20. Plaintiff, the FLSA Class Members, and the North Dakota Class Members worked for Defendant as a Chemical Van Operator.  22. Plaintiff worked in excess of 8 hours per day, and well over 40 hours per week. A Chemical Van Operator typically works a 12 hour shift at the well site, 7 days a week for a total workweek of 84 hours.  23. During the relevant period, Defendant paid Plaintiff, the FLSA Class Members, and the North Dakota Class Members various bonuses in addition to their regular pay rate.  24. In particular, Defendant paid a bonus known as the “Job Bonus.” The Job Bonus is a nondiscretionary bonus awarded based on the amount of daily fracking.  25. The amount of the bonuses that Plaintiffs, the FLSA Class Members, and the North Dakota Class Members received varied from week to week.  26. The bonuses paid to the Plaintiffs, the FLSA Class Members, and the North Dakota Class Members were not factored into their regular rates for purposes of determining overtime pay.  27. Consequently, they were paid at rates lower than what the law requires.  28. 29 C.F.R. § 778.209(a) provides that “[w]here a bonus payment is considered a part of the regular rate at which an employee is employed, it must be included in computing his regular hourly rate of pay and overtime compensation.”  29. Defendant failed to include the Job Bonuses in Plaintiff’s regular hourly rate of pay and overtime compensation.  30. The factual statements above apply equally to Plaintiff and the FLSA Class Members and the North Dakota Class Members.  32. The same conduct outlined above also violates North Dakota state law codified in the North Dakota Administrative Code § 46-02-07. Like its federal counterpart, North Dakota state law mandates overtime compensation must be paid at one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate.  33. By failing to include the bonuses in the overtime calculation, Defendant violated North Dakota state law. N.D. Admin. Code § 46-02-07-02(15). 34. Plaintiff has actual knowledge that the FLSA Class Members have been denied full overtime pay for hours worked over forty hours per workweek.  35. Other employees similarly situated to the Plaintiff work for Defendant in a similar capacity, but are not paid full overtime at the rate of one and one-half their regular rate when those hours exceeded forty hours per workweek.  36. The FLSA Class Members perform or have performed the same or similar work as the Plaintiff. Like the Plaintiff, the FLSA Class Members work as Chemical Van Operators and are paid in the same fashion as Plaintiff.  37. FLSA Class Members are not exempt from receiving overtime under the FLSA.  38. As such, FLSA Class Members are similar to the Plaintiff in terms of job duties, pay structure, and the denial of overtime pay.  39. Defendant’s failure to pay overtime compensation at the rate required by the FLSA results from generally applicable policies or practices, and does not depend on the personal circumstances of the FLSA Class Members on an individual basis.  41. The specific job titles or precise job responsibilities of each FLSA Class Member does not prevent collective treatment.  42. All FLSA Class Members, irrespective of their particular job requirements, are entitled to overtime compensation.  43. Although the exact amount of damages may vary among FLSA Class Members, the damages for the FLSA Class Members can be easily calculated by a simple formula. The claims of all FLSA Class Members arise from a common nucleus of facts. Liability is based on a systematic course of wrongful conduct by the Defendant that caused harm to all FLSA Class Members.  44. As such, the class of similarly situated Plaintiff is properly defined as follows: All Chemical Van Operators, and all other employees in substantially similar positions employed by Defendant during the three year period prior to the commencement of this lawsuit to the present. 50. Plaintiff brings this action on his own behalf and as a representative party, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b). Plaintiff seeks class certification of the North Dakota state law claims with a class definition as follows: All Chemical Van Operators, and all other employees in substantially similar positions employed by Defendant in North Dakota during the two year period prior to the commencement of this lawsuit to the present.  51. Defendant’s policy of failing to pay the amount of overtime dictated by North Dakota state law affects members of the North Dakota Class in a substantially similar manner. Plaintiff and the North Dakota Class Members have claims based on the same legal and remedial theories. Plaintiff and the North Dakota Class Members have claims based on the same facts. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the North Dakota Class Members’ claims.  52. Although Plaintiff does not know the precise number of the members of the proposed class, there are hundreds of members. The identity of the members of the class is readily discernible from Defendant’s records.  53. There are questions of law and fact that are common to all members of the proposed class and those questions predominate over any question affecting only individual members of the class.  55. The Class Action is a superior form to resolve the North Dakota state law claims because of the common nucleus of operative fact centered on the continued failure of Defendant to pay Chemical Van Operators according to the provisions of North Dakota state law.  56. In this action, common issues will be the object of the majority of the efforts of the litigants and the Court. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. A class action will also thwart unduly duplicative litigation resulting in inconsistent judgments pertaining to Defendant’s policies.