Pulliam et al v. Banana Blossom Thai Cafe, LLC et al

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CONNOR PULLIAM, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 25-1341
BANANA BLOSSOM THAI CAFE, LLC.,
ET AL.
SECTION: “G” (5)
ORDER AND REASONS
Plaintiffs Connor Pulliam, Eric Truong, Majella Villaeba, Katherine Templeton, Assata
Simpson, and Pakanan Tonsakul’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring this case against Defendants
Banana Blossom Thai Café, LLC (“Banana Blossom”) and Rattanasak Chotikarnul (“Jimmy
Cho”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for allegedly violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”),
retaliating against employees who complained of said violations, and violating various Louisiana
statutes.
1
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ “Motion for Collective Action Certification.”
2

Plaintiffs move the Court to certify two classes of “putative Opt-In Plaintiffs[.]”
3
The motion was
filed on June 8, 2026, and set for submission on June 26, 2026.
4
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.5,
opposition to a motion must be filed eight days before the noticed submission date.
5
To date, no
opposition has been filed and the motion is therefore deemed to be unopposed. This Court has the
authority to grant an unopposed motion, although it is not required to do so.
6
Having considered

1
Rec. Doc. 1.
2
Rec. Doc. 31.
3
Id. at 1–2.
4
Rec. Doc.

31-8.

5
EDLA Local Rule 7.5.
6
Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350, 356 (5th Cir. 1993).
Case 2:25-cv-01341-NJB-MBN Document 37 Filed 06/24/26 Page 1 of 8

2

the motion, memorandum in support, the record, and the applicable law, the Court grants the
motion.
I. Background
Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on June 30, 2025, alleging violations of the FLSA
and Louisiana law.
7
Plaintiffs allege that they are all employees of Banana Blossom.
8
Further,
Plaintiffs allege that Jimmy Cho, who owns Banana Blossom, “has engaged in persistent wage
theft from his employees for years.”
9
Specifically, Plaintiffs claim that Jimmy Cho refused to pay
time-and-a-half for overtime, illegally deducted credit card fees from employees’ tips, and required
servers to participate in an illegal tip pool.
10

Plaintiffs assert that, along with other unnamed plaintiffs, they are part of two classes of
putative plaintiffs, which consist of “Putative Overtime Class Members” and “Putative Tip Pool
Class Members.”
11
Plaintiffs contend that Putative Overtime Class Members consist of:
All non-exempt individuals who (1) are or were employed by Banana Blossom Thai
Café, LLC at any point from three years prior to the date of filing this complaint up
to and including the date of final judgment in this matter, (2) are either the Named
Plaintiffs or elect to opt-in to this action pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b);
and (3) worked more than forty hours in at least one workweek and were subject to
Banana Blossom’s blanket practice and/or policy of not paying overtime wages to
employees working more than forty (40) hour per week.
12

Plaintiffs aver that the Putative Tip Pool Class Members consist of:
All non-exempt individuals who (1) are or were employed by Banana Blossom Thai
Café, LLC at any point from three years prior to the date of filing this complaint up
to and including the date of final judgment in this matter, (2) are either the Named

7
Rec. Doc. 1 at 3.
8
Id. at 1.
9
Id.
10
Id.
11
Id. at 4–5.
12
Id. at 4.
Case 2:25-cv-01341-NJB-MBN Document 37 Filed 06/24/26 Page 2 of 8

3

Plaintiffs or elect to opt-in to this action pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b);
and (3) were subject to a tip credit being taken by Banana Blossom.
13

Moreover, Plaintiffs assert that once the FLSA violations were brought to Defendants’
attention Defendants retaliated against them by “imposing new restrictions on them and
terminating benefits.”
14
Further, Plaintiffs assert claims against Defendants under Louisiana law,
contending that Defendants’ actions amounted to: illegal fines due to the deduction of credit card
processing fees from Plaintiffs’ checks,
15
conversion and misappropriation of the monies
wrongfully withheld from Plaintiffs’ paychecks,
16
failure to pay wages,
17
and a violation of the
Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act.
18

On June 8, 2026, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion.
19
To date, no opposition has been filed.
On June 18, 2026, Plaintiffs filed an “Ex Parte Motion for Expedited Consideration of Unopposed
Motion to Certify Collective Action.”
20
In that motion, Plaintiffs move the Court for expedited
consideration of the Motion for Collective Action Certification.
21

II. Plaintiffs’ Arguments in Support of the Motion
Plaintiffs assert that Defendants’ common practice of not paying overtime is evidenced by:
(1) employees’ pay stubs, (2) written admissions (3) admissions by defendants’ manager,

13
Id.
14
Id. at 22.
15
See La. Rev. Stat. § 23:631.
16
See La. Civ. Code art. 2315.
17
See La. Rev. Stat. § 23:621, et seq.
18
See La. Rev. Stat. § 51:1401, et seq.
19
Rec. Doc. 31.
20
Rec. Doc. 34.
21
Id.
Case 2:25-cv-01341-NJB-MBN Document 37 Filed 06/24/26 Page 3 of 8

4

accountant, and owner, and (4) stipulation by Defendants’ counsel.
22
Specifically regarding the
Putative Overtime Class Members, Plaintiffs offer pay stubs from multiple employees which show
those employees logging more than 40 hours on some weeks without any overtime payrate being
applied to any of the logged hours.
23
Further, Plaintiffs submit that during the Rule 30(b)(6)
deposition of Banana Blossom, Defendants’ counsel stipulated that Defendants did not pay
overtime during the relevant time periods.
24

As to the Putative Tip Pool Class Members, Plaintiffs point to tip pool logs to show that
severs and expediters shared 15% of the tip pool with back of the house staff, and that “the salaried
manager Sara shared in the tip pool with the servers/expediters.”
25
Moreover, Plaintiffs point to
Banana Blossom’s manager Kulisara Jinawong’s (“Sara”) deposition testimony wherein Sara
allegedly admitted to clocking in as a server while working as a manager,
26
and Defendants’
Response to Request for Admission No. 13, wherein Defendants confirmed that “beginning in
2009 employees agreed to a tip pool with the remainder being split among the front of the house.”
27

Lastly, Plaintiffs assert that “Defendant’s common policy of deducting credit card fees from all

22
Rec. Doc. 31-1 at 5.
23
Rec. Doc. 31-2. The paystubs provided are for four week pay periods and show in excess of 160 hours
worked for each employee, allowing the Court to conclude that these employees were working in excess of 40 hours
per week on at least some occasions without overtime pay.
24
Rec. Doc. 31-1 at 7. On June 15, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a “Notice of Stipulation as to Partial Liability and
FLSA Recordkeeping Violations Under 29 CFR Part 516,” wherein Plaintiff provide the 30(b)(6) deposition transcript
along with the page and line citations supporting their assertion that Defendants’ counsel stipulated that no overtime
was paid during the relevant time period. Rec. Doc. 33 (citing Rec. Doc. 32-1 at 45–46).
25
Rec. Doc. 31-1 at 8.
26
Plaintiffs note that Sara’s deposition transcript would be provided upon receipt, but to date, said transcript
has not been filed into the record.
27
Id. (citing Rec. Doc. 31-3 at 3) (emphasis in original).
Case 2:25-cv-01341-NJB-MBN Document 37 Filed 06/24/26 Page 4 of 8

5

employee tips is evident from comparing sales reports showing the various percentage deductions
implemented each year to the corresponding credit card fees actually deducted.”
28

Accordingly, Plaintiffs contend that they have met their burden because the “evidence
shows that the aggrieved putative class members are similarly situated regarding the claims and
defenses asserted, collective treatment is properly administered with this Court’s discretion.”
29

Particularly, Plaintiffs aver that each putative member of the “Overtime Class — including Banana
Blossom servers, expediters, hosts, bussers, and kitchen staff —was subject to nonpayment of
earned overtime through payment of their regular rate of pay only[,]” and that each putative
member of the “Tip Pool class was paid less than minimum wage when Defendants claimed a tip
credit without notice. As a result, these putative members meet the FLSA’s requirements for being
‘similarly situated’ — especially considering the FLSA only requires that putative class members
are similar, not identical to putative plaintiffs.”
30

III. Legal Standard
Under Section 216(b) of the FLSA, one or more employees can pursue a class action in a
representative capacity on behalf of similarly situated employees.
31
Such collective actions allow
similarly situated plaintiffs “the advantage of lower individual costs to vindicate rights by the
pooling of resources” and benefits the judicial system “by efficient resolution in one proceeding
of common issues of law and fact.”
32
A plaintiff may proceed collectively under the FLSA unless

28
Id. (citing Rec. Docs. 31-5, 31-6).
29
Id. at 10.
30
Id. (citing Walker v. Honghua America, LLC, 870 F. Supp. 2d 462, 468 (S.D. Tex. 2012)).
31
29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (“An action to recover the liability . . . may be maintained against any employer . . . in
any Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more employees for and in behalf of himself or
themselves and other employees similarly situated.”).
32
Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165, 170 (1989).
Case 2:25-cv-01341-NJB-MBN Document 37 Filed 06/24/26 Page 5 of 8

6

“the action relates to specific circumstances personal to the plaintiff rather than any generally
applicable policy or practice.”
33
There are two requirements to proceed as a representative action:
(1) all plaintiffs must be “similarly situated” and (2) a plaintiff must consent in writing to take part
in the suit.
34
This latter requirement means that a representative action follows an “opt-in” rather
than an “opt-out” procedure.
35

The FLSA does not define the requirements for employees to be deemed “similarly
situated.” However, in Swales v. KLLM Transport Services, LLC, the Fifth Circuit held that at the
outset of the litigation, the district court should “rigorously enforce” Section 216(b)’s requirement
that parties be “similarly situated.”
36
The Fifth Circuit also held that plaintiffs have the burden of
demonstrating that the plaintiffs and opt-ins are similarly situated.
37
Once, the parties have
exchanged preliminary discovery, the second step under Swales is for the Court to look at all the
evidence before it and determine whether the proposed collective is in fact “similarly situated,”
with an eye toward ensuring that the collective action does not “devolve into a cacophony of
individual actions.”
38
The three factors used by courts to make this determination are: “(1) the
disparate factual and employment settings of the individual plaintiffs; (2) the various defenses
available to the defendant which appear to be individual to each plaintiff; and (3) fairness and

33
Xavier v. Belfor USA Grp., Inc., 585 F. Supp. 2d 873, 877 (E.D. La. 2008) (Zainey, J.) (quoting England
v. New Century Fin. Corp., 370 F. Supp. 2d 504, 507 (M.D. La. 2005)).
34
29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
35
See Mooney v. Aramco Servs. Co., 54 F.3d 1207, 1212 (5th Cir. 1995), overruled on other grounds by
Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90 (2003).
36
985 F.3d 430, 443 (5th Cir. 2021).
37
Id.
38
Id. at 442–443.
Case 2:25-cv-01341-NJB-MBN Document 37 Filed 06/24/26 Page 6 of 8

7

procedural considerations.”
39
However, “[t]he bottom line is that the district court has broad,
litigation-management discretion here.”
40

Only those employees who affirmatively “opt-in” to the suit are bound by a collective
action under the FLSA.
41
Affidavits from potential opt-in plaintiffs may be probative, but “in the
Fifth Circuit, there is no categorical rule that Plaintiffs must submit evidence at this time that other
[individuals] seek to opt-in to this case.”
42

IV. Analysis
Here, Plaintiffs have presented abundant evidence to the Court including sworn testimony;
admissions from Defendants; financial records consistent with Plaintiffs’ allegations of illegal tip
pooling and lack of overtime pay; and Defendants’ counsel’s stipulation that overtime was not
paid out during the relevant time period. Further, Defendants have not responded to the instant
motion. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have met their burden of showing that the putative
plaintiffs of the two requested classes are similarly situated to the named Plaintiffs. Specifically,
Plaintiffs have shown that the putative plaintiffs were subject to similar disparate factual and
employment settings, the potential defenses Defendants’ may have against claims from said classes
of plaintiffs appear to be similar, and the interest of fairness is served by this Court certifying the
requested classes at this stage of litigation, now that discovery has closed.
Accordingly,

39
Id. at 437.
40
Id. at 443.
41
29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (“[N]o employee shall be a party plaintiff to any such action unless he gives his consent
in writing to become such a party and such consent is filed in the court in which such action is brought.”).
42
Perkins v. Manson Gulf, L.L.C., No. 14 – 2199, 2015 WL 771531, at *4 (E.D. La. Feb. 23, 2015) (Africk,
J.) (quoting White v. Integrated Elec. Techs., Inc., No. 12-359, 2013 WL 2903070, at *7 (E.D. La. June 13, 2013)
(Morgan, J.)).
Case 2:25-cv-01341-NJB-MBN Document 37 Filed 06/24/26 Page 7 of 8

8

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Collective Action Certification
43

is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Consideration
44
is
MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 10 days of entry of this order, Defendants will
disclose to Plaintiffs the names, last known home addresses, email addresses (business and home),
and home and cellular telephone numbers for the above-defined potential opt-in plaintiffs.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall send the Proposed Notice and Consent
Forms to be mailed, texted, and emailed to the class members.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that opt-in plaintiffs shall opt in within thirty (30) days of
the date that notice is sent to members of the collective, and any opt-ins who seek to join the action
after that deadline must establish good cause for their delay.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall send a reminder notice by telephone,
21 days prior to the close of the opt-in period, to any putative class members who have not yet
opted in.
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this ____ day of June, 2026.

_________________________________
NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

43
Rec. Doc. 31.
44
Rec. Doc. 34.
23rd
23rd
Case 2:25-cv-01341-NJB-MBN Document 37 Filed 06/24/26 Page 8 of 8