45.  Defendants provide water transfer and completion services.    Defendants offer  these services to oil field operators across the country.  They specialize in frac, flowback and pit  to pit water transfer, but also offer an array of completion fluids and engineering services. They  provide their services to over 20 of the top oil and gas companies including, Hess, Plymouth,  Sundance, and SM Energy.2    47.  Defendants dispatch field technicians and other manual laborers to its customers’  oil fields.  Defendants also hire manual labors to work on its “yard” which is where its vehicles  and other equipment are stored.     48.  Defendants pay their manual labors a day rate only without regard to actual hours  worked.    49.  Plaintiffs and Class Members typically work over forty hours per week.    50.  Defendants never pay time and a half for hours worked over forty.    51.  Plaintiffs bring this action as an FLSA collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §  216(b) on behalf of all persons who were or are employed by Defendants as manual laborers  within the three (3) years preceding the filing of this complaint to the present.   52.  Plaintiffs have actual knowledge, through conversations with their co-workers,  that a class of similarly situated Class Members exists who have been subjected to Defendants’  policy of not paying the overtime rate for all hours worked over forty.    53.  Class Members are similarly situated to Plaintiffs in that they all performed  manual labor, were paid on a day rate and were victims of the same violations of the FLSA.   54.  Defendants’ failure to pay overtime at the rates required by the FLSA results from  generally applicable policies or practices and does not depend on personal circumstances of  individual Class Members.   55.  The experience of Plaintiffs, with respect to their employment classification and  pay, is typical of manual laborers across Defendants’ business.   57.  Like Plaintiffs, all Class Members are entitled to receive overtime.   58.  The claims of all Class Members arise from a common nucleus of facts.  Liability  is based on a systematic course of wrongful conduct by Defendants that caused harm to all Class  Members.   59.  The names and addresses of the Class Members are available from Defendants’  records.  To the extent required by law, notice will be provided to these individuals by first class  mail or by the use of techniques and a form of notice similar to those customarily used in  representative actions.   60.  Although the exact amount of damages may vary among the individual Class  Members in proportion to the number of hours they worked, damages for each individual can be  easily calculated using a simply formula.   61.  Between May 17, 2010 and May 17, 2013, Defendants employed at least thirty- five (35) manual laborers paid on a day rate.   62.  Between May 17, 2010 and May 17, 2013, Defendants employed at least twenty- five (50) manual laborers paid on a day rate.   63.  Between May 17, 2010 and May 17, 2013, Defendants employed at least twenty- five (100) manual laborers paid on a day rate.   64.  Between May 17, 2010 and May 17, 2013, Defendants employed at least twenty- five (150) manual laborers paid on a day rate.   65.  Between May 17, 2010 and May 17, 2013, Defendants employed at least twenty- five (200) manual laborers paid on a day rate.   67.  As such, the class of similarly situated employees is properly defined as follows:  All of Defendants’ current and former manual laborers paid on a day  rate basis between May 17, 2010 and the date notice is issued.  68.  Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs by reference.   69.  This count arises from Defendants’ violation of the FLSA for their failure to pay  Plaintiffs and Class Members overtime based on FLSA’s time-and-a-half formula.   70.  For each hour worked in excess of forty (40) each week, Plaintiffs and Class  Members were entitled to be paid one and one-half times their regular rate of pay.  29 U.S.C. §  207.     71.  By failing to pay overtime based on that formula, Defendants violated and  continue to violate the FLSA.   72.  No exception contained in the FLSA, its implementing regulations, or recognized  by any Court of the United States permits an employer in the position of Defendants to skirt its  obligation to pay overtime to an employee situated in the position of Plaintiffs and Class  Members.   74.  In fact various employees complained to Defendants about the fact that they were  not receiving overtime, yet the Defendants continued on with their illegal pay practices.   VIOLATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT  FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME  (COLLECTIVE ACTION)  