 (Fed R. Civ. P. 23 Class Action Claims)  Violation of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Laws and Regulations, N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a, et seq.  [Failure to Pay Overtime Time Wages]   (29 U.S.C. § 216(b) Collective Action Claims)  Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.  [Failure to Pay Overtime Wages]   (29 U.S.C. § 216(b) Individual Claims)  Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.  [Unlawful Tip Retention]   (29 U.S.C. § 216(b) Individual Claims)  Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.  [Failure to Pay Overtime Wages]   (29 U.S.C. § 216(b) Collective Action Claims)  Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.  [Unlawful Tip Retention]   (Individual Claims)  Violation of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Laws and Regulations, N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a, et seq.  [Failure to Pay Overtime Time Wages]   (Individual Claims)  Violation of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Laws and Regulations, N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a, et seq.  [Unlawful Tip Retention]   10.  Defendants have operated and controlled an enterprise engaged in commerce as  defined under the FLSA.   11.  Defendants have generated over $500,000.00 in revenue per year.   12.  Defendants had two (2) or more employees handling, selling, or otherwise  working on goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for commerce.   14.  Defendants were the “employer” of the hourly-paid restaurant workers including  Plaintiff within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a1(g) and N.J.S.A.  34:11-4.1a.   15.  The hourly-paid restaurant workers including Plaintiff were “employees” of  Defendants within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(1), N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a1(h) and N.J.S.A.  34:11-4.1b.   16.  Defendants “suffered or permitted” the hourly-paid restaurant workers including  Plaintiff to work and thus “employed” them within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §203(g) and  N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a1(f).     17.  Defendants, directly or indirectly, hired the hourly-paid restaurant workers  including Plaintiff and determined the rate and method of the payment of their wages.   18.  Defendants controlled the work schedules, duties, protocols, applications,  assignments and conditions of employment of the hourly-paid restaurant workers including  Plaintiff.   19.  Defendants established payroll on a bi-weekly basis.    20.  Defendant required hourly-paid restaurant workers to perform work for over forty  (40) hours a week.    21.  To the extent Defendants paid hourly-paid restaurant workers for hours in excess  of forty (40) in a workweek, such payments were made at their regular hourly rates, rather than  time-and-a-half of that rate as required by the FLSA and NJWHLR.   23.  While employed by Defendants, Plaintiff regularly worked over forty (40) hours a  week.    24.  Plaintiff’s final hourly rate was $13.00 before he was separated from the  company.     25.  Plaintiff regularly shared cash tips paid by customers with other hourly-paid  restaurant workers.   26.  Plaintiff regularly received cash tips of approximately $50 during each bi-weekly  payroll period.   27.  To the extent Defendants paid Plaintiff for hours in excess of forty (40) in a  workweek, such payments were made at his regular hourly rate, rather than time-and-a-half of  that rate as required by the FLSA and NJWHLR.   28.  As a result of Defendants’ common unlawful policies, the hourly-paid restaurant  workers were not compensated overtime at a rate of not less than one and one-half (1.5) times  their regular rate of pay for work performed over 40 hours per week.   29.  While employed by Defendants, the hourly-paid restaurant workers including  Plaintiff shared and received cash tips paid by customers.   30.  However, Defendants retained the credit card tips and catering tips paid by  customers without distributing them to the hourly-paid restaurant workers, in violation of the  FLSA and NJWHLR.   31.  The hourly-paid restaurant workers have been subjected to the common unlawful  policies and practices of Defendants as stated herein that violated the FLSA and NJWHLR.   33.  Defendants’ violations of the above-described federal and state wage and hour  statutes and regulations were willful, arbitrary, unreasonable and in bad faith.   34.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all previous paragraphs herein.   35.  Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA, as an opt-in  representative action, for and on behalf of all hourly-paid restaurant workers who have been  affected by Defendants’ common policies and practices which include failing to properly pay  overtime wages and unlawfully retaining tips, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29  U.S.C. § 201, et seq. (“FLSA”) and attendant regulations at 29 C.F.R. § 516, et seq.   36.  Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) of the FLSA on behalf  of:  All hourly-paid restaurant workers employed by Defendants at any  time from three (3) years prior to the filing of this Complaint  through the date of judgment.  Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this definition as necessary.   37.  Plaintiff brings this collective action against Defendants to recover unpaid  overtime wages, unlawfully kept tips, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and  costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).   38.  The collective action further alleges a willful violation of the FLSA and seeks an  additional, third year of limitations.   40.  Certification of the collective action under the FLSA is appropriate because the  employees described herein are “similarly situated” to Plaintiff under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).  The  class of employees on behalf of whom Plaintiff brings this collective action are similarly situated  because they were subject to the same or similar unlawful practices and policies as stated herein  and their claims are based upon the same factual and legal theories.   41.  The employment relationships between Defendants and every collective member  are the same and differ only by name, location, and rate of pay.    42.  Plaintiff anticipates that there will be no difficulty in the management of this  litigation.  This litigation presents claims under the FLSA, a type that have often been  prosecuted on a class wide basis, and the manner of identifying the collective and providing any  monetary relief to it can be effectuated from a review of Defendants’ records.   43.  Plaintiff and the putative FLSA collective members demand a trial by jury.  44.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all previous paragraphs herein.   45.  Plaintiff also seeks to maintain this action pursuant to Fed. R. of Civ. P. 23, as  an opt-out class action, for and on behalf all hourly-paid restaurant workers who have been  affected by Defendants’ common policies and practices which include failing to properly pay  overtime wages and unlawfully retaining tips, in violation of the New Jersey Wage and Hour  Laws and Regulations (“NJWHLR”), N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a et seq.   47.  Plaintiff brings this Rule 23 class action as to the NJWHLR claims against  Defendants to recover unpaid overtime time wages, pre- and post- judgment interest, and  reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a25 and 12:56-1.5.   48.  The members of the Rule 23 class are so numerous that joinder of all class  members in this case would be impractical.  The Rule 23 class members should be easy to  identify from Defendants’ computer systems and electronic payroll and personnel records.    49.  There is a well-defined community of interest among the Rule 23 class  members and common questions of law and fact predominate in this action over any questions  affecting each individual class member.  These common legal and factual questions, include,  but are not limited to, the following: whether the Rule 23 class members were properly  compensated overtime wages at a rate of not less than one and one-half (1.5) times their regular  rate of pay for work performed over 40 hours per week; and whether Defendants unlawfully  retained tips without distributing them to the Rule 23 class members.   50.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of the Rule 23 class members in that  they and all other class members suffered damages as a direct and proximate result of  Defendants’ common and systemic payroll policies and practices.  All of the class  members were subject to the same corporate practices of Defendants, as alleged herein.   Any lawsuit brought by an employee of Defendants would be identical to a suit brought by  any other employee for the same violations and separate litigation would cause a risk of  inconsistent results.    52.  Plaintiff will fully and adequately protect the interests of the class members and  have retained counsel who are qualified and experienced in the prosecution of nationwide  wage and hour class actions.  Plaintiff and his counsel do not have interests that are contrary  to, or conflicting with, the interests of the class members.    53.  Defendants’ corporate-wide policies and practices affected all class members  similarly, and Defendants benefited from the same type of unfair and/or wrongful acts as to each  class member.  Plaintiff’s claim arises from the same legal theories as all other class members.   Therefore, this case will be more manageable and efficient as a Rule 23 class action.  Plaintiff  and his counsel know of no unusual difficulties in this case.    54.  Plaintiff and the Rule 23 class members demand a trial by jury.  55.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all previous paragraphs herein.   57.  Plaintiff regularly worked more than forty (40) hours per week.   58.  Defendants failed to properly compensate Plaintiff for all hours worked as alleged  herein.   59.  Defendants failed to properly pay Plaintiff overtime wages at a rate of not less  than one and one-half (1.5) times his regular rate of pay for all hours he worked in excess of forty  (40) per workweek.   60.  Defendants’ conduct and practices, described herein, were willful, intentional,  unreasonably, arbitrary, and in bad faith.    61.  Because Defendants willfully violated the FLSA, a three (3) year statute of  limitations shall apply to such violation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 255(a).   62.  As a result of Defendants’ uniform and common policies and practices described  above, Plaintiff was illegally deprived of overtime wages earned, in such amounts to be  determined at trial, and is entitled to recovery of such total unpaid amounts, liquidated damages,  reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and other compensation pursuant to 29 U.S.C § 216(b).  63.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all previous paragraphs herein.   65.  Plaintiff and the FLSA collective members regularly worked more than forty (40)  hours per week.   66.  Defendants failed to properly compensate Plaintiff and the FLSA collective  members for all hours worked as alleged herein.    67.  Defendants failed to properly pay Plaintiff and the FLSA collective members  overtime wages at a rate of not less than one and one-half (1.5) times their regular rate of pay for  all hours they worked in excess of forty (40) per workweek.   68.  Defendants’ conduct and practices, described herein, were willful, intentional,  unreasonably, arbitrary, and in bad faith.    69.  Because Defendants willfully violated the FLSA, a three (3) year statute of  limitations shall apply to such violation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 255(a).   70.  As a result of Defendants’ uniform and common policies and practices described  above, Plaintiff and the FLSA collective members were illegally deprived of overtime wages  earned, in such amounts to be determined at trial, and are entitled to recovery of such total  unpaid amounts, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and other compensation  pursuant to 29 U.S.C § 216(b).  71.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all previous paragraphs herein.   72.  Plaintiff regularly worked more than forty (40) hours per week.   73.  Defendants failed to properly compensate Plaintiff for all hours worked as alleged  herein.   75.  Defendants’ conduct and practices, described herein, were willful, intentional,  unreasonably, arbitrary, and in bad faith.    76.  As a result of Defendants’ uniform and common policies and practices described  above, Plaintiff was illegally deprived of overtime wages earned, in such amounts to be  determined at trial, and is entitled to recovery of such total unpaid amounts, pre and  post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and other compensation pursuant to  N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a25 and 12:56-1.5.  77.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all previous paragraphs herein.   78.  Plaintiff and the Rule 23 class members regularly worked more than forty (40)  hours per week.   79.  Defendants failed to properly compensate Plaintiff the Rule 23 class members for  all hours worked as alleged herein.   80.  Defendants failed to properly pay Plaintiff the Rule 23 class members overtime  wages at a rate not less than one and one-half (1.5) times their regular rate of pay for all hours  they worked in excess of forty (40) per workweek.   81.  Defendants’ conduct and practices, described herein, were willful, intentional,  unreasonably, arbitrary, and in bad faith.    83.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all previous paragraphs herein.   84.  Pursuant to the amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in the  omnibus budget bill, “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018,” enacted on March 23, 2018,  employers “may not keep tips received by its employees for any purposes, including allowing  managers or supervisors to keep any portion of employees’ tips, regardless of whether or not the  employer takes a tip credit.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(m)(2)(B).   85.  Fact Sheet # 15 of the U.S. Department of Labor concerning the application of the  FLSA to employees who receive tips provides that “[a] tip is the sole property of the tipped  employee regardless of whether the employer takes a tip credit.”  See Fact Sheet # 15 (Revised  April 2018).    86.  Plaintiff regularly received more than $ 30 a month in cash tips.   87.  Defendants retained the credit card tips and catering tips paid by customers  without distributing them to Plaintiff, in violation of the FLSA.   88.  Defendants’ conduct and practices, described herein, were willful, intentional,  unreasonably, arbitrary, and in bad faith.    89.  Because Defendants willfully violated the FLSA, a three (3) year statute of  limitations shall apply to such violation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 255(a).   91.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all previous paragraphs herein.   92.  Pursuant to the amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in the  omnibus budget bill, “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018,” enacted on March 23, 2018,  employers “may not keep tips received by its employees for any purposes, including allowing  managers or supervisors to keep any portion of employees’ tips, regardless of whether or not the  employer takes a tip credit.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(m)(2)(B).   93.  Fact Sheet # 15 of the U.S. Department of Labor concerning the application of the  FLSA to employees who receive tips provides that “[a] tip is the sole property of the tipped  employee regardless of whether the employer takes a tip credit.”  See Fact Sheet # 15 (Revised  April 2018).    94.  Plaintiff and the FLSA collective members regularly received more than $ 30 a  month in cash tips.   95.  Defendants retained the credit card tips and catering tips paid by customers  without distributing them to Plaintiff and the FLSA collective members, in violation of the  99.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all previous paragraphs herein.  100.  N.J.S.A.12:56-8.4 (b) provides that “[g]ratuities shall be the property of the  tipped employee.”    101.  Plaintiff regularly received more than $ 30 a month in cash tips.  102.  Defendants retained the credit card tips and catering tips paid by customers  without distributing them to Plaintiff, in violation of the NJWHLR.  103.  Defendants’ conduct and practices, described herein, were willful, intentional,  unreasonably, arbitrary, and in bad faith.   104.  As a result of Defendants’ uniform and common policies and practices described  above, Plaintiff was illegally deprived of tips earned, in such amounts to be determined at trial,  and is entitled to recovery of such total unpaid amounts, pre and post-judgment interest,  reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and other compensation pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a25 and  12:56-1.5. 