52.  Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations in all preceding  paragraphs.   53.  Defendants paid Plaintiff and the Collective Members a sub-minimum wage,  ostensibly according to the tip-credit provisions of the FLSA, which allow an employer to pay an  hourly wage less than the statutory minimum wage, provided that the employer complies with  the requirements of the tip credit provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 203(m)   54.  Defendants paid Plaintiff and the Class Members a sub-minimum wage,  ostensibly according to the tip-credit provisions of the NMSA Minimum Wage Act and the  AMWO, which allow an employer to pay an hourly wage less than the statutory minimum wage,  provided that the employer complies with the requirements of the tip-credit provisions of NMSA  NMSA § 50-4-22 and AMWO § 13-12-3(A).    55.  Defendants paid their tipped employees–including Plaintiff and the Collective  Members–sub-minimum, tip-credit wages without informing them of the tip-credit provisions of  the FLSA, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 203(m).   56.  Therefore, Defendants did not comply with the requirements of the tip-credit  provisions and thus cannot avail itself of the tip-credit provisions of the FLSA.   58.  Therefore, Defendants did not comply with the requirements of the tip-credit  provisions and thus cannot avail themselves of the tip-credit provisions of the NMSA § 50-4-22  and AMWO § 13-12-3(A).   59.  Defendants did not allow Plaintiff and the Collective Members to retain all tips  they earned, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 203(m).   60.  During approximately May 2020, Defendants engaged in the practice of  compensating Plaintiff and the Collective Members the full minimum wage while retaining all  tips provided to Plaintiff and the Collective Members, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 203(m).   61.  As a result, Defendants violated 29 U.S.C 206(a) and the CAA.   62.  Thereafter, Defendants reduced Plaintiff and the Collective Members’ wages  down to $5.65 per hour without notifying Plaintiff or the Collective Members of their intent to  do so.    63.  As a result, Defendants did not comply with the requirements of 29 U.S.C. §  203(m) and thus cannot avail themselves of the tip-credit provisions of the FLSA.   64.  Defendants did not allow Plaintiff and the Class Members to retain all tips they  earned, in violation of NMSA § 50-4-22 and AMWO § 13-12-3(A).   65.  During approximately May 2020, Defendants engaged in the practice of  compensating Plaintiff and the Class Members the full minimum wage while retaining all tips  provided to Plaintiff and the Class Members.   67.  As a result, Defendants did not comply with the requirements of NMSA § 50-4-22  and AMWO § 13-12-3(A). and thus cannot avail themselves of the tip-credit provisions.   68.  Defendants engaged in the practice of deducting $3.55 from Plaintiff and the  Collective Members’ wages for each shift they worked to cover the cost of a meal, regardless of  whether or not Plaintiff or the Collective Members ate during their shift.    69.  Such policy on Defendants’ part violated the FLSA because the deductions from  Plaintiff’s and the Collective Members’ paychecks brought their wages below the applicable  minimum wage, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 206(a).   70.  Defendants engaged in the practice of deducting $3.55 from Plaintiff and the  Class Members’ wages for each shift they worked to cover the cost of a meal, regardless of  whether or not Plaintiff or the Class Members ate during their shift.    71.  Such policies on Defendants’ part violated the FLSA because the deductions from  Plaintiff’s and the Class Members’ paychecks brought their wages below the applicable  minimum wage, in violation of NMSA § 50-4-22 and AMWO § 13-12-3(A).   72.  Plaintiff left her employment with Defendants on or about June 20, 2020.  Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff her final paycheck.    73.  As a result, Plaintiff was not compensated any wage whatsoever for her final two  weeks of work for Defendants.    75.  Therefore, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff at least the applicable  minimum wage for all hours worked in her final two weeks of work for Defendants, in violation  of NMSA Minimum Wage Act and the AMWO.  76.  Plaintiff and the Collective Members bring the FLSA claims in this action as a  collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).   77.  Plaintiff asserts those claims on behalf of herself and on behalf of all similarly  situated tipped employees employed by Defendants, who were not paid all compensation required  by the FLSA during the relevant time period as a result of Defendants’ compensation policies and  practices.   78.  Plaintiff seek to notify the following employees of their rights under 29 U.S.C. §  216(b) to join this action by filing in this Court written notice of their consent to join this action:  All individuals who worked at any time during the past three  years at any restaurant owned or operated by Defendants in the  job position of server and who were paid for their work on an  hourly basis according to the tip credit provisions of the FLSA,  (i.e. an hourly rate less than the applicable minimum wage,  excluding tips).   79.  The FLSA provides for a three-year statute of limitations for causes of action  arising out of a willful violation of the Act. 29 U.S.C. § 255. As alleged above, Plaintiff and  similarly situated employees’ claims arise out of Defendants’ willful violations of the FLSA.  Accordingly, the Court should require appropriate notice of this action be given to all tipped  employees employed by Defendants within three years from the filing of this Complaint.   81.  The identities of these employees, as a group, are known only to Defendants.  Because the numerous members of this collective action are unknown to Plaintiffs, joinder of each  member is not practicable.   82.  Because these similarly situated tipped employees are readily identifiable by  Defendants and may be located through their records, they may be readily notified of this action  and allowed to opt into it pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), for the purpose of collectively  adjudicating their FLSA claims.   83.  Collective adjudication is appropriate in this case because the tipped employees  whom Plaintiffs wish to notify of this action have been employed in positions similar to Plaintiff;  have performed work similar to Plaintiff; and have been subject to compensation practices similar  to those to which Plaintiff has been subjected, including unlawful payment of sub-minimum wages  for non-tipped work and unlawful application of the FLSA’s tip credit provisions.  84.  Plaintiff brings her New Mexico wage claims as a Rule 23 class action on behalf  of the following Class Members:  The Class Members are all of Defendants’ current and former servers  who were paid an hourly rate of less than the New Mexico minimum  wage on account of their receiving tips, starting three years before this  lawsuit was filed up to the present.   86.  Typicality.  Plaintiff claims are typical of the Class Members because like the  Class Members, Plaintiff was subject to Defendants’ company-wide policies and practices and  was compensated in the same manner as the other Class Members.  Defendants regularly  withheld tips from Plaintiff and the Class Members while continuing to compensate them at a  rate below the applicable minimum wage.  As a result, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the  Class Members minimum wage for all hours worked.   87.  As a result of such policy and practice by Defendants, Defendants violated the  minimum wage provisions of NMSA § 50-4-22.   88.  Adequacy.  Plaintiff is a representative party who will fairly and adequately  protect the interests of the Class Members because it is in her interest to effectively prosecute the  claims in this Complaint in order to obtain the unpaid wages and penalties required under New  Mexico law.  Plaintiff has retained attorneys who have expertise in both class actions and wage  and hour litigation.  Plaintiff does not have any interest that may be contrary to or in conflict  with the claims of the Class Members she seeks to represent.   90. Common issues of law include, but are not limited to:  a. Whether Defendants properly paid all minimum wages due and owing to  Plaintiff and the Class Members;  b. Whether Defendants were entitled to impose a tip credit on the wages of  Plaintiff and the Class Members;  c. Whether Plaintiff and the Class Members are entitled to compensatory  damages;  d. The proper measure of damages sustained by Plaintiff and the Class Members;  and  e. Whether Defendants’ actions were “willful.”   91.  Superiority.  A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and  efficient adjudication of this lawsuit.  Even in the event any of the Class Members could afford  to pursue individual litigation against a company the size of Defendants, doing so would unduly  burden the system.  Individual litigation would magnify the delay and expense to all parties and  burden the court system with duplicative lawsuits.  Prosecution of separate actions by individual  Class Members would create the risk of inconsistent or varying judicial results and establish  incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants.   93.  This type of case is well-suited for class action treatment because: (1) Defendants’  practices, policies, and/or procedures were uniform and company-wide; (2) the burden is on  Defendants to prove it properly compensated its employees; (3) the burden is on Defendants to  accurately record hours worked by employees; and (4) the burden is on Defendants to prove it  properly imposed the tip credit upon its employees.   94.  Ultimately, a class action is a superior forum to resolve the New Mexico state law  claims set forth in this Complaint because of the common nucleus of operative facts centered on  the continued failure of Defendants to pay Plaintiff and the Class Members according to  applicable New Mexico laws.   95.  Nature of Notice to be Proposed.  As to the Rule 23 Class Members, it is  contemplated that notice would be issued giving putative class members an opportunity to opt  out of the class if they so desire, i.e. an “opt-out notice.”  Notice of the pendency and resolution  of the action can be provided to the Class Members by mail, electronic mail, print, broadcast,  internet, and/or multimedia publication.  97.  Defendants failed to inform Plaintiff and the Collective Members of (1) the amount  of the tip credit being claimed by Defendants; (2) that the amount claimed by Defendants must not  exceed the value of the tips actually received by Plaintiff and the Collective Members; and (3) that  all tips received by Plaintiff and Collective Members must be retained by the Plaintiff and the  Collective Members in the absence of a valid tip pooling arrangement limited to employees who  customarily and regularly receive tips. As such, Defendants were not entitled to apply the tip credit  to the wages paid to Plaintiff and the Collective Members.    98.  In approximately May 2020, Defendants reduced Plaintiff’s and the Collective  Members’ hourly wage from the full minimum wage down to $5.65 per hour without providing  them notice of their intent to do so.  As a result, Defendants failed and/or refused to pay Plaintiff  and the Collective Members the full minimum wage according to the provisions of the FLSA, in  violation of 29 U.S.C. § 206(a).   FAILURE TO PROVIDE NOTICE OF TIP CREDIT TO PLAINTIFF   IMPROPER DEDUCTIONS FROM WAGES  125.  Plaintiff and the Class Members reallege and incorporate by reference all  allegations in all preceding paragraphs.  126.  Defendants engaged in the regular practice of automatically deducting $3.55 from  Plaintiff’s and the Class Members’ wages for each and every shift that Plaintiff and the Class  Members worked to pay for food regardless of whether or not Plaintiff or the Class Members ate  during that shift or not.  Such policy and practice resulted in Defendants compensating Plaintiff  and the Class Members at a rate or less than the applicable minimum wage, in violation of  NMSA § 50-4-22 and AMWO § 13-12-3(A).    127.  Such policy and practice by Defendants resulted in Plaintiff and the Class Members  being paid below the applicable minimum wage, in violation of NMSA § 50-4-22 and AMWO § 