34.  Defendants are a service provider of refrigeration and HVAC systems for various  customers throughout Southern California.  �  5 –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––  56.  Plaintiff has actual knowledge that the FLSA Class Members have also been  denied overtime pay for hours worked over forty (40) per workweek.  Plaintiff worked with other  hourly-paid employees of Defendants, and as such, has personal knowledge of their existence,  status as Defendants’ employees, hourly pay compensation scheme, and the overtime violations.   57.  Other employees similarly situated to Plaintiff worked for Defendants in a similar  capacity and were not paid overtime at the rate of one and one-half their regular rate when those  hours exceeded forty (40) hours per workweek.   58.  Defendants have employed more than 50 such employees who worked in  California during the last three years who were paid an hourly rate.   59.  Such workers worked more than 40 hours per week during at least one week in  the last three years.   60.  Such workers were at times not compensated at all for work in excess of forty  (40) hours in a workweek.   61.  Although Defendants permitted and/or required the FLSA Class Members to work  in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek, Defendants have denied them any compensation for  their hours worked over forty (40).   62.  FLSA Class Members perform or have performed the same or similar work as  Plaintiff.   63.  FLSA Class Members regularly work or have worked in excess of forty (40)  hours during a workweek.   64.  All such service technicians are hourly-paid and are classified by Defendants as  non-exempt.  Moreover, all such service technicians are subject to the same payroll policies of  failing to use the weighted average of all regular hourly rates applied to determine each service  technician’s overtime rate.  �  8 –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––  74.  Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.   75.  Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal  Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the “California Class,” which is comprised of:  All current and former non-exempt hourly paid service  technicians who worked for Defendants in California at any  time starting four years prior to the filing of this Complaint  through the present.  �  76.  Numerosity.  The number of members in the California Class is believed to  exceed 50.  This volume makes bringing the claims of each individual member of the class  before this Court impracticable.  Likewise, joining each individual member of the California  Class as a plaintiff in this action is impracticable.  Furthermore, the identity of the members of  the California Class will be determined from Defendants’ records, as will the compensation paid  to each of them.  As such, a class action is a reasonable and practical means of resolving these  claims.  To require individual actions would prejudice the California Class and Defendants.   77.  Typicality.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the California Class because like the  members of the California Class, Plaintiff was subject to Defendants’ uniform policies and  practices and was compensated in the same manner as others in the California Class.  Defendants  failed to pay non-exempt employees overtime compensation for all of their hours worked,  including overtime hours.  All members of the California Class worked substantially more than  eight (8) hours in a day and forty (40) hours in a week.  Plaintiff and the California Class were  paid at hourly rates below the correctly calculated overtime rate for hours worked over forty (40)  in a workweek and over eight (8) in a work day.  Plaintiff and the California Class have been  uncompensated and/or under-compensated as a result of Defendants’ common policies and  practices which failed to comply with California law.   78.  Adequacy.  Plaintiff is a representative party who will fairly and adequately  protect the interests of the California Class because it is in his interest to effectively prosecute the  claims herein alleged in order to obtain the unpaid wages and penalties required under California  � 10 –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––  85.  Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.   86.  At all relevant times, Defendants has been, and continues to be, an “employer”  engaged in interstate commerce and/or in the production of goods for commerce, within the  meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203.  At all relevant times, Defendants has employed and  continues to employ, employees, including Plaintiff and the FLSA Class.  At all relevant times,  upon information and belief, Defendants have had gross operating revenues in excess of  $500,000.   87.  The FLSA requires each covered employer such as Defendants to compensate all  non-exempt employees at a rate of not less than one-and-a-half times their regular rate of pay for  work performed in excess of forty (40) hours in a workweek.   88.  Plaintiff and the FLSA Class were entitled to be paid overtime compensation for  all overtime hours worked at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay.   89.  At all relevant times, Defendants required Plaintiff and the FLSA Class to work in  excess of forty (40) hours per workweek.  Despite the hours worked by them, Defendants  willfully, in bad faith, and in knowing violation of the FLSA, failed and refused to pay Plaintiff  and the FLSA Class the appropriate overtime wages for all compensable time worked in excess  of forty (40) hours per workweek.  By failing to compensate Plaintiff and the FLSA Class at a  rate of not less than one-and-a-half times the regular rate of pay for work performed in excess of  forty (40) hours in a workweek, Defendants have violated the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.,   � 13 –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––  96.  Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.   97.  At all relevant times, Defendants were required to compensate their non-exempt   � 14 –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––  Failure to Pay All Wages Upon Termination  (California Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, and 256)  On Behalf of Plaintiff and the California Class  112.  Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.  113.  California Labor Code § 201 provides that any discharged employee is entitled to  all wages due at the time of discharge.  � 17 –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––  Failure to Pay Overtime  (Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et. seq.)  On Behalf of Plaintiff and the FLSA CLASS   Failure to Provide Meal and Rest Periods  (California Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 et. seq.)  On Behalf of Plaintiff and the California Class  108.  Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.  109.  California Labor Code requires employers to provide a 30-minute net meal period  if the employee works more than five hours per day.  See Cal. Lab. Code § 512.  The California  Labor Code also requires employers to provide a 10-minute net rest period for each four-hour  period worked, or major fraction thereof.  110.  Defendants violated the meal and rest period laws by forcing Plaintiff and the  members of the California Class to work through long hours without the required meal and rest  periods.  Specifically, Defendants refused to permit Plaintiff and the California Class to enjoy an  uninterrupted 30 meal period when they worked more than 5 hours in a day.  Defendants’ policy  was to forbid Plaintiff and the California Class to eat on the job, instead any meals were required  to be taken driving between jobs.  That is, Plaintiffs were not fully relieved of all work-related  duties for their required meal periods.  111.  Plaintiff and the members of the California Class sue for all damages allowed  under the law including payment of one additional hour of pay at the employees’ regular rate of  pay for each such violation.  See Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7.  Failure to Pay Minimum Wage  (California Labr Code §§ 1182.12, 1194, 1197, 1194.2, and 1198)  On Behalf of Plaintiff and the California Class  101.  Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.  � 15 –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––  Failure to Pay Overtime  (California Labor Code §§ 510 and 1194)  On Behalf of Plaintiff and the California Class   Unlawful and/or Unfair Competition Law Violations  (California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et. seq.)  On Behalf of Plaintiff and the California Class  117.  Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.  118.  California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq. prohibits unfair  competition in the form of any unlawful, unfair, deceptive, or fraudulent business practices.  119.  Plaintiff brings this cause of action individually and as a representative of all  others subject to Defendants’ unlawful acts and practices.  120.  During all relevant times, Defendants committed unlawful, unfair, deceptive, and/ or fraudulent acts as defined by California Business & Professions Code § 17200.  Defendants’  unlawful, unfair, deceptive, and/or fraudulent business practices include, without limitation,  failing to pay overtime wages, failing to pay minimum wages, failing to provide and authorize  � 18 ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 