(29 U.S.C. § 216(b) Collective Action)  VIOLATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT,   29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. -- FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME   22.  The FLSA applies in this case on an enterprise basis.   23.  Both Defendants’ annual sales exceed $500,000.    24.  At all relevant times Defendants had more than two employees engaged  in interstate commerce.   25.  Defendants’ Drivers engage in interstate commerce and therefore they  are also covered by the FLSA on an individual basis.   26.  Defendants have employed Plaintiff John Honeycutt as a full-time  Driver out of its distribution center in Southfield, Michigan within the last three  years.    28.  Defendants also employed Drivers out of other distribution centers  across the country.   29.  Regardless of the distribution center, Defendants paid each Driver on a  day-rate or piece-rate basis and classified them as exempt from overtime.   30.  Regardless of how many hours Plaintiff and other similarly situated  Drivers worked, Defendants paid them on a flat day-rate or piece-rate.  For  Plaintiff, his most recent day rate was $155.00 per day.  Whether paid on a day-rate  or piece-rate, Defendants did not pay any of its Drivers overtime.   31.  At all relevant times, Defendants (unlawfully) classified Plaintiff and  other similarly situated Drivers as exempt from overtime (because they were deemed  independent contractors), when, in fact, they were non-exempt employees and  entitled to overtime.   32.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated Drivers are non-exempted by  Section 13(b)(1) of the FLSA.   33.  The Highway Technical Corrections Act (“HTCA”) of 2007 states that  the overtime protections of the FLSA “shall apply to a covered employee  notwithstanding section 13(b)(1) of that Act (29 U.S.C. 213(b)(1)).”  HIGHWAY  TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS ACT OF 2007, 154 Cong Rec S 3106, 3134.   51.  At all relevant times, Defendants were jointly Plaintiffs’ “employer”  and Defendants directly benefited from the work performed by Plaintiffs and the  other hourly employees.  Defendants also jointly benefited, albeit illegally, from  retaining gratuities/tips from the mandatory tip pool Plaintiffs and other similarly  situated employees were required to participate in.   52.  At all relevant times, Defendants controlled Plaintiffs’ and other  similarly situated hourly employees’ schedule, duties, assignments, and employment  conditions.   54.  Defendants were “joint employers” of Plaintiffs as defined by the  FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d) and 29 C.F.R. 791.2(a).  55.  Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) of the FLSA  on his own behalf and on behalf of:  All current and former day-rate or piece-rate paid Drivers  who worked for Worldpac, Inc. or National Delivery  Solutions, LLC., and were not paid overtime, in the United  States at any time from three years prior to the date the  Court grants conditional certification through a date  specified by the Court.  (hereinafter referred to as the “Collective”).  Plaintiff reserves the right to amend  this definition as necessary.   56.  Excluded from the proposed Collective are Defendants’ executives,  administrative, and professional employees, including computer professionals and  outside sales persons.   58.  The employment relationships between Defendants and every  Collective member are essentially the same and differ only by name, location, and  rate of pay. The key issues do not vary substantially among the Collective members.   59.  The key legal issues are also the same for every Collective member.  These common legal and factual questions, include, but are not limited to, the  following:  a.  Whether Defendants properly classified Plaintiff and the similarly  situated Drivers as independent contractors;   b.  Whether Defendants properly classified Plaintiff and the similarly  situated Drivers as exempt from overtime; and  c.  Whether Plaintiff and the similarly situated Drivers worked overtime  hours (as defined by the FLSA) to which they are entitled to overtime  premiums for.   60.  Plaintiff estimates the Collective, including both current and former  employees over the relevant period, will include several hundred members. The  precise number of Collective members should be readily available from a review of  Defendants’ personnel and payroll records.  61.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all previous paragraphs herein.   63.  Defendants are engaged in interstate commerce, or in the production of  goods for commerce, as defined by the FLSA.   64.  At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff and other Collective  members were “employees” of Defendants within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §  203(e)(1) of the FLSA.    65.  Plaintiff and other Collective members either (1) engaged in commerce;  or (2) engaged in the production of goods for commerce; or (3) were employed in an  enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce.   66.  Defendants have had, and continues to have, an annual gross business  volume in excess of $500,000.   67.  At all times relevant to this action, Defendants “suffered or permitted”  Plaintiff and other Collective members to work and thus “employed” them within the  meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203(g) of the FLSA.   68.  At all times relevant to this action, Defendants misclassified Plaintiff  and other Collective member as independent contractors.   69.  At all times relevant to this action, Defendants compensated Plaintiff  and the other Collective members on a flat day-rate or piece-rate basis, regardless of  the number of hours they actually spent working.   70.  Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the other Collective members  overtime premiums, as required by the Section 7 of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).   72.  Defendants’ violations of the FLSA were knowing and willful.  Defendants knew or could have easily determined whether Plaintiff and the  Members of the Collective were exempt from overtime, and could have easily  determined the number of overtime hours worked, but did not.   73.  The FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), provides that as a remedy for a violation  of the Act, an employee is entitled to his or her unpaid wages (and unpaid overtime  if applicable) plus an additional equal amount in liquidated damages (double  damages), plus costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees. 