12. Plaintiffs files this case an “opt-in” class action as specifically allowed by 29   U.S.C. §216(b).   13. The class that the Plaintiffs seeks to represent may be described as follows:  1) All current and former employees of the above-named Defendants who  worked as “cleaning and sanitation” workers at HEB warehouse and  distribution center at 4625 Windfern Road, Houston, Texas 77041, during the  three year period before the date of this lawsuit and 2) who claim they were  not paid for overtime hours worked and 3) seek payment for such hours.   14. Plaintiffs seeks to represent only those members of the above-described group   who, after appropriate notice of their ability to opt-in to this action, have provided consent in  writing to be represented by Plaintiff’s counsel as required by 29 U.S.C. §216(b).   15. Those persons who choose to opt in, hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiffs   Class” will be listed on subsequent pleadings and copies of the written consents to sue will be  incorporated here by reference.   17.  The members of the Plaintiffs’ Class are similarly-situated to Plaintiffs and are  owed overtime wages for the same reasons as the Plaintiffs.  These employees should be notified  of this case and given the opportunity to joint this suit.  VI.  18.    Defendant HEB owns and/or operates more than 300 warehouse across the state  of Texas, and engages Defendant Frio Nevada to clean displays and rearrange products and  produce in HEB's warehouse.     18.  Plaintiffs worked full-time and exclusively inside of HEB stores, under the  supervision of  HEB managers, who provided constant supervision of their production and the  cleanliness of their worksite, using fruit, produce, tools and materials supplied by HEB.     19.   During the relevant period, Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants to clean  displays and rearrange products and produce in HEB's warehouse.      19.  Not all HEB managers, freezer department managers, and produce managers  complied with the independent contractor agreement between HEB and Frio Nevada.   20.  At all times relevant to this action, Defendant has been subject to the requirements  of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.     21.   For purposes of this action, the “relevant period” is defined as such period  commencing on the date that is three years prior to the filing of this action, and continuing  thereafter.     27.  Each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs is re-alleged as if  fully re-written herein.   28.  Other employees have been victimized by this pattern, practice, and policy of the  Defendant   29. Other, similarly-situated employees are being denied their lawful wages.   30.  Upon information and belief other, similarly-situated employees are having less  than their full work hours recorded by Defendants.   31.  Accordingly, Defendants’ pattern or practice of failing to pay the employees’   overtime pay (at time and one-half) as required by the FLSA results from Defendants’ general  application of policies and practices, and does not depend on the personal circumstances of the  members of the Plaintiffs’ Class.   32.  Thus, Plaintiffs’ experience as cleaners are typical of the experience of the  Plaintiffs’ Class.   33. The specific job titles or job requirements of the various members of the   Plaintiffs Class do not prevent collective treatment.   34.  All employees, regardless of their job requirements or rates of pay, who are  denied overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty (40) per week, are similarly- situated.   35.  Although the issue of damages may be individual in character, the facts related to  liability are common to the Plaintiffs’ Class.   37. Each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs is re-alleged   as if fully re-written herein.    38. Defendants’ failure to pay overtime wages, to the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs’   Class, was and is in violation of the FLSA.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled  to overtime in an amount equal to one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for each hour  worked over forty in each workweek.    39. Additionally, the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs Class are entitled to an amount   equal to all their unpaid wages as liquidated damages.   40. Defendant has been sued in the past for overtime violation by managers and   hourly employees, for failing to pay for all hours worked.   41. Previous suits by managers put Defendants on notice of the limited scope of   exemptions to the FLSA.  Previous suits by hourly employees put defendants on notice that such  employees must be paid for all hours actually worked.   42. These prior lawsuits made Defendants aware that their payroll practices violated   the FLSA, and put Defendant on notice that it needed to re-evaluate its manner of paying its store  employees.   43. Even after the conclusion of these prior lawsuits, which encompassed many of   Defendants’ employees nationwide, Defendant failed to bring its timekeeping and compensation  policies into compliance with the FLSA.   44.  Based on the prior lawsuits, and Defendants alteration of employee time records,  Plaintiffs alleges that Defendants knew and/or should have known that its sanitation workers  were entitled to be paid for their overtime hours of work.   46. Each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs is re-  alleged as if fully re-written herein.   47. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs’ Class are entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and   costs of this action as provided by the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §216(b).  X. 