38.  The proposed FLSA PM Collective is defined as follows:  All Practice Managers employed by Banfield at any location throughout the  United States, and who were classified as exempt, on or after June 12,  20151, until about October 2016, when the position was reclassified to non- exempt, hourly status, who have not been paid for their overtime hours  worked.   39.  The proposed FLSA Training Collective is defined as follows:  All Practice Managers employed by Banfield while in training at any location  throughout the United States, and who were classified as exempt during their  training period on or after June 12, 2015, until about October 2016, when the  position was reclassified to non-exempt, hourly status, who have not been paid for  their overtime hours worked.   41.  The proposed California Class is defined as follows:  All Practice Managers employed by Banfield at any location throughout the  State of California, and who were classified as exempt, on or after June 12,  2014, until about October 2016, when the position was reclassified to non- exempt, hourly status, who have not been paid for their overtime hours  worked.   42.  Plaintiffs and the members of the FLSA PM Collective, the FLSA Training  Collective, the New York Class, and the California Class, consistently worked more than 40 hours  per workweek during their employment as PMs.   43.  Defendant was aware that Plaintiffs and the members of the FLSA PM Collective,  the FLSA Training Collective, the New York Class, and the California Class worked more than 40  hours per workweek, yet failed to pay them any overtime compensation for any of the hours worked  over 40 in a workweek during their employment as PMs.   44.  The primary duties of Plaintiffs and the members of the FLSA PM Collective, the  FLSA Training Collective, the New York Class, and the California Class were non-exempt in  nature.    45.  The tasks that Plaintiffs and the members of the FLSA PM Collective, the FLSA  Training Collective, the New York Class, and the California Class regularly performed include but  are not limited to answering phones, scheduling and verifying pet appointments, checking patients  in and out of the hospital, and cleaning examination rooms between patients.     47.  The primary duties of Plaintiffs and the members of the FLSA PM Collective, the  FLSA Training Collective, the New York Class, and the California Class did not differ substantially  from the duties of non-exempt hourly paid employees.   48.  Plaintiffs and the members of FLSA PM Collective, the FLSA Training Collective,  the New York Class, and the California Class did not exercise a meaningful degree of independent  discretion with respect to the exercise of their duties.    49.  Plaintiffs and the members of the FLSA PM Collective, the FLSA Training  Collective, the New York Class, and the California Class did not have the discretion or authority to  make any decisions with respect to matters of significance and were required to follow the policies,  practices, and procedures set by Defendant.     50.  Plaintiffs and the members of the FLSA PM Collective, the FLSA Training  Collective, the New York Class, and the California Class did not have any independent authority to  deviate from these policies, practices, and procedures.  FLSA PM Collective and FLSA Training Collective Allegations   51.  Plaintiffs bring the First Cause of Action on behalf of the FLSA PM Collective.    52.  Defendant is liable under the FLSA for, inter alia, failing to properly pay overtime  wages to Plaintiffs and the putative FLSA PM Collective members.     54.  Those similarly situated employees are known to Defendant, are readily identifiable  and can be located through Defendant’s records.   55.  Plaintiffs and the putative FLSA PM Collective members, all of whom regularly  worked more than 40 hours in a workweek, were employed as PMs by Defendant.   56.  Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs and the putative FLSA PM Collective members  overtime compensation for the hours they worked over 40 in a workweek.   57.  Defendant failed to keep accurate records of all hours worked by Plaintiffs and  the putative FLSA PM Collective members.   58.  Throughout the relevant period, it has been Defendant’s policy, pattern, or practice  to require, suffer, or permit the Plaintiffs and the Putative FLSA PM Collective members to work  in excess of 40 hours per workweek without paying them overtime wages for all overtime hours  worked.   59.  Defendant assigned the work that the Plaintiffs and the putative FLSA PM  Collective members have performed or Defendant was aware of the work they performed.    60.  The work performed by the Plaintiffs and the putative FLSA PM Collective  members constitutes compensable work time under the FLSA and was not preliminary,  postliminary or de minimis.   61.  Defendant was aware, or should have been aware, that the FLSA requires it to pay  the Plaintiffs and the putative FLSA PM Collective members an overtime premium for hours  worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.     63.  In addition to the foregoing, Plaintiff Bruno brings the Second Cause of Action on  behalf of himself and the FLSA Training Collective.   64.  Banfield requires all newly-hired PMs to participate in a training program which  lasts between approximately (4) and eight (8) weeks.     65.  Banfield’s training program consisted of computer modules, and hands on training  with another PM.     66.  The computer training included written modules and videos from which PMs  learned: (a) how to interact with animals; (b) how to handle aggressive pets; (c) checking in  patients; (d) using Banfield’s computer systems; (e) taking vital signs; and (f) the various wellness  plans Banfield offered and how to sell them to customers.     67.  Banfield classified Plaintiff Bruno and the FLSA Training Collective members as  exempt during their initial training periods.     68.  During training, the FLSA Training Collective members worked five (5) days per  week, and typically worked 45 to 50 hours per week.  However, Banfield did not pay them  overtime compensation.  New York Class Action Allegations   70.  Excluded from the New York Class are Defendant’s legal representatives, officers,  directors, assigns, and successors, or any individual who has, or who at any time during the class  period has had, a controlling interest in Defendant; the Judge(s) to whom this case is assigned and  any member of the Judge’s immediate family; and all persons who will submit timely and  otherwise proper requests for exclusion from the New York Class.   71.  The persons in the New York Class identified above are so numerous that joinder  of all members is impracticable.  Although the precise number of such persons is not known to  Plaintiff Belich, the facts on which the calculation of that number can be based are presently within  the sole control of Defendant.   72.  Upon information and belief, the size of the New York Class is at least 100 workers.   73.  Defendant acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the New York  Class, thereby making final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief appropriate with  respect to the New York Class as a whole.   75.  Plaintiff Belich’s claims are typical of the claims of the New York Class sought to  be represented.  Plaintiff Belich and the other New York Class members work or have worked for  Defendant and have been subjected to their policy and pattern or practice of failing to pay overtime  wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek failing to maintain and provide  accurate wage statements.  Defendant acted and/or refused to act on grounds generally applicable  to the New York Class, thereby making injunctive and/or declaratory relief with respect to the  New York Class appropriate.   77.  Plaintiff Belich has retained the Shavitz Law Group, P.A., which is competent and  experienced in complex class action employment litigation.   78.  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 Defendant’s 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  Defendant’s practices.    79.  This action is properly maintainable as a class action under Federal Rules of Civil  Procedure 23(b)(3).              California Class Action Allegations   80.  Plaintiff Taye brings the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Causes of  Action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of the California Class.   81.  Excluded from the California Class are Defendant’s legal representatives, officers,  directors, assigns, and successors, or any individual who has, or who at any time during the class  period has had, a controlling interest in Defendant; the Judge(s) to whom this case is assigned and  any member of the Judge’s immediate family; and all persons who will submit timely and  otherwise proper requests for exclusion from the California Class.   83.  Upon information and belief, the size of the California Class is at least 100 workers.   84.  Defendant acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the California  Class, thereby making final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief appropriate with  respect to the California Class as a whole.   86.  Plaintiff Taye’s claims are typical of the claims of the California Class sought to be  represented.  Plaintiff Taye and the other California Class members work or have worked for  Defendant, and have been subjected to their policy and pattern or practice of failing to pay overtime  wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.  Defendant acted and/or refused  to act on grounds generally applicable to the California Class, thereby making injunctive and/or  declaratory relief with respect to the California Class appropriate.   87.  Plaintiff Taye will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the  California Class.  Plaintiff Taye understands that, as a class representative, one assumes a fiduciary  responsibility to the California Class to represent its interests fairly and adequately.  Plaintiff Taye  recognizes that as a class representative, one must represent and consider the interests of the  California Class just as one would represent and consider one’s own interests.  Plaintiff Taye  understands that in decisions regarding the conduct of the litigation and its possible settlement,  one must not favor one’s own interests over those of the California Class.  Plaintiff Taye recognizes  that any resolution of a class action lawsuit, including any settlement or dismissal thereof, must be  in the best interests of the California Class.  Plaintiff Taye understands that in order to provide  adequate representation, one must remain informed of developments in the litigation, cooperate  with class counsel by providing them with information and any relevant documentary material in  one’s possession, and testify, if required, in a deposition and in trial.   89.  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 California Class have been  damaged and are entitled to recovery as a result of Defendant’s common and uniform policies,  practices, and procedures.  Although the relative damages suffered by individual members of the  California 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  Defendant’s practices.   90.  This action is properly maintainable as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil  Procedure 23(b)(3).  91.  Plaintiffs Metzler, Belich, Taye and Bruno reallege and incorporate by reference  all allegations in all preceding paragraphs.   92.  Defendant has engaged in a widespread pattern and practice of violating the FLSA,  as described in this Collective and Class Action Complaint.   93.  Plaintiffs have consented in writing to be a party to this action, pursuant to 29  U.S.C. § 216(b).   94.  At all relevant times, Plaintiffs and the FLSA PM Collective members were  engaged in commerce and/or the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of 29  U.S.C. §§ 206(a) and 207(a).   96.  Defendant is an employer engaged in commerce and/or the production of goods for  commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a) and 207(a).   97.  At all relevant times, Plaintiffs and the FLSA PM Collective members are, or were,  employees within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(e) and 207(a).   98.  Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs and the FLSA PM Collective members the  overtime wages to which they were entitled under the FLSA.   99.  Defendant failed to keep, make, preserve, maintain, and furnish accurate records of  time worked by Plaintiffs and the FLSA PM Collective.  100.  Defendant’s violations of the FLSA, as described in this Complaint, have been  willful and intentional.  Defendant failed to make a good faith effort to comply with the FLSA  with respect to their compensation of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and former  employees.  101.  Because Defendant’s violations of the FLSA have been willful, a three-year statute  of limitations applies to this Cause of Action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 255.  102.  As a result of Defendant’s willful violations of the FLSA, Plaintiffs and the FLSA  PM Collective members have suffered damages by being denied overtime wages in accordance  with 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq.  103.  As a result of the unlawful acts of Defendant, Plaintiffs and the FLSA PM  Collective members have been deprived of overtime compensation and other wages in amounts to  be determined at trial, and are entitled to recovery of such amounts, liquidated damages,  prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, costs and other compensation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).  Fair Labor Standards Act – Overtime Wages  (On Behalf of Plaintiffs Metzler, Belich, Taye, Bruno and the FLSA PM Collective)   The FLSA Collectives & The Rule 23 Classes  