(COLORADO WAGE CLAIM ACT)   (COLORADO MINIMUM WAGE ACT)   (FAIR LABOR STANDARD ACT)   15.  Defendant employed Plaintiff and the Collective and Class Action Members as  Operators.    16.  Defendant operated in Colorado and Texas during the relevant time period.     17.  Defendant maintains control, oversight, and discretion over the operations of  worksites, including employment practices with respect to Plaintiff and the Collective Action  Members.    18.  Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members’ work as Operators was integrated  into and performed in the normal course of Defendant’s business.   20.  Plaintiff and other Operators would frequently punch in at the start of the day on  the time clock in the yard and punch out at the time clock when they returned to the yard after  their shift.   21.  After punching in at the yard, Plaintiff and other Operators would then drive in a  company vehicle, including Chevy Silverado pickup trucks, to and from the pad.    22.  Plaintiff and other Operators either drove the Chevy Silverado pickup truck,  loaded it with supplies that needed to be secured in the bed or the cab – such as napkins, lab  materials, trash materials, and filter shock – or served as driver’s helpers including by helping  the Operator stay awake.   23.  Plaintiff and other Operators drove to and from the pad approximately 1 hour to 3  hours per day round trip six days per week and were not paid for this time.    24.  Rather, Plaintiff and other Operators were only paid for the 12 hour shifts that  they were on the pad.   25.  Plaintiff had an information pass-over meeting for 30 minutes per day and was  not paid for that.    26.  Thus, Plaintiff and other Operators would often work 16+ hour days, and the  Defendant only paid them for 12 hours.   27.  Plaintiff initially worked a “10 on 4 off” and then a “14 on and 7 off” rotation.     28.  The number of shifts that Plaintiff and each individual Collective Action Member  worked per week can be ascertained from Defendant’s records.      30.  During the entire time that Plaintiff was employed by Defendant, Plaintiff was not  paid properly for his driving time as detailed herein.    31.  Defendant cannot dispute that it owed Plaintiff and Collective Action Members  overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 per workweek and/or 12 per day.    32.  Plaintiff complained about his pay issues to many of his superiors, but they did  not remedy their failure to pay him for all hours worked.    33.  Some, or all of, the overtime compensation due to Plaintiff and the Collective  Action Members remained unpaid for thirty days beyond the regularly scheduled payday.   34.  Plaintiff and all members of the Class and Collective Action performed the same  primary job duties.    35.  Defendant is aware of the totality of work that Plaintiff and the Collective Action  Members performed.    36.  This work did not require managerial responsibilities, or the exercise of  meaningful decision-making on matters of significance that impacted the business and no  interaction with the management of the home office.    37.  Throughout the Class and Collective Action periods, the primary job duties of  Plaintiff and the Class and Collective Action Members did not include: hiring, firing,  disciplining, or directing the work of other employees, nor exercising meaningful independent  judgment and discretion.     39.  Defendant is liable under the FLSA and Colorado wage and hour laws for, inter  alia, failing to properly pay overtime wage to Plaintiff and similar employees.  40.  Plaintiff brings this lawsuit pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) as a collective action  on behalf of the Collective Action Members, as defined above.   41.  Plaintiff desire to pursue his FLSA claim on behalf of any individuals who opt in  to this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).   42.  Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members are “similarly situated” as that term  is used in 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), because, inter alia, all such individuals worked pursuant to  Defendant’s above described common business policies and practices and, as a result of such  policies and practices, were not paid the full and legally mandated wages for all hour worked in a  workweek or the legally mandated overtime premium for hours worked over 40 during a  workweek.   43.  Resolution of this action requires inquiry into common facts, including, among  other things, Defendant’s common compensation, timekeeping, and payroll practices.   45.  These similarly situated individuals are known to the Defendant, are readily  identifiable, and can be located through Defendant’s payroll record which Defendant was  required to maintain pursuant to the FLSA, see, 29 U.S.C. § 211(c); 29 C.F.R. § 215.2 et seq.    46.  Conditional certification of this case as a collective matter pursuant to U.S.C. §  216(b) is proper and necessary so that these employees may be readily notified of this action  through direct U.S. mail and/or other means including email, and allowed to opt in for the  purpose of collectively adjudicating their claims for overtime compensation, liquidated damages  (or, alternatively, interest), and attorneys’ fees and costs under the FLSA.   47.  There are many similarly situated current and former Operators who have not  been paid proper overtime waged in violation of the FLSA and who would benefit from the  issuance of a court-supervised notice of this lawsuit and the opportunity to join it. Thus, notice  should be sent to the Collective pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).  48.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all the Class Members, re-alleges and  incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs.   49.  Plaintiff and all Members of the Colorado Class assert factually related claims,  pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3).   50.  Defendant violated the Colorado wage and hour laws because it failed to pay  Plaintiff and the Colorado Class at a rate of 1.5 times their regular hourly rate for hours worked  in excess of 40 hours per week and/or 12 per day.   51.  Although the precise number of the Colorado Class is unknown, Members are  readily identifiable and can be located through Defendant’s records.   53.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Members of the Colorado Class.   54.  Plaintiff is an adequate class representative, is committed to pursuing this action,  and has retained competent counsel experienced in wage and hour law and class action litigation.   55.  Class certification of Plaintiff’s Colorado wage and hour law claim is appropriate  pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds  generally applicable to the class, making appropriate both declaratory and injunctive relief with  respect to the Class a whole. The Members of the Colorado Class are entitled to injunctive relief  to end Defendant’s common and uniform policy and practice of denying the Colorado Class the  wage to which they are entitled.   57.  Plaintiff knows of no difficulty that would be encountered in the management of  this litigation that would preclude its maintenance as a class action.  58.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all the Collective Action Members, re-alleges  and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs.   59.  At all relevant times, Defendant has been and continues to be, an employer engaged  in interstate commerce, within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a) and 207(a).   60.  At all relevant times, Defendant employed, and/or continues to employ, Plaintiff  and each of the Collective Action Members within the meaning of the FLSA.   61.  At all relevant times, Defendant had a policy and practice of willfully refusing to  pay its Operators for all wages earned and the legally required amount of overtime compensation  for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, in violation of the FLSA.   62.  As a result of Defendant’s willful failure to compensate Plaintiff and the Collective  Action Members for all wages earned and for wages earned at a rate not less than 1.5 times the  regular rate of pay for work performed in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, Defendant has violated  and continues to violate the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., including 29 U.S.C. §§ 207(a)(1),  215(a), and 29 C.F.R. §§ 778.104.   63.  Defendant’s conduct as alleged herein constitutes a willful violation of the FLSA  within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 255(a).   65.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all the Colorado Class members, re-alleges and  incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs.   66.  At all relevant times, Plaintiff and the Colorado Class members were employed by  Defendant within the meaning of the Wage Claim Act.    67.  At all relevant times, Defendant has employed, and continues to employ,  “employees,” including Plaintiff and the Colorado Class members, within the meaning of the Wage  Claim Act.   68.  As a result of the foregoing conduct, as alleged, Defendant has failed to pay wages  due under the Wage Claim Act, the FLSA and the Minimum Wage Act, thereby violating, and  continuing to violate, the Wage Claim Act.  These violations were committed knowingly, willfully  and with reckless disregard of applicable law.    70.  Defendant’s violations of the C Wage Claim Act have caused Plaintiff and the  Colorado Class irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law.   71.  Due to Defendant’s violations of the   Wage Claim Act, Plaintiff and the Colorado  Class are entitled to recover from Defendant their unpaid wages, including for the legally required  amount of overtime compensation for all hours worked by them in excess of forty in a workweek,  statutory penalties, actual and all other damages permitted by Colorado law, including the  employers’ share of FICA, FUTA, state unemployment insurance, and any other required  employment taxes, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and disbursements of this action, pursuant  to the Wage Claim Act.  72.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all the Colorado Class members, re-alleges and  incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs.   73.  At all relevant times, Plaintiff and the Colorado Class members were employed by  Defendant within the meaning of the Minimum Wage Act.    74.  At all relevant times, Defendant has employed, and continues to employ,  “employees,” including Plaintiff and the Colorado Class members, within the meaning of the  Minimum Wage Act.   75.  As a result of the foregoing conduct, as alleged, Defendant has violated and  continues to violate, the Minimum Wage Act.  These violations were committed knowingly,  willfully and with reckless disregard of applicable law.    77.  Due to Defendant’s violations of the Minimum Wage Act, Plaintiff and the  Colorado Class are entitled to recover from Defendant their unpaid wages, actual and all other  damages permitted by Colorado law, including the employers’ share of FICA, FUTA, state  unemployment insurance, and any other required employment taxes, reasonable attorneys’ fees  and costs and disbursements of this action, pursuant to the Minimum Wage Act. 