14.  At all relevant times, Plaintiff and the other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are and have  been similarly situated, have had substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, and  are and have been subjected to Defendants’ decisions, policies, plans, programs, practices,  procedures, protocols, routines, and rules, all culminating in a willful failure and refusal to pay  them proper compensation for all hours worked, due to a policy of time shaving. The claims of  Plaintiff stated herein are essentially the same as those of other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs.   15.  The claims for relief are properly brought under and maintained as an opt-in  collective action pursuant to §16(b) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 216(b). The FLSA Collective Plaintiffs  are readily ascertainable. For purposes of notice and other purposes related to this action, their  names and addresses are readily available from the Defendants. Notice can be provided to FLSA  Collective Plaintiffs via first class mail to the last address known to Defendants.  16.  Plaintiff bring claims for relief pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure  (“FRCP”) Rule 23, on behalf of all current and former non-exempt employees (including but not  limited to maintenance workers, waiters, bartenders, food preparers, porters, chefs, dishwashers  among others) 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”).    18.  The proposed Class is so numerous that a 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 because the facts on which the calculation of that  number rests presently within the sole control of Defendants, there is no doubt that there are more  than forty (40) members of the Class.    19.  Plaintiffs’ 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, which would be sought by each  member of the Class in separate actions. All the Class members were subject to the same  Defendants’ corporate practices of (i) failing to pay proper compensation for all hours worked, (ii)  failure to pay proper overtime, (iii) failing to pay proper wages, including those due to time  shaving, (ii) failing to provide Class members with proper wage statements with every payment of  wages, and (iii) failing to properly provide wage notices to Class members, at date of hiring and  annually, per requirements of the NYLL.   20.  Defendants’ corporate-wide policies and practices affected all Class members  similarly, and Defendants benefited 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.    22.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of the controversy, particularly in the context of the wage and hour litigation where  individual class members lack the financial resources to vigorously prosecute a lawsuit against  corporate defendant. Class action treatment will permit a large number of similarly situated  persons to prosecute common claims in a single forum simultaneously, efficiently, and without the  unnecessary duplication of efforts and expense that numerous individual actions engender.  Because 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. On the other hand, 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 methods to efficiently manage this action as a class action.   25.  Plaintiff MIGUEL HERREROS TORREZ:  (a) In March 2020, Plaintiff MIGUEL HERREROS TORREZ began employment  with Defendants as a maintenance worker for Defendants’ Restaurant.   (b) His schedule was 6am to 3pm, 5 days per week. Plaintiff worked approximately  45 hours per week.   (c) Throughout Plaintiff’s employment by Defendants, Plaintiff was required to  clock out for a thirty (30) minute meal break every day. However, at least two  days a week, Plaintiff did not take the break. Plaintiff was not paid for such off- the-clock work and as a result, was time-shaved one (1) hour per week.   (d) Plaintiff MIGUEL HERREROS TORREZ was compensated at a rate of sixteen  dollars ($16.00) per hour, for all hours worked up to forty (40) hours per week,  and at an overtime rate of twenty one dollars and seventy five cents ($24.00)  for hours worked over forty (40) hours per week   (e) In June 2020 Plaintiff’s employment was terminated.     27.  Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and Class members with proper wage notices  at hiring and annually thereafter. Plaintiff did not receive proper wage notices either upon being  hired or annually since the date of hiring in violation of the NYLL.    28.  Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not  compensating Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class members for all hours worked due  to a policy of time-shaving.   29.  Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not  providing proper wage statements as required under the NYLL.    30.  Defendants failed to provide proper wage notices to employees, at the beginning of  employment and annually thereafter, pursuant to the requirements of the NYLL.    31.  Plaintiff retained Lee Litigation Group, PLLC to represent Plaintiff, FLSA  Collective Plaintiffs and Class members, in this litigation and have agreed to pay the firm a  reasonable fee for its services.  32.  Plaintiff reallege and reaver Paragraphs 1 through 32 of this Class and Collective  Action Complaint as if fully set forth herein.   34.  At all relevant times, Defendants employed Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs  within the meaning of the FLSA.   35.  At all relevant times, Corporate Defendant had gross annual revenues in excess of  $500,000.   36.  At all relevant times, the Defendants engaged in a policy of time-shaving, including  refusing to compensate Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs for all of their hours worked.   37.  Plaintiff are in possession of certain records concerning the number of hours  worked by Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the actual compensation paid to Plaintiff  and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs. Further records concerning these matters should be in the  possession and custody of the Defendants. Plaintiff intend to obtain all records by appropriate  discovery proceedings to be taken promptly in this case and, if necessary, will then seek leave of  Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the precise amount due.   38.  Defendants knew of and/or showed a willful disregard for the provisions of the  FLSA as evidenced by their failure to compensate Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs for all  hours worked when Defendants knew or should have known such was due.   39.  Defendants failed to properly disclose or apprise Plaintiff and FLSA Collective  Plaintiffs of their rights under the FLSA.   40.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ willful disregard of the FLSA,  Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are entitled to liquidated (i.e., double) damages pursuant  to the FLSA.   42.  Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of their reasonable  attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b).  43.  Plaintiff reallege and reaver Paragraphs 1 through 43 of this Class and Collective  Action Complaint as if fully set forth herein.   44.  At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Class members were employed by the  Defendants within the meaning of the NYLL, §§2 and 651.   45.  At all relevant times, the Defendants engaged in a policy of time-shaving, refusing  to compensate Plaintiff and Class members for all of their hours that they worked each week.   46.  Defendants willfully violated Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ rights by failing to  pay them proper wages in the lawful amount for hours worked.    47.  Defendants failed to provide proper wage statements with correct payment as  required by NYLL § 195(3).   48.  Due to the Defendants’ NYLL violations, Plaintiff and Class members are entitled  to recover from Defendants their unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, resulting from time  shaving, damages for unreasonably delayed payments, reasonable attorneys’ fees, liquidated  damages, statutory penalties and costs and disbursements of the action, pursuant to New York  Labor Law.  VIOLATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT    VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK LABOR LAW   