
    Andrea IDE, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEIGHBORHOOD RESTAURANT PARTNERS, LLC, Apple Creek Management Co., Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-11820
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Date Filed: 07/01/2016
    
      Jamie Golden Sypulski, Law Office Jamie G. Sypulski, Chicago, IL, Sarah J. Arendt, Werman Salas, PC, Chicago, IL, Douglas Michael Werman, Werman Salas, PC, Chicago, IL, Amanda A. Farahany, Victor Severin Roberts, Barrett & Faraha-ny, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Noah A. Finkel, Arthur J. Rooney, Jeremy W. Stewart, Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellee Neighborhood Restaurant Partners, LLC
    Stephen P. Fuller, Davidson Fuller & Sloan, LLP, Johns Creek, GA, for Defendant-Appellee Apple Creek Management Co., Inc.
    Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR, and GILMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Honorable Ronald Lee Gilman, United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
    
   PER CURIAM:

Andrea Ide filed suit against Apple Creek Management Company, Inc. and Neighborhood Restaurant Partners, LLC (collectively, the Defendants) on behalf of herself and similarly situated tipped employees of the Defendants “for Defendants’ failure to pay [those servers, bartenders, and hosts] earned minimum wages.” Ide argued, in relevant part, that (1) the Defendants should bear the burden of proving that the Defendants were entitled to take the “tip credit” under Section 3(m) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 203(m), and (2) Ide and similarly situated tipped employees should not have been paid at the tip-credit wage rate for performing duties of non-tipped occupations unrelated to their tipped occupations. The district court denied Ide’s motion for conditional certification of a collective action under the FLSA and subsequently granted summary judgment to the Defendants. Ide appeals both rulings.

After thorough review of the record and the parties’ briefs, and having had the benefit of oral argument, we find insufficient evidence in the record that Ide performed duties unrelated to her tipped occupation for which she was not properly compensated, irrespective of who bore the burden of proof. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(m), (t), 206(a)(1); 29 C.F.R. § 531.56(e); see also Fast v. Applebee’s Int’l, Inc., 638 F.3d 872, 876-79 (8th Cir. 2011). Thus, Ide’s arguments regarding conditional certification under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) are moot. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.  