132.  Plaintiffs bring the Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action on their  own behalf and as a class action, pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b), on behalf of the  following class of persons:  All cell phone repair technicians who are currently, or have  been employed by Defendants, in the State of New York at  any time during the prior 6 years, to the entry of the  judgment in the case (hereinafter, the “New York Class”).  133.  The persons in the New York Class are so numerous that joinder of all members  is impracticable.  Although, the precise number of such persons is unknown, and facts on which  the calculation of that number can be based are presently within the sole control of Defendants.   134.  Upon information and belief, the size of the New York Class is at least 40  individuals.  135.  The Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action are properly maintainable  as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(b)(3).  There are questions of law and fact common  to the New York Class that predominate over any questions solely affecting individual members  of the New York Class, including but not limited to:   18  a. whether Defendants failed to keep accurate time records for all hours worked  by the New York Class Representatives and the New York Class;  b. whether Defendants failed to pay proper compensation to New York Class  Representatives and the New York Class for all work-hours in excess of 40  per workweek in violation of and within the meaning of the N.Y. Lab. Law §  190;   c. whether Defendants failed to pay proper compensation to New York Class  Representatives and the New York Class for all hours worked in violation of  N.Y. Lab. Law §191;   d. whether Defendants unlawful deducted wages from the New York Class  Representatives and the New York class in violation of N.Y. Lab. Law § 193;  e. whether Defendants failed to furnish the New York Class Representatives  and New York Class with an accurate statement of, inter alia, wages, hours  worked, and rates paid as required by N.Y. Lab. Law § 195;  f. the nature and extent of New York Class-wide injury and the appropriate  measure of damages sustained by the New York Class Representatives and  the New York Class;   g. whether Defendants acted willfully or with reckless disregarding in its failure  to pay the New York Class Representatives and the New York Class; and   h. the nature and extent of class-wide injury and the measure of damages for  those injuries.   136.  The New York Class Representatives fairly and adequately protect the interests of  the New York Class and have no interests antagonistic to the class.  The named Plaintiffs are  represented by attorneys who are experienced and competent in both class litigation and  employment litigation.  137.  Further, the New York Class Representatives and the New York Class have been  equally affected by Defendants’ failure to pay proper wages.  Moreover, members of the New  York Class still employed by Defendants may be reluctant to raise individual claims for fear of  retaliation.  19  138.  Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the  New York Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory  relief with respect to the class as a whole.  139.  Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those of the New York Class.  Plaintiffs and the  other New York Class members were subjected to Defendants’ policies, practices, programs,  procedures, protocols and plans alleged herein concerning the failure to pay proper wages and  the failure to keep adequate records.  Plaintiffs’ job duties are typical of those of the class  members.  140.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this litigation – particularly in the context of wage litigation like the present  action, where individual plaintiffs may lack the financial resources to vigorously prosecute a  lawsuit in federal court against a corporate defendant.  The members of the New York Class  have been damaged and are entitled to recovery as a result of Defendants’ common and uniform  policies, practices, and procedures.  Although the relative damages suffered by individual  members of the New York Class are not de minimis, such damages are small compared to the  expense and burden of individual prosecution of this litigation.  In addition, class treatment is  superior because it will obviate the need for unduly duplicative litigation that might result in  inconsistent judgments about Defendants’ practices.   141.  Plaintiffs and the members of the FLSA Collective and New York Class  (collectively, “Class Members”) are victims of Defendants’ common policy and plan that  violated their rights under the FLSA and the NYLL by failing to pay proper compensation for all  hours worked including mandatory meetings and trainings; failing to properly compensate at the  proper overtime rate for all hours over forty worked per workweek; and unlawfully deducting  20  wages from employees as for disciplinary infractions. At all times relevant, Defendants’  unlawful policy and pattern or practice has been willful.   142.  Plaintiffs and class members worked at Defendants’ kiosks and stores repairing  cell phones for the company’s customers in New York.  143.  When cell phone repair technicians are hired by Defendants they are required to  complete a few days of training.   144.  Upon information and belief, employee training consisted of employees are  working full shifts at a store or kiosk without any payment of wages.    145.  Defendants hold mandatory business meetings that all employees are required to  attend even if they are not scheduled to work.  146.  These mandatory meetings are held several times a month and typically last  anywhere from an hour to three hours.   147.  Employees from many different locations of I Fix Screen stores and kiosks are  required to attend these meetings.   148.  Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs and class members were not paid for time  traveling to and attending the mandatory meetings.   149.  Upon information and belief, Defendants’ had a company policy of deducting  from Plaintiffs and class members’ wages when they violated a company policy or a manager  felt that his or she needed to be disciplined.   150.  Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs and class members’ wages were deducted  for infractions such as: having a dusty booth, having their feet up, failing to lock the cash drawer,  and having earphones in their ears.  21  151.  Defendants also failed to compensate Plaintiffs and class members for all hours  they worked over forty hours per workweek.   152.  Upon information and belief, Defendants regularly paid their employees on  personal checks.   153.  As part of its regular business practice, Defendants intentionally, willfully, and  repeatedly engaged in a pattern, practice, and/or policy that violates the FLSA and/or NYLL.   Defendants’ policy and pattern or practice includes, but is not limited to:   a. Willfully failing to record all of the time that its employees, including  Plaintiffs and class members, worked for the benefit of Defendant;   b. Willfully failing to keep payroll records as required by the FLSA and NYLL;   c. Willfully requiring Plaintiffs and class members to attend mandatory meetings  and trainings off-the-clock;   d. Willfully failing to pay its employees, including Plaintiffs and class members,  wages for all of the hours that they worked;   e. Willfully failing to pay its employees, including Plaintiffs and class members,  overtime wages for all of the hours that they worked in excess of 40 per  workweek; and   f. Willfully deducting wages from employees for disciplinary infractions.  154.  Defendants were or should have been aware that the FLSA and NYLL required it  to pay its cell phone repair technicians overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per  week.  155.  Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiffs and class members overtime wages for their  work in excess of 40 hours per week was willful, intentional, and in bad faith.    156.  Defendants were or should have been aware that the NYLL required it to pay its  cell phone repair technicians for all hours worked in up to and including 40 per week.  22  157.  Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiffs and class members wages for all of their  work up to and including 40 hours per week was willful, intentional, and in bad faith.    158.  Defendants’ deduction of Plaintiffs and class members wages was willful,  intentional, and in bad faith.   159.  Defendants’ unlawful conduct has been widespread, repeated, and consistent.  Eric Meindl   160.  Plaintiff Eric Meindl was an employee of Defendants, working under their direct  supervision.  161.  Eric Meindl was employed by Defendants from in or about January 2016 to in or  about March 2016 as a cell phone repair technician.   162.  While employed by Defendants, Eric Meindl’s regular hourly rate was $9.00 per  hour plus a small bonus for achieving certain goals such as a certain number of “likes” on social  media.   163.  At all times hereinafter mentioned, Eric Meindl was required to be paid overtime  pay at the statutory rate of 1 and ½ his regular rate of pay after he had worked 40 hours in a  workweek.  164.  On several occasions from January 2016 to  March 2016, Eric Meindl worked  over 40 hour in a workweek.    165.  Defendants failed to compensate Eric Meindl for all hours worked in excess of 40  hours per week at a rate of at least 1 and ½ times his regular rate, for all hours he worked in  excess of 40 hours per work during his employment with Defendant.  23  166.  Defendants failed to compensate Eric Meindl at a rate of at least his regular  hourly rate for the time spent performing off-the-clock work that was not in excess of 40 hours in  a workweek.  167.  Specifically, Defendants failed to compensate Eric Meindl for time spent  traveling to and attending mandatory meetings and trainings.   168.  On one occasion, Eric Meindl clocked-in for a mandatory meeting, but  Defendants clocked him out, shaving time off of his pay.   169.  Eric Meindl complained about not being paid for training, and a manager named  “Izzy” informed him that it was the company practice not to pay for training.   170.  Defendants threatened to and deducted from Eric Meindl’s wages as a means of  discipline.   171.  On or about March 16, 2016, Eric Meindl complained to a manager named  Khaled (last name unknown) that Defendants’ practice of deducting from employees’ wages for  disciplinary violations was illegal.   172.  Immediately after this complaint, another manager named “Tito” terminated Eric  Meindl and informed him that they would not pay him his last check.   173.  Defendants failed to furnish Eric Meindl with an accurate statement of wages  listing hours worked, rates paid, gross wages, allowances and deductions taken, and net wages  paid.  174.  Upon information and belief, Defendants did not keep accurate records of hours  worked by Eric Meindl.    24  Anthony Negron  175.  Plaintiff Anthony Negron was an employee of Defendants, working under its  direct supervision.  176.  Anthony Negron has been employed by Defendants from in or about June 2015 to  in or about May 2016 as a cell phone repair technician.   177.  While employed by Defendants, Anthony Negron’s regular hourly rate was  around $9 or $10 an hour.   178.  At all times hereinafter mentioned, Anthony Negron was required to be paid  overtime pay at the statutory rate of 1 and ½ his regular rate of pay after he had worked 40 hours  in a workweek.  179.  From in or about June 2015 to in or about May 2016, Anthony Negron  consistently worked over forty hours per workweek.   180.  Defendants failed to compensate Anthony Negron for all hours worked in excess  of 40 hours per week at a rate of at least 1 and ½ times his regular rate, throughout the entire  term of his employment with Defendants.  181.  Defendants failed to compensate Anthony Negron at a rate of at least his regular  hourly rate for the time spent performing off-the-clock work that was not in excess of 40 hours in  a workweek.  182.  Specifically, Defendants failed to compensate Anthony Negron for time spent  traveling to and attending mandatory meetings.  183.  Defendants threatened to and deducted from Anthony Negron’s wages as a means  of discipline.  25  184.  Specifically, Defendants deducted from Anthony Negron’s wages for infractions  such as having his feet propped up on the kiosk, having a dusty booth, and not locking the money  drawer.   185.  Defendants failed to furnish Anthony Negron with an accurate statement of wages  listing hours worked, rates paid, gross wages, allowances and deductions taken, and net wages  paid.  186.  Upon information and belief, Defendant did not keep accurate records of hours  worked by Anthony Negron.    FLSA – Overtime Wages  (Brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective)  187.  Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations in all preceding  paragraphs.  188.  Plaintiffs and members of the FLSA Collective are non-exempt employees  entitled to be paid overtime compensation for all overtime hours worked.    189.  Defendants employed Plaintiffs and members of the FLSA Collective for  workweeks longer than 40 hours and willfully failed to compensate Plaintiffs for all of the time  worked in excess of 40 hours per week, at a rate of at least 1 and ½ times their regular hourly  rate, in violation of the requirements of Section 7 of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).  190.  Plaintiffs have expressed their consent to make these claims against Defendant by  filing a written consent form, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).    191.  Defendants failed to make a good faith effort to comply with the FLSA with  respect to its compensation to Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective.    192.  Because Defendants’ violations of the FLSA were willful, a 3 year statute of  limitations applies, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 255.    26  193.  As a consequence of the willful underpayment of wages, alleged above, Plaintiffs  and members of the FLSA Collective incurred damages thereby and Defendants are indebted to  them in the amount of the unpaid overtime compensation, together with interest, liquidated  damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs in an amount to be determined at trial.    FLSA – Unlawful Retaliation   (Brought on behalf of Plaintiff Eric Meindl)  220.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporate by reference all allegations in all preceding  paragraphs.  221.  Defendants unlawfully terminated Plaintiff Eric Meindl for asserting his rights  under the Fair Labor Standards Act.   222.  Due to Defendant’s violations of 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3) Plaintiff Eric Meindl is  entitled to back pay, front pay, liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees.  NYLL – Unpaid Overtime  (Brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and the members of the New York Class)  194.  Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations in all preceding  paragraphs.  195.  Defendants employed Plaintiffs and members of the New York Class for  workweeks longer than 40 hours and willfully failed to compensate Plaintiffs and the New York  Class for all of the time worked in excess of 40 hours per week, at a rate of at least 1 and ½ times  their regular hourly rate, in violation of the requirements of NYLL.  196.  By the course of conduct set forth above, Defendants have violated N.Y. Lab.  Law § 650, et seq.; 12 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 142-2.2.  197.  Defendants failed to keep, make, preserve, maintain and furnish accurate records  of time worked by Plaintiffs and members of the New York Class.  198.  Defendants have a policy and practice of refusing to pay overtime compensation  for all hours worked to Plaintiffs and the New York Class.  199.  Defendants’ failure to pay overtime compensation to Plaintiffs and the New York  Class was willful within the meaning of N.Y. Lab. Law § 663.  200.  As a consequence of the willful underpayment of wages, alleged above, Plaintiffs  and members of the New York Class incurred damages thereby and Defendants are indebted to  them in the amount of the unpaid overtime compensation and such other legal and equitable  relief due to Defendants’ unlawful and willful conduct, as the Court deems just and proper.    27  201.  Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the New York Class, seek recovery of  liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs to be paid by Defendant as provided by the NYLL.  NYLL – Unlawful Wage Deductions  (Brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and the members of the New York Class)  212.  Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations in all preceding  paragraphs.  213.  Defendants knowingly, willfully, and intentionally violated N.Y. Lab. Law § 193  when Defendants deducted from employees’ wages for disciplinary reasons.  214.  As a consequence of the willful underpayment of wages, alleged above, Plaintiffs  and members of the New York Class incurred damages thereby and Defendants are indebted to  them in the amount of the unpaid wages and such other legal and equitable relief due to  Defendants’ unlawful and willful conduct, as the Court deems just and proper.    215.  Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the New York Class, seek recovery of  liquidated damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs to be paid by Defendants as provided by  the NYLL.  29  NYLL – Notice and Record-Keeping Requirement Violation  (Brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and the members of the New York Class)  216.  Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations in all preceding  paragraphs.  217.  Defendants failed to supply Plaintiffs and members of the New York Class with  an accurate statement of wages as required by N.Y. Lab. Law § 195, containing the dates of  work covered by that payment of wages; name of employee; name of employer; address and  phone number of employer; rate or rates of pay and basis thereof, whether paid by the hour, shift,  day, week, salary, piece, commission, or other; gross wages; hourly rate or rates of pay and  overtime rate or rates of pay if applicable; the number of hours worked, including overtime hours  worked if applicable; deductions; and net wages.  218.  Due to Defendants’ violations of N.Y. Lab. Law § 195, for each workweek that  Defendants failed to provide a proper wage statement from April 9, 2011 through February 26,  2015, Plaintiffs and members of the New York Class are each entitled to damages of $100, or a  total of $2,500 per class member, as provided for by N.Y. Lab. Law § 198, reasonable attorneys’  fees, costs, and injunctive and declaratory relief.  219.  Due to Defendants’ violations of N.Y. Lab. Law § 195, for each workweek that  Defendants failed to provide a proper wage statement from February 2, 2015, through the present  Plaintiffs and members of the New York Class are each entitled to damages of $250, or a total of  $5,000 per class member, as provided for by N.Y. Lab. Law § 198, reasonable attorneys’ fees,  costs, and injunctive and declaratory relief.  30  NYLL – Unpaid Non-Overtime Wages  (Brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and the members of the New York Class)  202.  Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations in all preceding  paragraphs.  203.  Plaintiff was entitled to his regular hourly wage for each hour he worked for  Defendants up to and including 40 per week.    204.  Defendants employed Plaintiffs and members of the New York Class and  willfully failed to compensate Plaintiffs and members of the New York Class at the regular  hourly rate for the time spent performing off-the-clock work  up to and including 40 hours per  week, in violation of the requirements of the NYLL, specifically N.Y. Lab. Law § 661(3).  205.  The complete records concerning the number of hours worked by Plaintiffs and  members of the New York Class as well as the compensation Plaintiffs and members of the New  York Class received in workweeks in which unpaid hours were worked are in the exclusive  possession and control of Defendants, and as such, Plaintiff is unable to state at this time the  exact amount due and owing to him.  206.  By the course of conduct set forth above, Defendants violated N.Y. Lab. Law §  650, et seq.  207.  Defendants failed to keep, make, preserve, maintain, and furnish accurate records  of time worked by Plaintiffs and members of the New York Class.  208.  Defendants have a policy and practice of refusing to pay overtime compensation  for all hours worked to Plaintiffs and members of the New York Class.  28  209.  Defendants’ failure to pay compensation to Plaintiffs and members of the New  York Class was willful within the meaning of N.Y. Lab. Law § 663.  210.  As a consequence of the willful underpayment of wages, alleged above, Plaintiffs  and members of the New York Class incurred damages thereby and Defendants are indebted to  them in the amount of the unpaid wages and such other legal and equitable relief due to  Defendants’ unlawful and willful conduct, as the Court deems just and proper.    211.  Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the New York Class, seek recovery of  liquidated damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs to be paid by Defendant as provided by  the NYLL.  NYLL– Unlawful Retaliation   (Brought on behalf of Plaintiff Eric Meindl)  223.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporate by reference all allegations in all preceding  paragraphs.  224.  Defendants unlawfully terminated Plaintiff Meindl for asserting his rights under  the New York Labor Law.   225.  Due to Defendant’s violations of N.Y. Lab. Law § 215, Plaintiff Eric Meindl is  entitled to back pay, front pay, liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees. 