15.  Defendant Profrac Services, LLC, is an oil and gas well serving company  headquartered in Texas with additional locations in Oklahoma and Pennsylvania.     16.  Plaintiff Singleton worked from approximately February of 2018 until November  of 2018 as an equipment operator.   17.  Plaintiff worked for Defendant in Texas and New Mexico.   18.  As an equipment operator, Plaintiff was responsible for fracturing wells to aid in  the production of oil and gas.    19.  Defendant paid Plaintiff and its other technicians on an hourly basis, however,  Defendant failed to pay its equipment operators the proper amount of overtime.     20.  Plaintiff was paid on an hourly basis.    22.  Plaintiff was paid a bonus.    23.  In addition to their hourly wage, Defendant pays it equipment operators  nondiscretionary bonuses tied to the number of completions a frac crew completes in a month.     24.  This bonus payment was issued separately, often on a separate check from the  standard payroll check.   25.  Defendant informs its crews in advance of their work what conditions must be met  in order for its crews to receive the bonus payment.     26.  When Defendant calculates overtime, it does not include these bonus payments in  the regular rate as required under the FLSA.  See 29 C.F.R. § 778.208.     27.  By excluding these bonus payments from the regular rate, Defendant calculated  overtime using an artificially low regular rate and, as a result, significantly underpaid the amount  of overtime it should have paid to its employees.     28.  At all times relevant to this lawsuit, Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee.   29.  Plaintiff worked a significant amount of overtime.  His typical workdays were 10- 12 hours, seven days a week.  This schedule yields 40-44 overtime hours a week.   30.  Other equipment operators work the same or more hours per week as Plaintiff.     31.  At all times relevant to this lawsuit, all of Defendant’s other hourly paid equipment  operators were non-exempt employees.  V.   33.  This count arises from Defendant’s violation of the FLSA for its failure to pay  Plaintiff and Class Members overtime compensation based on the FLSA’s time-and-a-half formula.   34.  For each hour worked in excess of forty (40) each week, Plaintiff and Class  Members were entitled to be paid one and one-half times their regular rate of pay. 29 U.S.C. § 207.     35.  By failing to pay overtime based on that formula, Defendant violated and continues  to violate the FLSA.   36.  None of the exemptions provided by the FLSA regulating the duty of employers to  pay overtime at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which its employees  are employed are applicable to Defendant, Plaintiff, or Class Members.   37.  Defendant did not have a good faith belief that its pay policy did not violate the  42.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs.   43.  At all relevant times, Defendant has been, and continues to be, an “employer”  within the meaning of the NMMWA.  At all relevant times, Defendant has employed and continues  to employ, “employees,” including the New Mexico Class Members and Plaintiff, within the  meaning the NMMWA.   44.  The NMMWA requires payment of one and one-half times the employee’s regular  rate for each hour worked per week over 40 hours.  N.M. STAT. ANN. § 50-4-22(D).   45.  As a result of the foregoing conduct, as alleged, Defendant has failed to pay wages  due under the NMMWA, thereby violating, and continuing to violate, the NMMWA.     46.  Plaintiff brings his claims on behalf of himself and all similarly situated employees  pursuant to N.M. STAT. ANN. § 50-4-26(C)-(E) which authorizes a private cause of action for  Plaintiff and the New Mexico Class Members to recover their unpaid wages plus interest, an  additional amount equal to twice the unpaid or underpaid wages, as well as costs of court and  attorneys’ fees.      47.  As part of its regular business practices, Defendant has engaged in a pattern,  practice, or policy of violating the FLSA on a class wide basis, as described above.   49.  Although Defendant permitted and/or required Class Members to work in excess  of forty (40) hours per workweek, Defendant has denied them full compensation for their hours  worked over forty.    50.  Plaintiff has actual knowledge, through conversations with his co-workers, that a  class of similarly situated Class Members exists who have been subjected to Defendant’s policy  of not paying the overtime rate for all hours worked over forty.  Plaintiff’s knowledge stems from  his lengthy employment tenure with Defendant.   51.  Class Members are similarly situated to Plaintiff in that they all performed similar  duties, were paid on an hourly basis, and were denied complete overtime pay because of  Defendant’s policy of not including bonus payments in the regular rate.   52.  Plaintiff’s job title was equipment operator.    53.  All equipment operators have the same or similar job duties.   54.  Defendant’s 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 Plaintiff, with respect to his employment classification and pay,  is typical of other workers across Defendant’s business.   56.  The specific job titles or precise job responsibilities of each Class Member does not  foreclose collective treatment.   57.  Class Members regularly work or have worked in excess of forty (40) hours during  a workweek.   59.  In the last three years, Defendant has employed over 100 other employees with the  same job title as Plaintiff.    60.  In the last three years, Defendant has employed over 50 other employees with the  same job title as Plaintiff and paid them a bonus.    61.  In the last three years, Defendant has employed over 50 other employees with the  same job title as Plaintiff and paid them a bonus which was not included in the respective  employee’s regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating overtime pay.    62.  In the last three years, Defendant has employed over 50 other hourly paid  employees and paid them a bonus which was not included in the respective employee’s regular  rate of pay for purposes of calculating overtime pay.    63.  In the last three years, Defendant has paid monthly bonuses to over 100 hourly paid  employees.    64.  Defendant has time sheets for the hours worked by Class Members and Plaintiff.   65.  Class Members are not exempt from receiving overtime pay under the FLSA.   66.  Like Plaintiff all Class Members, irrespective of their particular job requirements,  are entitled to receive overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty during a  workweek.   68.  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 simple formula.    69.  The claims of all Class Members arise from a common nucleus of facts.  Liability  is based on a systematic course of wrongful conduct by Defendant that caused harm to all Class  Members.   70.  Class Members were paid hourly.   71.  Class Members had similar job duties.   72.  As such, the class of similarly situated employees for purposes of FLSA collective  treatment is properly defined as follows:  All of Defendant’s current and former equipment operators paid on an hourly  basis with bonuses during the three years before the date of the filing of this  Complaint to the present.  73.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs.   74.  Plaintiff brings his overtime claims arising under the NMMWA as a Rule 23 class  action on behalf of the following class:  All of Defendant’s current and former equipment operators paid on an  hourly basis with bonuses during the three years before the date of the  filing of this Complaint to the present who worked in New Mexico.   75.  Although Plaintiff do not know the precise number of members of the proposed  class, Plaintiff believe there are more than 40 individuals that fit into the class.    77.  The identity of the members of the class is readily discernible from Defendant’s  records.   78.  Plaintiff and the proposed class on one hand, and Defendant on the other, have a  commonality of interest in the subject matter and remedy sought, namely back wages plus  penalties, interest, attorneys’ fees and the cost of this lawsuit.   79.  Common questions of law and fact exist to all members of the class. These  questions predominate over the questions affecting individual class members. These common legal  and factual questions include, but are not limited, to the following:   a. Whether Plaintiff and the Class Members worked hours in excess of forty hours per  work week;  b. Whether Plaintiff and the Class Members were denied overtime pay at a rate not  less than one and one half times their regular rate under New Mexico law;  c. Whether Defendant incorrectly did not consider bonus payments for purposes of  calculating overtime owed.   80.  These and other common questions of law and fact, which are common to the  members of the class, predominate over any individual questions affecting only individual  members of the class.   81.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the classes because Plaintiff was not  paid overtime wages in accordance with New Mexico law and because Defendant failed to  properly calculate overtime for Plaintiff just as it did with other the New Mexico Class Members.     83.  The class action under New Mexico state law is superior to other available means  for the fair and efficient adjudication of the state law claims of Plaintiff and the New Mexico Class  Members. The injuries suffered by each individual class member are relatively small in comparison  to the burden and expense of individual prosecution of a complex and extensive litigation  necessitated by Defendant’s conduct. It would be virtually impossible for members of the classes  individually to redress effectively the wrongs done to them; even if the members of the class could  afford such individual litigation, the court system could not. Individualized litigation presents the  possibility for inconsistent or contradictory judgments. Individualized litigation increases the  delay and expense to all parties and to the court system presented by the complex, legal and factual  issues of the case. By contrast, the class action presents far fewer logistical issues and provides the  benefits of a single adjudication, economy of scale and comprehensive supervision by a single  court.  VIOLATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT  FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME  (COLLECTIVE ACTION)  