12.  Plaintiffs bring claims for relief as a collective action pursuant to FLSA Section  16(b), 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), on behalf of all non-exempt persons, including, but not limited to  waiters, servers, runners, delivery persons, cooks, dishwashers, and food preparers employed by  Defendants on or after the date that is six years before the filing of the Complaint in this case as  defined herein (“FLSA Collective Plaintiffs”).   14.  Defendants unlawfully failed to pay Plaintiffs and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs the  federal minimum wage for all hours worked.   15.  The claims for relief are properly brought under and maintained as an opt-in  collective action pursuant to § 16(b) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The FLSA Collective  Plaintiffs are readily ascertainable. For purposes of notice and other purposes related to this  action, their names and addresses are readily available from Defendants. Notice can be provided  to the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs via first-class mail to the last address known to Defendants.  17.  The Class Members are readily ascertainable. The number and identity of the  Class Members are determinable from the records of Defendants. The hours assigned and  worked, the position held, and rates of pay for each Class Member are also determinable from  Defendants’ records. For purposes of notice and other purposes related to this action, their names  and addresses are readily available from Defendants. Notice can be provided by means  permissible under F.R.C.P. 23.   18.  The proposed Class is so numerous that a joinder of all members is impracticable,  and the disposition of their claims as a class will benefit the parties and the Court. Although the  precise number of such persons is unknown, the facts from which the calculation of that number  can be obtained are presently within the sole possession and custody of Defendants, there is no  doubt that there are over one hundred (100) members of the Class. The Class further includes a  subclass of tipped employees comprising bartenders, servers, runners, delivery workers, and  bussers (“Tipped Subclass”) who number more than forty (40).   20.  Plaintiffs are able to fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class and  has no interests antagonistic to the Class. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys who are  experienced and competent in both class action litigation and employment litigation and have  previously represented plaintiffs in wage and hour cases.   22.  Defendants and other employers throughout the State violate the New York Labor  Law. Current employees are often afraid to assert their rights out of fear of direct or indirect  retaliation. Former employees are fearful of bringing claims because doing so can harm their  employment, future employment, and future efforts to secure employment. Class actions provide  class members who are not named in the Complaint a degree of anonymity, which allows for the  vindication of their rights while eliminating or reducing these risks.   24. In 2006, Plaintiff CHIW YIN CHAN (“Plaintiff Chan”) was hired by Defendants  and/or their predecessors, as applicable, to work as a waiter for Defendants’ restaurant, Chef Yu,  located at 520 Eighth Avenue, New York, New York 10018.   25. Plaintiff Chan is still currently employed by Defendants.   27. During the employment of Plaintiff Chan by Defendants, she worked over forty (40)  hours per week, and her workdays lasted over ten (10) hours on four days each week.   28. Plaintiff Chan was paid by Defendants in cash from the beginning of her employment  until November 2013. From December 2013 through the present, Defendants paid Plaintiff Chan  by weekly paychecks.   29. At all relevant times, Plaintiff Chan was paid a fixed salary.   30. Plaintiff Chan’s pay stubs show that from December 2013 to February 2014,  Defendants paid her a fixed salary of $245 each week, equivalent to a regular rate of $6.13. From  December 2018 to March 2019, Defendants paid Plaintiff Chan a fixed salary of $385 per week,  equivalent to a regular rate of $9.63 per hour and overtime rate of $12.15 per hour.   31. Despite regularly having workdays which exceeded ten hours, Plaintiff Chan never  received “spread of hours” pay.   32. Plaintiff Chan never received a wage notice from Defendants, nor did she receive a  tip credit notice at any time during her employment by Defendants.   33. From the beginning of her employment until around December 2017, Plaintiff Chan  was required to sign off on her hours. Starting in or around January 2018, Defendants required  Plaintiff Chan to clock in and out of work.   34. Plaintiff JIESHENG LIN (“Plaintiff Lin”) was hired by Defendants in or around July  2015 to work as a waiter for Chef Yu. Plaintiff Lin worked for Defendants until June 2018.   35. Plaintiff Lin worked 23 hours each week on average during his employment by  Defendants.   37. Plaintiff Lin never received a wage notice from Defendants, nor did he receive a tip  credit notice at any time during his employment by Defendants.   38. During his employment by Defendants, Plaintiff Lin was required to clock in and out  of work.   39. Plaintiffs’ tips were pooled and split among all of the waiters at Chef Yu. With  respect to some of the waiters who participated in and received a share of the tip pool, the  majority of their job duties were non-tipped.   40. Plaintiffs received inaccurate wage statements from Defendants that failed to  accurately reflect the amounts of tips and gratuities they earned and failed to pay them at the  proper minimum wage and overtime rate for their hours worked.   41. Defendants failed to maintain accurate daily records of tips earned by Plaintiffs and  Class members.   42. Based on Plaintiffs’ direct observations and conversations with their coworkers, all  non-exempt employees of Defendants similarly were not paid the proper compensation,  including the minimum wage, overtime compensation, and “spread of hours” pay.   43. Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiffs and Class members the  statutory minimum wage and overtime rate, in violation of the New York Labor Law.  Defendants were not entitled to take a tip credit because (i) they failed to provide Plaintiffs and  Class members with any verbal or written notice they were taking a tip credit against their  wages, and (ii) Defendants instituted an invalid tip pool whereby employees whose job duties  were mostly non-tipped received a share of the tips.    45. Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to provide Plaintiffs and Class members  with a wage notice, in violation of the New York Labor Law.   46. Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to provide Plaintiffs and Class members  with an accurate wage statement with each payment of wages, in violation of the New York  Labor Law.   47. Plaintiffs retained Lee Litigation Group, PLLC to represent them and other  employees similarly situated in this litigation and have agreed to pay the firm a reasonable fee  for its services.  48. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 47 of this Complaint as if  fully set forth herein.   49. At all relevant times, upon information and belief, Defendants were and continue to  be employers engaged in interstate commerce and/or the production of goods for commerce  within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a) and 207(a). Further, Plaintiffs are covered  individuals within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a) and 207(a).   50. At all relevant times, Defendants employed Plaintiffs and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs  within the meaning of the FLSA.   52. At all relevant times, Defendants had a policy and practice of refusing to pay the  statutory minimum wage to Plaintiffs and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs for their hours worked per  workweek.   53. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs the statutory  minimum wage for their hours worked per workweek.   54. At all relevant times, Defendants had a policy and practice of refusing to pay  overtime compensation at the statutory rate of time and one-half to Plaintiffs and FLSA  Collective Plaintiffs for their hours worked in excess of forty hours per workweek pursuant to  the FLSA.   55. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs overtime  compensation at the statutory overtime rate for hours worked in excess of forty hours per  workweek pursuant to the FLSA.   56. Records, if any, concerning the number of hours worked by Plaintiffs and FLSA  Collective Plaintiffs and the actual compensation paid to Plaintiffs and FLSA Collective  Plaintiffs, are in the possession and custody of Defendants. Plaintiffs intend to obtain these  records by appropriate discovery proceedings to be taken promptly in this case and, if necessary,  will then seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the precise amount due.   57. Defendants knew of and/or showed a willful disregard for the provisions of the FLSA  as evidenced by their failure to compensate Plaintiffs and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs at the  statutory minimum wage for all hours worked when Defendants knew or should have known  such was due.   59. Defendants failed to properly disclose or apprise Plaintiffs and FLSA Collective  Plaintiffs of their rights under the FLSA.   60. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ willful disregard of the FLSA,  Plaintiffs and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are entitled to recover liquidated damages pursuant to  the FLSA.   61. Due to the intentional, willful, and unlawful acts of Defendants, Plaintiffs and FLSA  Collective Plaintiffs suffered damages in an amount not presently ascertainable of unpaid  minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, and unreimbursed expenses of tools of trade, plus an  equal amount as liquidated damages.   62. Plaintiffs and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of their reasonable  attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).  63. Plaintiffs reallege and reaver Paragraphs 1 through 62 of this Complaint as if fully set  forth herein.   64. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants within the meaning of  New York Labor Law §§ 2 and 651.   65. Defendants willfully violated Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ rights by failing to pay  them overtime compensation at the rate of at least one and one-half times the statutory minimum  wage for their hours worked in excess of forty hours each workweek.   67. Defendants willfully violated Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ rights by failing to pay  them “spread of hours” pay for each workday that exceeded ten (10) hours.   68. Defendants failed to provide an accurate wage statement to Plaintiffs and Class  members with each wage payment, in violation of the New York Labor Law.   69. Defendants failed to provide a proper wage notice to Plaintiffs and Class members, in  violation of the New York Labor Law.   70. Due to Defendants’ New York Labor Law violations, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover  from Defendants their unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid “spread of hours” pay,  damages for unreasonably delayed payments, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, reasonable  attorneys’ fees, and costs and disbursements of the action, pursuant to the New York Labor Law.    VIOLATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT   VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK LABOR LAW  