21.  Upon information and belief, Corporate Defendants DEENORA CORP d/b/a  Dee's; and DEE'S BRICK OVEN PIZZA, INC d/b/a Dee’s are joint employers of Plaintiff  and constitute an enterprise as the term is defined by 29 USC §203(r) insofar as they are  indistinguishable from one another, being owned by the same owners, operating under the  same doing business name in the same location, and as such have indistinguishable and  unified operation and/or common control for a common business purpose, and are co-owned  by the same partners.   22.  At all relevant times, the work performed by Plaintiff was directly essential to  the business operated by DEENORA CORP d/b/a Dee's; and DEE'S BRICK OVEN PIZZA,  54.  Plaintiff brings this action individually and as class representative individually  and on behalf of all other and former non-exempt employees who have been or were  employed by the Defendants for up to the last three (3) years, through entry of judgment in  this case (the “Collective Action Period”) and whom were not compensated at their promised  hourly rate for all hours worked and at one and one half times their promised work for all  hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week (the “Collective Action Members”).  55.  Plaintiff brings his NYLL claims pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure  (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”) Rule 23, on behalf of all non-exempt personnel employed by Defendants  on or after the date that is six years before the filing of the Complaint in this case as defined  herein (the “Class Period”).  TTroy  10 of 21  Complaint   56.  All said persons, including Plaintiff, are referred to herein as the “Class.”   57.  The Class members are readily ascertainable. The number and identity of the  Class members are determinable from the records of Defendants. The hours assigned and  worked, the positions held, and the rate of pay for each Class Member is also determinable  from Defendants’ records. For purpose of notice and other purposes related to this action,  their names and addresses are readily available from Defendants. Notice can be provided by  means permissible under said Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.  Numerosity   58.  The proposed Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is  impracticable, and the disposition of their claims as a class will benefit the parties and the  Court. Although the precise number of such persons is unknown, and the facts on which the  calculation of the number is presently within the sole control of the Defendants, upon  information and belief, there are more than forty (40) members of the class.  Commonality   59.  There are questions of law and fact common to the Class which predominate  over any questions affecting only individual class members, including:  a.  Whether Defendant employed Plaintiff and the Class within the meaning of the  New York law;  b.  Whether Plaintiff and Class members are promised and not paid at their  promised hourly wage;  c.  Whether Plaintiff and Class members are not paid at least the hourly minimum  wage for each hour worked;  d.  Whether Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to and paid overtime at their  TTroy  11 of 21  Complaint  promised hourly wage under the New York Labor Law;  e.  Whether Defendants maintained a policy, pattern and/or practice of failing to  pay Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class spread-of-hours pay as required by the NYLL;  f.  Whether Defendants maintained a policy, pattern and/or practice of failing to  provide requisite statutory meal periods;  g.  Whether Defendants provided a Time of Hire Notice detailing rates of pay and  payday at the start of Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class’s start of employment and/or timely  thereafter;  h.  Whether Defendants provided paystubs detailing the rates of pay and credits  taken towards the minimum wage to Plaintiff and the Rule 23 class on each payday; and  i.  At what common rate, or rates subject to common method of calculation was  and is Defendants required to pay the Class members for their work.  Typicality   60.  Plaintiff's claims are typical of those claims which could be alleged by any  member of the Class, and the relief sought is typical of the relief that would be sought by each  member of the Class in separate actions. All the Class members were subject to the same  corporate practices of Defendants, as alleged herein, of failing to pay minimum wage or  overtime compensation. Defendants’ corporate-wide policies and practices affected all Class  members similarly, and Defendants benefitted from the same type of unfair and/or wrongful  acts as to each Class member. Plaintiff and other Class members sustained similar losses,  injuries and damages arising from the same unlawful policies, practices and procedures.  Adequacy   61.  Plaintiff is able to fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class and  TTroy  12 of 21  Complaint  have no interests antagonistic to the Class. Plaintiff is represented by attorneys who are  experienced and competent in representing Plaintiffs in both class action and wage-and-hour  employment litigation cases.  Superiority   62.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of the controversy, particularly in the context of wage-and-hour litigation where  individual Class members lack the financial resources to vigorously prosecute a lawsuit  against corporate defendants. Class action treatment will permit a large number of similarly  situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously,  efficiently and without the unnecessary duplication of efforts and expenses that numerous  individual actions engender. Because the losses, injuries and damages suffered by each of the  individual Class members are small in the sense pertinent to a class action analysis, the  expenses and burden of individual litigation would make it extremely difficult or impossible  for the individual Class members to redress the wrongs done to them. Further, important  public interests will be served by addressing the matter as a class action. The adjudication of  individual litigation claims would result in a great expenditure of Court and public resources;  however, treating the claims as a class action would result in a significant saving of these  costs. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class would create a  risk of inconsistent and/or varying adjudications with respect to the individual members of the  Class, establishing incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants and resulting in the  impairment of Class members’ rights and the disposition of their interests through actions to  which they were not parties. The issues in this action can be decided by means of common,  class-wide proof. In addition, if appropriate, the Court can, and is empowered to, fashion  TTroy  13 of 21  Complaint  methods to efficiently manage this action as a class action.   63.  Upon information and belief, Defendants and other employers throughout the  state violate the New York Labor Law. Current employees are often afraid to assert their  rights out of fear of direct or indirect retaliation. Former employees are fearful of bringing  claims because doing so can harm their employment, future employment, and future efforts to  secure employment. Class actions provide class members who are not named in the complaint  a degree of anonymity which allows for the vindication of their rights while eliminating or  reducing these risks.  Defendants Constitute an Enterprise  