19.  The named plaintiffs maintain this action against all of the  defendants, jointly and severally, for and on behalf of himself and all  other similarly situated current and/or former joint employees of the  defendants who jointly employed them and those other similarly situated  persons to perform hours worked in excess of 40 hours worked in the same  workweek in the restaurant enterprise of Lalaja in and around Craven  County, North Carolina for each workweek ending in the three  chronological years immediately preceding the date on which this action  was filed and continuing thereafter ending on the date final judgment in  this action is entered by a U.S. District Court pursuant to the  statutory class action procedure specified at 29 U.S.C. §216(b) for each  such similarly situated current and/or former employee of the defendants  in that same time period who files, will file, or who has filed a  written consent to be a party to this action that is required by 29  U.S.C. §216(b) within the applicable statute of limitation(s) for any  such workweek.       20.  The statutory class of similarly situated persons under 29  U.S.C. §216(b) described in ¶19 above is based upon the failure of the  defendants to pay an overtime premium at the rate required by 29 U.S.C.  § 207(a)(1) for all hours worked over 40 in the same workweek to the  named plaintiffs and each member of that statutory class that the named  plaintiffs seek to represent for each hour or part of an hour of actual  work that each such similarly situated person was or will be jointly or  severally employed by one or more of the defendants to perform hours  worked over 40 in the same workweek in the defendants’ restaurant  enterprise described in ¶¶6-18 above in the time period described in ¶19  above.    21.  At all times in the three year time period immediately  preceding the date on which this action was filed and continuing  thereafter, the defendants jointly and severally employed or continue to  jointly and severally employ one or more of the named plaintiffs and/or  the similarly situated employees of the defendants that are described in  ¶¶6-20, inclusive, above of this complaint in the defendants’ restaurant  enterprise that is described in ¶¶6-18 above by the defendants to  provide Mexican food, beverages, entertainment, and catering services  for the defendants’ customers in North Carolina for varying periods of  time described in ¶¶6-18, inclusive above of this complaint in that same  enterprise.  At all times relevant to this action, the defendants  regularly employed in the defendants’ enterprise a workforce of  approximately thirty (30) employees that the two individual defendants  assigned to work to perform different tasks on any given day.     22.  During the time from before November 2016 and continuing  through the present date that the defendants jointly and severally  employed and will continue to employ plaintiff Vazquez and other workers  as waiters, the defendants did not accurately record the total quantity  of hours worked by plaintiff Vazquez and those other waiters for each  workweek that they were and will be employed by the defendants.     23.  During that same time period plaintiff Vazquez customarily  and regularly worked approximately 62-65 hours per workweek as a waiter  but before in or about March or April 2019, the defendants regularly  paid him for only 80 hours worked per workweek.     25.  Upon information and belief, at all times in the time period  described in ¶21 above, the defendants claimed the tips that plaintiff  Vazquez and other employees received in their work as waiters at the  rate of $4.75 per hour in purported compliance with their obligation to  pay the plaintiff and those other employees both the minimum wage at the  rate required by 29 U.S.C. § 206(a) when the plaintiff and those other  employees worked 40 or less hours per workweek as waiters and overtime  wages at the rate required by 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1) when the plaintiff  and those other employees worked more than 40 hours in the same workweek  as waiters.     26.  Before March or April 2019, the defendants did not inform the  plaintiff or any other of the other employees described in ¶25 above in  advance of the defendants’ use of the tip credit provisions that are  described in ¶25 above on any date before April 2019.      27.  Upon information and belief, even after March or April 2019  and continuing through the present date, the defendants still have not  informed the plaintiff or any other of the other employees described in  ¶25 above in advance of the defendants’ use of the tip credit provisions  that are described in ¶25 above for any date in or after April 2019.     28.  During the entire time period described in ¶21 above, the  defendants did not obtain from any “tipped employee” (as defined in 29  U.S.C. § 203(t)) any weekly or monthly report by that employee of the  amount of tips received by that employee for any particular week or  month in the course of that tipped employee’s employment by one or more  of the defendants.     30.  During the time from before November 2016 and continuing  through the present date that the defendants jointly and severally  employed and will continue to employ plaintiff Hernandez and other  workers as dishwashers, the defendants did not accurately record the  total quantity of hours worked by plaintiff Hernandez and those other  dishwashers for each workweek that they were and will be employed as  dishwashers by the defendants.     31.  During that same time period plaintiff Hernandez and the  other employees whom the defendants employed as dishwashers customarily  and regularly worked approximately 52 to 55 hours per workweek as  dishwashers but before in or about March or April 2019 they were always  paid a lump sum without payment of the overtime premium required by 29  U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).  Before in or about March or April 2019, that lump  sum was paid partially in cash and partially by check.  Upon information  and belief, after March or April 2019, the defendants regularly paid her  and those other dishwashers that lump sum only by check.  For plaintiff  Hernandez, the total amount of that lump sum varied from pay period to  pay period during that same time period.  On information and belief,  that lump still did not include any payment of the overtime premium  required by 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).    33.  During that same time period plaintiff Juarez and the other  employees whom the defendants employed as cooks customarily and  regularly worked approximately 66 hours per workweek as cooks but before  in or about March or April 2019 were always paid a lump sum without  payment of the overtime premium required by 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).   Before in or about March or April 2019, the lump sum that the defendants  paid in cash for every two-week pay period to plaintiff Juarez was  $1,400.00.  Upon information and belief, the defendants made similar  lump sum payments to the other persons that the defendants employed as  cooks in the amount for every two-week pay period.     34.  Upon information and belief, after March or April 2019, the  defendants continued to pay the persons they employed as cooks a lump  sum but only by check.  On information and belief, that lump still did  not include any payment of the overtime premium required by 29 U.S.C. §  207(a)(1).   36.  During the time from before November 2016 and continuing  through March or April 2019 that the defendants jointly and severally  employed and will continue to employ plaintiffs Mendoza and Catalina and  other workers as taco chip servers, the defendants did not accurately  record the total quantity of hours worked by those plaintiffs and those  other persons employed as taco chip servers for each workweek that they  were and will be employed as taco chip servers by the defendants.     37.  During that same time period plaintiffs Mendoza and Catalina  and the other employees whom the defendants employed as taco chip  servers customarily and regularly worked approximately 80 to 85 hours  per workweek as taco chip servers but before in or about March or April  2019 were always paid in cash at a straight hourly rate and the regular  rate of $9/hour without payment of the overtime premium required by 29  U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).  After in or about March or April 2019, the  defendants reduced the hours worked per workweek by those persons that  they employed as taco chip servers to substantially less than 40 hours  per workweek and continued to pay them at the regular hourly rate of  $9.00.     38.  The defendants provided and paid for workers’ compensation  insurance for the work performed by the plaintiffs and the workers who  worked with the plaintiffs as part of the defendants’ enterprise.     40.  The defendants supplied all of the funds to pay the named  plaintiffs and their co-workers.   41.  The individual defendants had final say as to who was hired  to work in the restaurant.  The individual defendants also had the  right to fire the named plaintiffs any time as at will employees, and  the defendants did not hire the named plaintiffs or any of their co- workers for any specific duration or any specific project.   42.  The individual defendants had final say as to who was fired  or disciplined for misconduct at work in the work that the named  plaintiffs performed for the defendants.     43.  During the entire time period described in ¶21 above, none  of the plaintiffs operated an independent business, and they all were  economically dependent upon the defendants for work and wages on a day  to day basis.     44.  Upon information and belief, the defendants did not post any  written notice required by 29 C.F.R. § 516.4 as to the rights of  employees to payment of the minimum wage under 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a) and  payment at the overtime rate described in 207(a)(1) for all hours worked  in excess of 40 in the same workweek.     46.  Long before 2015, each of the defendants was and continues to  be an experienced employer who was and continues to be familiar with the  FLSA and the NCWHA, and the requirements of both of those statutes with  respect to what they require and required with respect to the wage rate  to be paid for work in excess of forty (40) hours in the same workweek,  and what is and was considered to be the regular rate at which an  employee is employed under the FLSA.  The defendants acted in reckless  and willful disregard of the requirements of the FLSA with respect to  these matters, and as a consequence of this willful and reckless  disregard of the rights of the plaintiffs and the members of the  collective action defined in ¶¶19-20 to payment of wages at the overtime  rate required by 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1) have been violated for the entire  three-year time period immediately preceding the date on which this  action was filed.    47.  Paragraphs 1 through 46 above are realleged and incorporated  herein by reference by the named plaintiffs and each member of the  collective action described in ¶¶19-20 above of this complaint that the  named plaintiffs seek to represent pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b) against  all defendants.    