26.  From November 2006 to February 2012, Lim was employed by Defendant  AIA Recycling at AIA Recycling’s Greenville, Alabama facility.   27.  Sometime in February 2012, Defendant AIA Recycling relocated Lim to  Defendant Metal Source America’s LaGrange, Georgia facility.    28.  From February 2012 to September 2014, Lim worked at the LaGrange,  Georgia facility.    29.  While Lim was working at the LaGrange facility, he received instructions  directly from Metal Source America.   30.  While Lim was working at the LaGrange facility, he received paychecks  from AIA Recycling.    32.  According to the Secretary of State of Georgia, Defendant Na Y Kim is the  CFO and secretary of Metal Source America.    33.  Based on information and belief, Na Y Kim has an ownership interest in  both AIA Recycling and Metal Source America.    34.  AIA Recycling’s principal place of business is 470 Cloverdale Road,  Greenville, AL 36037.    35.  Based  on  the  website  of  Metal  Source  America,  www.metalsourceamerica.com, it has three “yard locations,” and 470 Cloverdale  Road, Greenville, AL 36037 is one of Metal Source America’s “yard locations.”   36.  Throughout Lim’s employment with Defendants, all of his compensation  came from a salary paid by Defendants.   37.  Throughout Lim’s employment with Defendants, Lim was employed as a  “Yard Employee” by Defendants. It is the intent of this collective action to apply to  all of Defendants’ current/former “Yard Employees,” including machine operators,  equipment operators, maintenance workers, and security guards from October 10,  2011 to the date of judgment in this action.   35  Lim’s principal duties while working for Defendants were comprised of  performing yard duties connected with Defendants’ scrap metal recycling business,  including operating equipment.    38.  There are numerous “Yard Employees,” employed by Defendants, working  in excess of forty hours per week and paid a salary, including machine operators,  equipment operators, maintenance workers, and a security guards.    39.  Lim and the putative class members are similarly situated in terms of job  duties, pay, and compensation.   40.  Lim did not have discretionary authority in his position as a “Yard  Employee” for Defendants.   