7.  The Complaint and the FAC contain vague, ambiguous, and often conflicting  allegations both internally and between the two pleadings.   8.  In the Complaint, Plaintiffs’ alleged class is described as “All former and current  employees (“Class Members”) employed by Defendants within the State of California within four  years of the filing of this Complaint until the entry of judgment after trial” as well as identifying five  proposed subclasses.  Complaint (Ex. A) at ¶27.  The FAC initially describes the putative class  similarly (FAC (Ex. B) at ¶1), but also describes the putative class as “All former and current  employees (“Class Members”) employed by Defendants within the State of California within four  years of the filing of this Complaint until the entry of judgment after trial, that were denied the  compensation guaranteed under the California Labor Code, and/or subjected to unlawful treatment  with respect to the terms of compensation set forth in their offer letters,” as well as identifying six  proposed subclasses.  FAC (Ex. B) at ¶37.   9.  The alleged size of Plaintiffs’ alleged class and subclasses do not appear to have  changed based on the revised class definition.  Both the Complaint and the FAC allege that the class  contains between 50 and 250 people and each subclass contains “not less than 5 people.”  See  Complaint (Ex. A) at ¶26, ¶28; FAC (Ex. B) at ¶36, ¶38.  