 (CLASS ACTION)     21.  Plaintiffs worked for Defendant as “lease operators.”  Plaintiff Velasco worked for  Defendant from May 2014 to July 2020.     22.  Plaintiff Costanzo worked for Defendant from June 2017 to June 2020.     23.  Plaintiffs’ primary duty was to maintain oil wells for Defendant.  To do this work  Plaintiffs were required to perform various manual labor tasks to replace, repair, and maintain oil  and gas wells.  They used hand tools, such as pipe wrenches, hammers, and chains to do their  work.  Their job also involved driving to various oil wells owned by Defendant to monitor  operations to ensure that the wells were flowing.       24.  Defendant set the hours and schedule that the Plaintiffs were required to work.   Plaintiffs also reported directly to employees of Defendant.  For example, Plaintiffs reported to  Andrew Tarasso, the lead pumper, and Darcy Hurst, the production coordinator.  Each morning,  the Plaintiffs met with employees of Defendant to discuss the tasks for the day.  After the  morning meeting, the Plaintiffs were sent out to do their work.  The employees of Defendant told  the Plaintiffs what to do and when to do it on a daily basis.    25.  Defendant also gave Plaintiffs equipment to do their work, including the computer  system where the Plaintiffs entered data regarding how the wells were flowing.       27.  For compensation, Plaintiff Velasco was paid on an hourly rate basis.  Plaintiff  Costanzo was paid on a day rate basis and during the last few months was changed to an hourly  basis.   28.  However, when they worked more than 40 hours per week, they were not paid  any additional wags for overtime.    29.  No overtime exemption under the FLSA or Colorado law applies to Plaintiffs.    30.  No overtime exemption under the FLSA or Colorado law applies to the Class  Members.    31.  Defendant employs other lease operators as independent contractors in multiple  states including Colorado, Texas, Arkansas, North Dakota, and Montana.   32.  Defendant paid Plaintiffs and the Class Members in the same manner.    33.  Defendant issued pay, supervised, directed, scheduled work and performed all  other duties generally associated with that of an employer with regard to Plaintiffs and the Class  Members.   34.  In addition, Defendant instructed Plaintiffs and the Class Members about when,  where, and how they were to perform their work.      36.  Furthermore, the degree of investment Plaintiffs and the Class Members made to  perform their work pales in comparison to the expenses Defendant incurred.  Defendant made  significant investments toward employees, office staff, equipment, and computers, amongst  others.    38.  Despite these facts, Defendant improperly classified Plaintiffs and the Class  Members as independent contractors and not employees.      39.  Defendant misclassified the Plaintiffs and Class Members as independent  contractors to avoid their obligations to pay overtime wages, in addition to health insurance and  other benefits that the Plaintiffs and Class Members were entitled to receive.    40.  However, at all times, Plaintiffs and the Class Members were employees of  Defendant.    41.  Although Plaintiffs have been required to work more than forty (40) hours per  work-week, and did so frequently, Plaintiffs were not compensated at the FLSA mandated time- and-a-half rate for hours in excess of forty (40) per workweek.     42.  Instead, Plaintiffs was paid either a flat day rate for all hours worked or an hourly  rate without any additional wages for overtime.    43.  Defendant’s method of paying Plaintiffs in violation of the FLSA was willful and  was not based on a good faith and reasonable belief that its conduct complied with the FLSA.  That is, Defendant’s misclassification was not by accident, but a well thought out scheme to  reduce its labor costs.  Accordingly, Defendant’s violations of the FLSA were willful.   44.   Plaintiffs incorporate all allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs.    46.   None of the exemptions provided by the FLSA regulating the duty of employers  to pay overtime at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which its  employees are employed are applicable to Defendant or Plaintiffs.    47.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs.   48.  Plaintiffs have actual knowledge that FLSA Class Members have also been  denied overtime pay for hours worked over forty (40) hours per workweek as a result of  Defendant’s misclassification of its employees.     49. Plaintiffs’ knowledge is based on their personal work experience and through  communications with other workers of Defendant.     50.  Other workers similarly situated to the Plaintiffs worked for Defendant  throughout the United States, but were not paid overtime at the rate of one and one-half their  regular rate when those hours exceeded forty (40) hours per workweek.     51.  Although Defendant permitted and/or required the FLSA Class Members to work  in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek, Defendant has denied them full compensation for  their hours worked over forty (40).   52.  Defendant has classified and continue to classify the FLSA Class Members as  independent contractors.   53.  FLSA Class Members perform or have performed the same or similar work as  Plaintiffs and were misclassified as exempt by Defendant.    54.  FLSA Class Members are not exempt from receiving overtime pay under the  62.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs.   63.  At all relevant times, Defendant has been, and continues to be, an “employer”  within the meaning of the CWCA.  At all relevant times, Defendant has employed and continues  to employ, “employees,” including the Colorado Class Members, within the meaning the  66.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs.   68.  Although Plaintiffs do not know the precise number of members of the proposed  class, Plaintiffs believe the members of the class are so numerous that their individual joinder is  impractical.    69.  The identity of the members of the class is readily discernible from Defendant’s  records.   70.  Plaintiffs and the proposed class on one hand, and Defendant on the other, have a  commonality of interest in the subject matter and remedy sought, namely back wages plus  penalties, interest, attorneys’ fees and the cost of this lawsuit.   71.  Common questions of law and fact exist to all members of the class. These  questions predominate over the questions affecting individual class members. These common  legal and factual questions include, but are not limited, to the following:   a. Whether Plaintiffs and the Colorado Class Members worked hours in excess of  forty per work week;  b. Whether Plaintiffs and the Colorado Class Members worked in excess of 12 hours  per day or 12 consecutive hours in any period;  c. Whether Plaintiffs and the Colorado Class Members were denied overtime pay at a  rate not less than one and one half times their regular rate as prescribed by  Colorado law;  d. Whether Defendants failed to properly classify Plaintiffs and the Colorado Class  Members as non-exempt employees under Colorado law.   73.  Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the class because Plaintiffs were not  paid overtime wages in accordance with Colorado law and because Defendant classified them as  independent contractors just like the Colorado Class Members.     74.  Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the class because their interests do not  conflict with the interests of the class that they seek to represent. Plaintiffs have retained  competent counsel, highly experienced in complex class action litigation, and they intend to  prosecute this action vigorously. The interests of the class will be fairly and adequately protected  by Plaintiffs and their counsel.    76.  The operative question in this case is whether the workers in question were  employees or independent contractors.  Evidence common to all class memmbers will be  determinative. 