accounts:

iii. whether Defendants collected tips/overtips when patrons settled their 

“house accounts”;

iv. whether Defendants were required to distribute the tips/overtips they 

received to their employees; 

v. whether the tips/overtips are considered “wages” under Florida common 

law;

vi. whether Defendants improperly retained any portion of the tips/overtips 

they collected;

vii. whether Defendants improperly distributed any portion of the tips/overtips 

to managers or traditionally non-tipped employees; 

viii. whether Defendants were required to distribute all of the tips/overtips to 

their employees as “wages”; 

ix. whether Defendants owe any tips/overtips as wages to Plaintiff and the 

Class; and

x. whether Florida common law provides a cause of action for unpaid wages.

c. Defendants’ defenses, to the extent that any such defenses apply, are commonly and 

generally applicable to Plaintiff and to the entire Class, and are not distinguishable 

or applicable against individual members of the proposed Class.

d. Typicality: The claims of the named Plaintiff in Count III are typical of the claims 

of the Class members because the representative Plaintiff, like all members of the 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 30 of 36
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

31

Class, worked as a captain and as a server who was entitled to receive all of the 

“wages” he earned according to the common law of Florida, but who was deprived 

of those wages by Defendants as a result of their either retaining for themselves or 

improperly distributing tips and/or overtips to traditionally non-tipped employees, 

and by the same and/or similar policies applied to all other captains, servers, 

and/or bussers working at Kiki on the River. 

e. Adequacy: Plaintiff will vigorously pursue the claims alleged in Count III on behalf 

of himself and other captains, servers, and bussers similarly situated. Neither the 

Plaintiff nor his claims have any adverse interests to the proposed absent class 

members because he asserts the same claims under Florida common law and seeks

the same relief as would the Class members if each were to bring a similar action 

individually. Plaintiff will adequately protect and represent the interests of each 

absent class member. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s counsel is experienced in wage class 

actions and intimately familiar with claims for unpaid/underpaid wages under 

Florida law.

f. Predominance: Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), class certification of Count III is 

appropriate because the Florida common law wage claim alleged on behalf of the 

Class in Count III predominates over any question of law or fact affecting only 

individual members of the Class. The predominance questions of law or fact are 

clear, precise, well-defined, and applicable to the Plaintiff as well as every other

member of the proposed Class.

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 31 of 36
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

32

g. Superiority: Class representation is superior to other available methods for the fair 

and efficient adjudication of the Florida common law claim for unpaid wages for a 

number of reasons including, but not limited to, the following: (1) this action 

challenges the policy of a long-time employer and therefore employees may be 

reluctant to bring claims individually for fear of retaliation; (2) some Class members 

may have only worked for Defendants for a short period of time, and their 

individual damages would not be substantial enough to be worth the effort of 

bringing individual claims; (3) Class members do not have the resources to bring 

their claims individually; (4) the prosecution of separate actions by individual 

members of the Class would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications 

with respect to individual members of the proposed Class that would establish 

incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant; and (5) it would be an inefficient 

use of scarce judicial resources to require each employee affected by the practices 

challenged herein to bring his or her own individual claim.

124. Notice of the Court’s certification of this Count III as a Class action and of any 

result or resolution of Count III can be provided to Class members by first-class mail, email, by 

provision of Notice of the Class Action in the paychecks/stubs issued to Class members still 

employed by Defendants, by publication, or such other methods of notice as deemed appropriate 

by the Court.

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 32 of 36
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

33

COUNT IIIA

FLORIDA COMMON LAW CLAIM FOR UNPAID WAGES 

(450 NORTH RIVER DRIVE, LLC)

125. Plaintiff reincorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 34 and 117 through 

124 as set forth fully herein and further alleges as follows:

Liability

126. Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, violated Florida common law by 

retaining a portion of the wages (tips and overtips that customers left for their tipped employees)

and/or by distributing such wages to traditionally non-tipped employees (such as such as owners, 

officers, directors, partners, managers, or supervisors).

127. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC’s either 

retaining for itself and/or distributing a portion of the tips and overtips to traditionally non-tipped 

employees, it violated Florida’s common law.

128. Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to payment of all wages (tips and overtips) that 

they earned but that Defendant, 450 North River Drive, LLC, improperly retained and/or

distributed to traditionally non-tipped employees.

COUNT IIIB

FLORIDA COMMON LAW CLAIM FOR UNPAID WAGES

(RJ RIVER, LLC)

129. Plaintiff reincorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 34 and 117 through 

124 as set forth fully herein and further alleges as follows:

Liability

130. Defendant, RJ River, LLC, violated Florida common law by retaining a portion of 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 33 of 36
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

34

the wages (tips and overtips that customers left for their tipped employees) and/or by distributing 

such wages to traditionally non-tipped employees (such as owners, officers, directors, partners, 

managers, or supervisors).

131. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant, RJ River, LLC’s either retaining for 

itself and/or distributing a portion of the tips and overtips to traditionally non-tipped employees, 

it violated Florida’s common law.

132. Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to payment of all wages (tips and overtips) that 

they earned but that Defendant, RJ River, LLC, improperly retained and/or distributed to 

traditionally non-tipped employees.

COUNT IIIC

FLORIDA COMMON LAW CLAIM FOR UNPAID WAGES

(ROMAN JONES)

133. Plaintiff reincorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 34 and 117 through 

124 as set forth fully herein and further alleges as follows:

Liability

134. Defendant, Roman Jones, violated Florida common law by retaining a portion of 

the wages (tips and overtips that customers left for their tipped employees) and/or by distributing 

such wages to traditionally non-tipped employees (such as owners, officers, directors, partners, 

managers, or supervisors).

135. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant, Roman Jones, either retaining for 

himself, receiving, and/or distributing a portion of the tips and overtips to traditionally non-tipped 

employees, he violated Florida’s common law. 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 34 of 36
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

35

136. Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to payment of all wages (tips and overtips) that 

they earned but that Defendant, Roman Jones, improperly retained, received, and/or distributed 

to traditionally non-tipped employees

COUNT III

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

137. Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to a back pay award of wages (tips and overtips)

they earned under the common law of Florida, plus all attorneys’ fees and costs incurred pursuant 

to Fla. Stat. §448.08.

WHEREFORE Plaintiff, Octavio Collado, demands the entry of a judgment in his favor 

and in favor of the Class, and against Defendants, 450 North River Drive, LLC, RJ River, LLC, 

and Roman Jones jointly and severally after trial by jury and as follows:

a. Certifying this Count III as a Class Action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 

(b)(3) by Octavio Collado on behalf of the Class;

b. Designating Plaintiff as the representative for the Class;

c. Designating the undersigned as counsel for the Class;

d. Awarding Plaintiff and the Class unpaid wages (the tips/overtips improperly 

withheld/distributed) pursuant to Fla. Stat. §448.08;

e. Awarding pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law;

f. Awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Fla. Stat. §448.08; and

g. Awarding such other and further relief that this Court deems appropriate.

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 35 of 36
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

36

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, Octavio Collado, demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable.

Respectfully submitted this 11th day of January 2023,

s/Brian H. Pollock, Esq.

Brian H. Pollock, Esq.

Fla. Bar No. 174742

brian@fairlawattorney.com

FAIRLAW FIRM

135 San Lorenzo Avenue

Suite 770

Coral Gables, FL 33146

Tel: 305.230.4884

Counsel for Plaintiff(s)

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 36 of 36