66.  Named Plaintiff seeks to bring this suit to recover overtime compensation and  liquidated damages from Defendants under the applicable provisions of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C.  §216(b), on their own behalf as well as on behalf of those in the following collective:  FLSA Collective:  Current and former employees of Defendants who, at any time  within three years prior to filing date of this Collective and Class Action  Complaint through the date of final disposition (“Collective Period”), worked for  the Defendants as non-exempt Workers and were subject to Defendants’ policy  and pattern or practice of failing to properly pay premium overtime compensation  for all hours worked beyond 40 per week and who elect to opt into this litigation.     67.  Defendants are liable under the FLSA for, inter alia, failing to properly  compensate the Named Plaintiff and the putative FLSA Collective Members (“Collective  Members”).   68.  Consistent with Defendants’ policy and pattern or practice, the Named Plaintiff  and the Collective Members have not been paid any premium overtime compensation for hours  worked beyond 40 in any single work week.  13   69.  All of the work that the Named Plaintiff and the Collective Members have  performed involved tasks that have been assigned by Defendants, and/or Defendants have been  aware of all of the work that they have performed.   70.  Defendants have exercised sufficient supervision, direction and control over the  Plaintiff and Collective Members by, inter alia, (1) assigning them job duties and  responsibilities; and (2) controlling all of the terms and conditions of their employment,  including their compensation, as well as policies and practices they were required to follow.    71.  As part of their regular business practices, Defendants have intentionally imposed  unlawful policies and practices upon the Named Plaintiff and the Collective Members, which  include, but are not limited to:  a) willfully failing to pay them premium overtime wages for all hours worked in  excess of 40 hours per workweek; and  b) willfully failing to record all of the time that they have worked for the benefit of  the Defendants; and   c) willfully directing the preparation and distribution of paystubs omitting the  number of hours that each employee worked during the pay period; and   d) deducting some time each week from the number of hours actually worked by  each employee, and then multiplying that number of hours by the straight time  rate.      72.  Defendants’ unlawful conduct pled herein constitutes a corporate policy or  practice of minimizing labor costs by failing to properly compensate the Named Plaintiff and the  Collective Members for the overtime hours they have worked.  14   73.  Defendants are aware or should have been aware that Federal law required them  to pay the Named Plaintiff and the Collective Members overtime premiums for all hours worked  in excess of 40 per workweek.   74.  The Named Plaintiffs and the Collective Members perform or performed the same  or similar primary duties.   75.  Defendants’ unlawful conduct has been systematic, widespread, repeated, and  consistent.   76.  There are many similarly situated current and former employees who have been  denied overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA who would benefit from the issuance of  a court-supervised notice of this lawsuit and the opportunity to join it.  This notice should be sent  to the Collective Members pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).   77.  Those similarly situated employees are known to Defendants, are readily  identifiable, and can be located through Defendants’ records.  78.  The Named Plaintiff brings this action as a Class action, pursuant to Rule 23 of  the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of themselves and the following defined Classes:   15  “Rule 23 Class”:    Workers employed by the Defendants at any time within six years  prior to the filing date of this Class action complaint through the  date of final disposition (“Class Period”) of this action and who  were subject to Defendants’ policy and pattern or practice of (i)  manually reducing their hours, thereby denying them overtime  premiums for all of the hours they worked in excess of 40 hours  per week; and/or (ii) improperly paying them at straight time for  overtime hours; and/or (iii) failing to provide proper wage notices  and keep proper records as required by the NYLL; and/or (iv)  failing to provide annual wage notices as required by the NYLL.   79.  Excluded from the Rule 23 Class are Defendants, Defendants' legal  representatives, officers, directors, assigns, and successors, or any individuals who have, or who  at any time during the class period had, a controlling interest in Defendants, and all persons who  shall submit timely and otherwise proper requests for exclusion.   80.  The Members of the Rule 23 Class are so numerous that joinder of all Members is  impracticable. Upon information and belief, the size of the Rule 23 Class is over 50 individuals.  Although the precise number of such employees is unknown, the data necessary to ascertain this  with precision is within the exclusive possession and control of the Defendants.   81.  Defendants have acted or have refused to act on grounds generally applicable to  the Rule 23 Class, thereby making final injunctive relief appropriate or corresponding  declaratory relief with respect to the Rule 23 Classes as a whole.   82.  Common questions of law and fact exist as to the Rule 23 Class that predominate  over any questions only affecting them individually and include, but are not limited to, the  following:  16  a. Whether Defendants unlawfully required Members of the proposed class to work  off the clock, thereby denying them overtime premiums under the NYLL;  b. Whether Defendants unlawfully reduced the number of hours the Members  worked in their own payroll system;  c. Whether Defendants unlawfully failed to pay appropriate overtime compensation  to Members of the proposed class in violation of NYLL;  d. Whether Defendants employed Plaintiff and the proposed class within the  meaning of New York law;  e. Whether Defendants failed to keep true and accurate time and pay records for all  hours worked by the Named Plaintiff and the proposed class;  f. Whether Defendants failed to furnish the Named Plaintiff and the proposed class  with annual wage notices, as required by the NYLL;  g. Whether Defendants failed to furnish the Named Plaintiffs and the proposed class  Members with proper wage statements with every payment of wages, as required  by the NYLL;  h. Whether Defendants’ policy of failing to pay the Named Plaintiffs and Class  Members was instituted willfully or with reckless disregard of the law; and  i. The nature and extent of class-wide injury and the measure of damages for those  injuries.   83.  The claims of the Named Plaintiff is typical of the claims of the Rule 23 Class he  seeks to represent. Named Plaintiff and all of the Rule 23 Class Members work, or have worked,  for Defendants as Workers.  The Named Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class Members enjoy the same  17  statutory rights under the NYLL, including the right to be appropriately compensated for all  hours worked, to be paid overtime compensation, and to receive legally required wage notices.   The Named Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class Members have all sustained similar types of damages  as a result of Defendants' failure to comply with the NYLL. The Named Plaintiff and the Rule 23  Class Members have all been injured in that they have been uncompensated or  undercompensated due to Defendants' common policies, practices, and patterns of conduct.   84.  The Named Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests  of the Members of the Rule 23 Class; understands that as Class representative, he assumes a  fiduciary responsibility to the Class to represent its interests fairly and adequately; recognizes  that as Class representative, he must represent and consider the interests of the Class just as he  would represent and consider his own interests; understands that in decisions regarding the  conduct of the litigation and its possible settlement, he must not favor his own interests over  those of the Class;  recognizes that any resolution of a Class action must be in the best interests  of the Class; and understands that in order to provide adequate representation, he must be  informed of developments in litigation, cooperate with Class counsel, and testify at depositions  and/or trial.  The Named Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and experienced in complex  Class actions and employment litigation. There is no conflict between the Named Plaintiff and  the Rule 23 Class Members.   85.  A Class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this litigation. The Members of the Rule 23 Class have been damaged and are  entitled to recovery as a result of Defendants' violations of the NYLL, as well as their common  18  and uniform policies, practices, and procedures. Although the relative damages suffered by  individual Rule 23 Class Members are not de minimis, such damages are small compared to the  expense and burden that this litigation will require. The individual Plaintiff lacks the financial  resources to conduct a thorough examination of Defendants' timekeeping and compensation  practices and to vigorously prosecute a lawsuit against Defendants to recover such damages. In  addition, class litigation is superior because it will obviate the need for unduly duplicative  litigation that might result in inconsistent judgments with respect to Defendants' practices.   86.  This action is properly maintainable as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil  Procedure 23(b)(3).  87.  Consistent with their policies and patterns or practices as described herein,  Defendants harmed the Named Plaintiff, individually, as follows:  Rigoberto Quiridumbay   88.  Defendants did not pay Quiridumbay the proper overtime compensation for all of  the time that he was suffered or permitted to work each workweek.   89.  Plaintiff Quiridumbay began working for the Defendants on or about January 10,  2014 until September 11, 2016.  19   90.  From the beginning of his employment until April 30, 2014, Mr. Quiridumbay  worked Sunday through Friday, inclusive from 8:00AM until 6:00PM.      91.  From on or about May 1, 2014 until February 29, 2016, Mr. Quiridumbay worked  Sunday through Friday, inclusive, from 3:30 AM until 1:30 PM.   92.  From on or about March 1, 2016 until his termination, Mr. Quiridumbay worked  Sunday through Friday, inclusive, from 8:00 AM until 4:00 PM.   93.  Throughout his employment with the Defendants, Mr. Quiridumbay was paid on a  salary basis.   94.  From the beginning of his employment with Defendants until on or about August  31, 2014, Mr. Quiridumbay was paid $510.00 per work week.   95.  From on or about September 1, 2014, until on or about February 29, 2016,  Plaintiff Quiridumbay was paid $625.00 per work week.   96.  From on or about March 1, 2016, until his termination, Plaintiff Quiridumbay was  paid $675.00 per work week.   97.  Throughout the duration of his employment Quiridumbay received paystubs from  Defendants which did not show any of the hours he worked.  20   98.  Upon information and belief, Defendants failed to keep accurate records of wages  earned or of the hours worked by Quiridumbay.   99.  Defendants failed to furnish Quiridumbay with proper annual wage notices, as  required by the NYLL.  100.  Defendants failed to furnish Quiridumbay with proper wage statements with every  payment of wages, as required by the NYLL.  FEDERAL FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT  AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS, AND EACH OF THEM  (FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME)  101.  The Named Plaintiff hereby incorporates all preceding paragraphs of this  complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth at length.   102.  The overtime wage provisions set forth in the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq.,  and the supporting federal regulations, apply to Defendants and protect the Named Plaintiff and  the Members of the FLSA Collective.  103.  Defendants have failed to pay the Named Plaintiff and the Members of the FLSA  Collective overtime wages to which they have been entitled under the FLSA - at a rate of 1.5  times their regular rate of pay - for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.  21  104.  Defendants' unlawful conduct, as described in this Collective and Class Action  Complaint, has been willful and intentional. Defendants were aware or should have been aware  that the practices described in this Collective and Class Action Complaint were unlawful.  Defendants have not made a good faith effort to comply with the FLSA with respect to the  compensation of the Named Plaintiff and the Members of the FLSA Collective.  105.  Because Defendants' violations of the FLSA have been willful, a three-year  statute of limitations applies, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 255.  106.  As a result of Defendants' violations of the FLSA, Named Plaintiff and the  Members of the FLSA Collective have been deprived of overtime compensation in amounts to be  determined at trial, and are entitled to recovery of such amounts, liquidated damages,  prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and other compensation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §  216(b).  NEW YORK STATE LABOR LAW  AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS, AND EACH OF THEM  (FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME)  107.  The Named Plaintiff hereby incorporates all preceding paragraphs of this  complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth at length.   108.  At all times herein pertinent, Named Plaintiff and Members of the Rule 23 Class  were employees of Defendants within the meaning of the New York Labor Law.  22  109.  Defendants are joint employers of the Named Plaintiff and Members of the Rule  23 Class within the meaning of the New York Labor Law.  110.  The overtime wage provisions of Article 19 of the New York Labor Law and its  supporting regulations apply to Defendants.  111.  Defendants have failed to pay the Named Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class  Members the overtime wages to which they were entitled under the New York Labor Law.  112.  By Defendants’ failure to pay the Named Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class  Members’ premium overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, they have  willfully violated the New York Labor Law Article 19, §§ 650 et seq., and the supporting New  York State Department of Labor Regulations.  113.  Due to Defendants’ violations of the New York Labor Law, Plaintiff and the Rule  23 Class Members are entitled to recover from Defendants their unpaid overtime wages,  liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of the action, and pre-judgment and  post-judgment interest.  23  NEW YORK STATE LABOR LAW  AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS, AND EACH OF THEM  (FAILURE TO PROVIDE PROPER WAGE STATEMENTS)  118.  The Named Plaintiff hereby incorporates all preceding paragraphs of this  complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth at length.   119.  Defendants have willfully failed to furnish Named Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class  members with statements with every payment of wages as required by NYLL, Article 6, §  195(3), listing: the dates of work covered by that payment of wages; name of employee; name of  employer; address and phone number of employer; rate or rates of pay and basis thereof, whether  paid by the hour, shift, day, week, salary, piece, commission, or other; gross wages; deductions;  allowances, if any, claimed as part of the minimum wage; net wages; the regular hourly rate or  rates of pay; the overtime rate or rates of pay; and the number of regular and overtime hours  worked.  25  120.  Through their knowing or intentional failure to provide Plaintiff and the Rule 23  Class members with the wage statements required by the NYLL, Defendants have willfully  violated NYLL, Article 6, §§ 190 et seq., and the supporting New York State Department of  Labor Regulations.  121.  Due to Defendants' willful violations of NYLL, Article 6, § 195(3), Named  Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class Members are entitled to statutory penalties of two hundred fifty  dollars for each work day that Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs with proper wage  statements, or a total of five thousand dollars each, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and  injunctive and declaratory relief, as provided for by NYLL, Article 6, § 198(1-d).  NEW YORK STATE LABOR LAW  AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS, AND EACH OF THEM  (FAILURE TO PROVIDE PROPER ANNUAL WAGE NOTICES)  114.  The Named Plaintiff hereby incorporates all preceding paragraphs of this  complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth at length.   115.  Upon information and belief, Defendants have willfully failed to furnish the  Named Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class Members with annual wage notices as required by NYLL,  Article 6, § 195(1), in English or in the language identified by each employee as their primary  language, at the time of hiring, and on or before February first of each subsequent year of the  employee's employment with the employer, a notice containing: the rate or rates of pay and basis  thereof, whether paid by the hour, shift, day, week, salary, piece, commission, or other;  allowances, if any, claimed as part of the minimum wage, including tip, meal, or lodging  allowances; the regular pay day designated by the employer in accordance with NYLL, Article 6,  § 191; the name of the employer; any "doing business as" names used by the employer; the  physical address of the employer's main office or principal place of business, and a mailing  address if different; the telephone number of the employer; plus such other information as the  commissioner deems material and necessary.  116.  Through their knowing or intentional failure to provide Named Plaintiffs and the  Rule 23 Class Members with the annual wage notices required by the NYLL, Defendants have  24  willfully violated NYLL, Article 6, §§ 190 et seq., and the supporting New York State  Department of Labor Regulations.  117.  Due to Defendants' willful violations of NYLL, Article 6, § 195(1), Named  Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class Members are entitled to statutory penalties of fifty dollars for  each work day that Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs with proper annual wage notices, or a  total of five thousand dollars each, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and injunctive and  declaratory relief, as provided for by NYLL, Article 6, § 198(1-b). 