10.  Defendants specialize in providing a variety of landscape and grounds keeping  services, including some landscaping related construction services, for business and residential  clients.   12.  Defendant Gregory Hamann has operational control over the Defendant Prime  Lawn Care Inc. business by exercising control over the terms and conditions of the business’s  employees, maintaining business records, and possessing the power to hire and fire Prime Lawn  Care Inc.’s employees.    13.  Upon information and belief, Defendant Gregory Hamann developed the scheme  to underpay Prime Lawn Care Inc. employees. He established the employees’ wage rates and  Prime Lawn Care Inc.’s pay practices.    14.  Defendants employed named Plaintiff as a landscape laborer under the H-2B  temporary visa program in 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014.  Defendants employed approximately 58  H-2B workers in 2011, 61 in 2012, 61 in 2013, 65 in 2014.    15.  Upon information and belief, Defendants employed approximately 80 hourly  employees engaged in landscaping during each of the relevant years.   16.  Plaintiff was, and Class Members are or were, assigned to work crews of 3-5  workers per crew and are or were responsible for providing a variety of landscaping and grounds  keeping-related services.   18.   Plaintiff was and Class Members are or were paid hourly, at a rate based on their  level of expertise and the type of work performed. For example, employees that worked on the  Defendants’ landscaping related construction crews were paid at a higher hourly rate than  maintenance crews.       19.  Plaintiff was and Class Members are or were required to arrive at Defendants  shop by 7am to do work prior to beginning their paid shift.  Similarly, Plaintiff was and Class  Members are or were required to do work after their paid shift.    20.  Plaintiff were and Class Members are or were regularly not paid at all for their  work performed prior to leaving the shop in the morning or after arriving to the shop in the  afternoon.    21.  Plaintiff worked and Class Members worked or work routinely more than forty  hours per week and often were or are not paid for all of their overtime hours worked.     22.  When Plaintiff and Class Members were paid for their hours worked in excess of  forty in a workweek, they were often compensated in cash and at their regular hourly rate.    23.  At all times relevant to this action, the Defendants knowingly, willfully, or with  reckless disregard, carried out the illegal pattern or practice of failing to pay overtime wages due  to the Plaintiff and Class Members.   24.  At all times relevant to this action, the Defendants failed to maintain complete and  accurate records of the Plaintiff and Class Members’ hours of work and compensation as  required by the FLSA.   26.  The Plaintiff have fulfilled all prerequisites and/or requirements to bring this suit  and obtain the relief sought herein.  27.  Defendants employed other individuals (Class Members) to perform the same or  similar job duties as Plaintiff in that they worked performing landscaping or landscaping related  construction duties for the Defendants.   28.   Plaintiff was aware that the Defendants engaged in the same pattern and practice  of failing to properly compensate Class Members for all hours worked and failing to pay the  overtime compensation as required by the FLSA.   29.  Plaintiff and Class Members were and are subjected to the same pay provisions in  that they were not and are not paid for all the hours they worked or work, and were and are  regularly not paid the overtime rate (time-and-one-half regular hourly rate) for the hours they  worked or work in excess of forty hours per week.    30.  Defendants knowingly, willfully, or with reckless disregard carried out their  illegal pattern or practice of failing to pay overtime wages with respect to Plaintiff and Class  Members by failing to pay each employee for his/her total hours worked and/or by failing to pay  each employee at the proper overtime rate for work hours performed over forty hours in a  workweek.     32.  The Defendants’ failure to pay the overtime compensation at the rates required by  the FLSA results from generally applicable policies or practices and does not depend on the  personal circumstances of the Plaintiff or those joining this lawsuit. Rather, the same policy or  practice which resulted in the non-payment of overtime wages to Plaintiff applied to all Class  Members. Accordingly, the “Class Members” are properly defined as:   All workers who were subject to the work hours and payment practices detailed above and  who were consequently not paid properly in accordance with 29 U.S.C. §207.   33.  All Class Members, regardless of their precise job requirements or rates of pay,  are entitled to overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of forty hours per week.  Although the issue of damages may be individual in character, there is no detraction from the  common nucleus of liability facts.  35.  Under 29 U.S.C. § 216, Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to recover  unpaid overtime compensation, as well as an equal amount as liquidated damages, as well as  attorney fees and costs.   FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT  