16.  Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §207, Plaintiffs seek to prosecute their FLSA claims as a  collective action on behalf of all persons who are or were formerly employed by Defendants at  any time since December 4, 2009 to the entry of judgment in this case (the “Collective Action  Period”) (statute of limitations tolled by failure to post statutory notice), who were non-exempt  employees within the meaning of the FLSA and who were not paid minimum wages and/or  were not paid overtime compensation at rates not less than one and one-half times their regular  rate of pay for hours worked in excess of forty hours per workweek (the “Collective Action  Members”).   18.  Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Collective Action  Members and have retained counsel that is experienced and competent in the fields of  employment law and class action litigation.     19.  Plaintiffs have no interests that are contrary to or in conflict with those members  of this collective action.    20.  A collective action is superior to other available methods for the fair and  efficient adjudication of this controversy, since joinder of all members is impracticable.  Furthermore, inasmuch as the damages suffered by individual Collective Action Members may  be relatively small, the expense and burden of individual litigation make it virtually impossible  for the members of the collective action to individually seek redress for the wrongs done to  them.  There will be no difficulty in the management of this action as a collective action.    22.  Plaintiffs know of no difficulty that will be encountered in the management of  this litigation that would preclude its maintenance as a collective action.  23.  Plaintiffs sue on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of persons under  Rules 23(a), (b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.   25.  The persons in the Class identified above are so numerous that joinder of all  members is impracticable. Although the precise number of such persons is unknown, and the  facts on which the calculation of that number are presently within the sole control of the  Defendants, upon information and belief, there at least 40 members of the Class during the  Class Period.   26.  The claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Class, and a class action  is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the  controversy—particularly in the context of wage and hour litigation where individual plaintiffs  lack the financial resources to vigorously prosecute a lawsuit in federal court against corporate  defendants.    27.  The Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to  the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief  with respect to the class as a whole.    28.  Plaintiffs are committed to pursuing this action and have retained competent  counsel experienced in employment law and class action litigation.    29.  Plaintiffs have the same interests in this matter as all other members of the class  and Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the Class.     31.  At all relevant times, Defendants maintained and operated a water meter  installation business, with over 40 water meter installation employees.    32.  Plaintiffs were water meter installers employed by Defendants during the last  two years and during the Class Period.   34.  Plaintiff Soto worked as a water meter installer for Defendants during the period  from about September 1, 2013 to about May 15, 2015 under government prevailing wage  contracts in New York State at West Nyack, Greenberg and Westchester, in the State of New  Jersey at Allamuchy, and in the State of Delaware at Wilmington and Newark.   35.  Plaintiffs are not members of any union and are not licensed plumbers.    36.  Plaintiffs worked for Defendants with at least 40 other similar meter installer  employees who had the same duties as themselves.     37.   Plaintiffs’ duties did not include managerial responsibilities or the exercise of  independent business judgment.   38.  Plaintiffs were not permitted to enter a sign out time after 5:00 p.m., even when  they worked later than 5:00 p.m.  Plaintiffs worked hours later than their sign out times and  were not paid for this time working.    39.  Plaintiffs were required to enter on the sign out sheet that they had taken a one  hour lunch even though they were on call during their alleged lunch break and often were so  busy that the were not able to take a break.   40.  Plaintiffs were not paid for the time working that was not listed on their time  sheets but was performed at the direct request and knowledge of Defendants (“off the clock  time”).   41.  Plaintiffs and the other meter installer employees did not sign in to their job, but  did sign out of their job at the end of the day.    43.  Plaintiffs’ paystubs do not reflect the full amount of hours that they worked  because, among other reasons, (a) they were not paid for the time worked prior to 8:00 a.m.  (except on two occasions when Plaintiffs started at 6:00 a.m.), (b) they were not paid for the  time working after the time they were required to enter on the sign out sheet which was 5:00  p.m. (Plaintiffs generally worked until 6:00 p.m. or later), (c) they were not paid for working or  being on call during the one hour alleged meal break, and (d) they were not reimbursed for the  cost of using their personal tools, automobile expenses, cameras and phone for their work.   44.  Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs for all hours at their prevailing wage.   45.  For the pay period from March 8, 2015 to March 14, 2015, Plaintiff James  worked in Pennsylvania and his pay was calculated using a rate of $59.95 per hour and not  calculated on the proper prevailing wage rate, which was $79.83 per hour. This rate was also  not applied to the correct amount of hours worked.   46.  For the pay period from March 30, 2015 to April 20, 2015, Plaintiff Soto  worked in Allamuchy/Hackettstown, New Jersey and his pay was calculated using a rate of  $45.40 per hour and not calculated on the proper prevailing wage rate, which was $82.30 per  hour. This rate was also not applied to the correct amount of hours worked.   47.  The prevailing wage rate that applied to Plaintiffs was generally about $80 per  hour.   48.  Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs for all their hours worked and did not pay  them their full time and one half for all their hours worked over 40 in a week (“overtime”).   50.  They were not paid for, inter alia, gasoline expense, insurance, depreciation,  wear and tear, parking expenses and maintenance associated with the business use of their  vehicles.   51.  Plaintiffs and the other similar water meter installer employees were required to  use their own tools to perform their work for Defendants, but were never paid for the cost of  using their personal tools.  Plaintiffs were supplied a list of tools which they were required to  possess and use for their work.   52.  Plaintiffs were required to use the following tools, among others, to perform  their jobs: a Sawzall, a screw gun, a snake light, a miner’s light, a T-25 staple gun, a four foot  drill bit and hammer drill.   53.  Plaintiffs were required to buy a camera with a date and time stamp capability  to take photos on a SIM card, which they were required to submit to Defendants at the end of  each day.   54.  Plaintiffs were not paid for the cost of their cameras.   55.  Plaintiffs were required to use their personal phones to check in throughout the  day with the office and the customers and were not reimbursed for expenses related to using  their phones for Defendants’ work.    56.  The cost of the tools required to perform the meter installations was at least  $1,800.   57.  The Plaintiffs and other similar meter installers were not paid for the cost of  their tools.     59.  Upon information and belief, Defendants hired at least 40 of such similar meter  installer workers.     60.  Plaintiffs and the other similar water meter installer employees regularly  worked more than 40 hours per week for Defendants.   61.  On certain jobs, Plaintiffs were paid a piece rate and not paid time and one half  for their hours worked over 40 in a week, but were only paid their straight piece rate.   62.  Plaintiffs and these other similar meter installer employees worked more than  40 hours per week and (a) were not paid for all their hours worked (b) were not paid time and  one half for their overtime hours worked, (c) were not paid prevailing wage rates for their  hours worked, and (d) were required to use their personal tools, cameras and/or vehicles for  their work and were not paid for such use.   63.  Throughout the Class period, Defendants have employed other individuals, like  Plaintiffs, in positions as water meter installer workers.   64.  Such individuals have worked in excess of 40 hours a week, yet the Defendants  has likewise willfully failed to pay them for all their hours worked, failed to pay them at  prevailing wage rates, failed to pay them overtime compensation of one and one-half times  their regular hourly wage rate, and failed to pay them for their required use of their personal  vehicles, cameras and/or tools.   65.  Upon information and belief, no notice or poster was posted indicating that  employees of Defendants had any rights, including the right to minimum wage and time and  one half for their overtime.   67.  Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation of the preceding  paragraphs hereof with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein.   68.  At all relevant times, Defendants have been and continue to be, an employer  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).   69.  At all relevant times, Defendants employed, and/or continue to employ,  Plaintiffs and each of the Collective Action Members within the meaning of the FLSA.   70.  Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Defendants have had gross  revenues in excess of $500,000.   71.  Plaintiffs consent in writing to be a party to this action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C.  §216(b).  The named Plaintiffs’ written consents are attached hereto and incorporated by  reference.   72.  At all relevant times, the Defendants had a policy and practice of refusing to pay  overtime compensation to its employees for their hours worked in excess of forty hours per  workweek.   74.  As a result of the Defendants’ failure to record, report, credit and/or compensate  its employees, including Plaintiffs and the Collective Action members, the Defendants have  failed to make, keep and preserve records with respect to each of its employees sufficient to  determine the wages, hours and other conditions and practices of employment in violation of  the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq., including 29 U.S.C. §§ 211(c) and 215(a).   75.  The foregoing conduct, as alleged, constitutes a willful violation of the FLSA  within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 255(a).    76.  Due to the Defendants’ FLSA violations, Plaintiff and the Collective Action  Class are entitled to recover from the Defendants, their unpaid overtime compensation, an  additional amount equal as liquidated damages, additional liquidated damages for unreasonably  delayed payment of wages, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs and disbursements of this  action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).  77.  Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation of the preceding  paragraphs hereof with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein.   78.  At all relevant times, Plaintiffs and the members of the Class were employed by  the Defendants within the meaning of the New York Labor Law, including §§ 2 and 651, and  the laws of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and/or Delaware.   81.  Defendants willfully violated Plaintiffs’ rights and the rights of the members of  the Class, by failing to provide them proper notices and wage statements in violation of the  New York Wage Theft Prevention Act.   82.  As a result of Defendants’ violation of the New York Wage Theft Prevention  Act, Plaintiffs and the member of the Class are entitled to damages of $150 per week during  which the violations occurred and/or continue to occur.   83.  Due to the Defendants’ violations of the laws of New York, New Jersey,  Pennsylvania and/or Delaware, Plaintiffs and the members of the Class are entitled to recover  from Defendants their unpaid wages, their unpaid prevailing wages, their unpaid overtime  compensation, their unreimbursed expenses, their reasonable attorneys’ fees, and their costs  and disbursements of the action, pursuant to New York Labor Law § 663(1) and/or the laws of  New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and/or Delaware.   84.  Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class are also owed monies for their  unreimbursed work expenses including expenses related to their use of personal tools and/or  automobiles for their work.  85.  Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation of the preceding  paragraphs hereof with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein.   87.  Plaintiffs and the Class of other similar employees who performed work as  water meter installers are third party beneficiaries of each Prevailing Wage Contract.   88.  The parties to each Prevailing Wage Contract intended Plaintiffs to be third  party beneficiaries.   89.  Defendants breached the Prevailing Wage Contract by failing to pay Plaintiffs  and the Class the regular and overtime hourly rates required by the Prevailing Wage Contract.   90.  Plaintiffs sue on their own behalf and on behalf of the Class of similarly situated  employees of Defendants who were also third party beneficiaries of the Prevailing Wage  Contract and who were also not paid the hourly and overtime rates required by the Prevailing  Wage Contracts during the Class Period under Rules 23(a), (b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the  Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.   91.  Due to Defendants’ breach of the Prevailing Wage Contract, Plaintiffs and the  Class members are entitled to recover from Defendants their unpaid wages, interest, and the  costs and disbursements of this action.   92.  Defendants’ breaches of the Prevailing Wage Contract have caused Plaintiffs  material damages and irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law.  BREACH OF CONTRACT -- PREVAILING WAGE CLAIM   FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT   STATE LAW  