20.  At all times relevant hereto, Defendants' primary business was and is the  sale of food and drinks for consumption.  2 1 .  Each of the Corporate Defendants constitute a "restaurant" within the  meaning of the New York Labor Law.   22.  Defendant, MAURY RUBlN, actively participates in the day-to -day  operation of the Bakery. For instance, Mr. Rubin persona lly hires and fires employees,  supervises and directs the work of the empl()yees, instructs the empl()yees how to perfom1  their jobs, and corrects and/or 1·eprimands employees for any e1Tors made.   23.  Defendant, MAURY RUBIN, creates and implements all crucial business  policies, including decisions concerning the number of hours the employees are required  to work, the amount of pay that the employees are entitled to receive, and the method and  manner by which the employees are to be paid.   24.  The Corporate Def-endants are associated as a single enterprise, utilizing  Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees in a fw1gible and interchangeable manner  as workers in the business operated by Defendants.   25.  The Corporate Delendants each engage in related activities, namely,  providing restaurant services to the general public for profit. The Corporate Defendants  share Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, act in the interest of each other  with respect to employees , pay their employees by the same plan or scheme, and are  themselves under common control.   27.  The performance of Plaintiffs job responsibil ities, as well as the  responsibilities of other similarly situated employees, was and is controlled by one person  or group of persons, corporations, or other organizationa l units acting together.   28.  In or about 2008, Defendants hired Plaintiff to work as a non-exempt cook  and food preparer for Defendants' Bake1y, known as The City Bakery, located at 3 West  18'11 Street, New York, New York 10011.   29.  Neither at the time of hire, nor at any time thereafter, diet Defendants  provide Plaintiff with a written wage notice identifying Plaintifrs regular hourly rate of  pay and corresponding overtime rate of pay.   30.  Defendants employed Plaintiff in those capacities until on or about  February 18, 2018.   31.  Throughout the entirety of his employment, although Plaintiff's work shift  fluctuated slightly week-to-week, Plaintiff normally worked six (6) days per week, and  his work schedule norma lly consisted of ten and one-ha lf (l OY,) per day Tuesday th.rough  Friday, and on Sunday from 8:00 a.m. until 6:30 p.m., and nine (9) hours on Saturday  from 6:00 a.m. until 3 :00 p.m. 1   33.  Beginning in or about January 2013 and continuing through the remainder  of his employment on or about February 18, 20 18, Plaintiff was not paid proper overtime  compensation. During this period, Plaintiff was improperly paid on a salal)' basis at the  rate of $765 per week straight time for all hours worked, and worked in excess of sixty  (60) hours per week. Work performed above forty (40) hours per week was not paid at  the statutory rate of time and one-half as required by state and federal law.   34.  Plaintiff was required to punch a time clock throughout the entirety of his  employment.   35.  Defendants knowingly and willfolly operate their business with a policy of  not paying Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees either the FLSA ove1tim e rate  (of time and one-halt), or the New York State overtime rate (of time and one-half) , in  direct violation of the FLSA and New York Labor Law and the supporting federal and  New York State Department of Labor Regulations.   36.  Defendants knowingly and willfully operate their business with a policy of  not paying Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees "spread of hours" pre111ium, in  direct violation of the New York Labor Law and the supporting New York State  Department of Labor Regulations.   38.  Plaintiff brings this action individually and as class representat ive on  behalf of himself and all other cun·ent and former non-exempt employees who have been  or were emp loyed by the Defendants since March 13, 2015 through the close of the opt-in  period as ultimate ly set by the Court (the "Collective Action Period"), and who were  compensated at rates less than time and one-ha lf for all hours worked in excess of forty  ( 40) hours per workweek (the "Collective Action Mem bers").   39.  The collect ive action class is so numerous that jo inder of all members is  impracticable. Although the precise number of such persons is unknown, and the facts  upon which the calculation of that number are present ly within the sole control of the  Defendant~, there are more than forty (40) Co llective Action Members who worked for  Defendants durin g the Collective Action Period, most or whom would not be likely to file  individual suits because they lack adequate fir1ancial resources, access to attorneys, or  knowledge of their claims.  Therefore, Plaintiff submits that this matter should be  certified as a collective action under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 2 I 6(b).   40.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequate ly protect the interests of the Collective  Action Members and has retained counsel that is experienced and competen t in the fields  of employment law and class action litigation . Plaintiff bas no interests that are contrary  to or in conflict with !hose members of this collective action.   42.  A collective action is superior to other available methods for the fair and  efl1cient adjudication of thi.s controversy since j oinder 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 impossi ble for the members of the collective action to individually seek redress  for the wrongs done to them. There will be no difficulty in the manage111ent of this action  as a collective action.   44.  Plaintiff knows of no difficu lty that will be encountered in the  management of this I itigation that would preclude its maintenance as a collective action.   45.  Plaintiff and others similarly situated have been substantially damaged by  the Delendants ' wrongful conduct.  CLASS ACl'ION ALLEGATIONS   46.  Plaintiff sues on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of persons under  Rules 23(a), (b)(2) , and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.   47.  Plaintiff brings his New York Labor Law claims on behalf of all persons  who were employed by Defendants at any time since March 13, 2012 until the entry of  judgment in this case (the "Class Period") who were non-exempt employees within the  meaning of the New York Labor Law and have not been paid overtime compensation  and/or "spread of hours" premium in violation of the New York Labor Law (the "Class").   49.  The claims of Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the Class, and a class  action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adj udication of the  controversy, particularly in the context of wage and hour litigat ion. where individuals  Jack the financial resources to vigorously pJosecute a lawsuit in federal cou11 against a  corporate defendant.   50.  Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the Class,  thereby making appropriate final injun ctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with  respect to the Class as a whole.   51.  Plaintiff has committed himself to pursuing this action and has retained  counsel experienced in employment law and class action litigation.   52.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequate ly protect the interests of the NY Class  members.  Plaintiff understands that, as class representative, he assumes a fiduciary  responsi hility to the Class and Collective Action Members to represent their interests  fairly and adequately, and that he must consider the interests of the Class and Collective  Action Members j ust as he would represent and consider his own interests, and that he  may not favor his own interests over those of the Class or Collective Action Members .   54.  Plaintiff has the same interests in this matter as all other members of the  Class and Plaintifl's claims are typical of the Class.   56.  Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers each and every allegation and statement  contained in paragraphs" l" through "55" of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.   57.  At all times relevant hereto, upon information and belief, the Corporate  Defendants were and continue to be employers engaged in interstate commerce and/or the  production of goods for commerce within the meaning of the FLS/\, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a)  and 207(a). Further, Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members are covered individuals  within the meaning of the f'LSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a) and 207(a).   58.  At all relevant times, Defendants employed Plaintiff and the Collective  Action Members within the meaning of the FLSA.   59.  At least within each of the three (3) most recent years relevant to the  allegations herein, the Corporate Defendants separately had gross revenues in excess of  $500,000.   60.  At least within each of the three (3) most recen t years relevant to the  allegations herein, the Corporate Defendants jointly had gross revenues in excess of  $500,000.   61.  Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members were entit led to be paid at the  statutory rate of time and one-half for all hours worked in excess of the maximum hours  provided for in the FLSA.   63.  Defendants had, and continue to have a policy and practice of refusing to  pay overtime compensa tion at the statutory rate of time and one-half to Plaintiff and the  Collective Action Members for all hours worked in excess of forty ( 40) hours per work  week, which violated and continues to violate the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq.,  including 29 U.S.C. §§ 207(a)( l) and 2 1 S(a).   64.  Defondants knowing ly and willfully disrega rded the provisions of the  FLSA as evidence d by their failure to compensate Plaintiff and the Collective Action  Members at the statutory overtime rate of time and one-half for all hours worked in  excess of forty ( 40) hours per week, when they knew or should have known such was due  and that non-payrnen t of overtime compensation would financially injure Plaintiff and the  Collective Action Members.   65.  As a result of Defendants' failure to properly record, report, credit and/or  compensate its employees. including Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members.  Defendants have failed to make, keep and preserve records with respect to each of its  employ ees sufficient to determine the wages, hours and other cond itions and practices of  emp loyment in violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 20 I et seq., including 29 U.S.C. §§  211(c) and 2 15(a).   66.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' violations of the FLSA.  Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members are entitle-cl to liquidated damages pursuant  to the FLSA.   68.  Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members are entitled to an award of  their reasonab le anorneys' fees, costs and expenses, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) .  69.  Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers each and every allegation and statement  contained in paragraphs " 1" through "68 " of this Complaint as if fully sel forth herein.   70.  At all times relevant hereto, Defendants employed Plaintiff and members  of the Class within the meaning of New York Labor Law §§ 2 and 651.   71.  Plaintiff and Class members were entitled to be paid al lhe statutory rate of  time and one-ha lf for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per workweek .   72.  Defendants failed  to pay Plaintiff and Class members ove11imc  compe nsation in the lawful amount for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per week  in direct contravention of !he New York Labor Law.   73.  Defendants had, and cont inue lo have a policy and practice of refusing to  pay ove1time compensation at the statutory rate of time and one-half to Plaintiff and  Class members for all hours worked in excess of forty ( 40) hours per work week, which  violated and cont inues to violate the New York Labor Law.   75.  Defendants foiled to furnish Plaintiff and member~ of the Class with a  statement with evecy payment of wages listing gross wages, deductions and net wages, in  contravent ion of New York Labor Law§ 195(3) and New York State Department of  Labor Regulations§ 146-2.3.   76.  Defendants failed co keep true and accurate records of hours worked by  each employee covered by an hourly minimum wage rate, the wages paid to all  employees, and other similar information in contravention of New York Labor Law §  66 1.   77.  DefcndanL~ failed to establish, maintain, and preserve for not less than six  (6) years payroll records showing the hours worked. gross wages, deductions, and net  wages for each employee, in contravent ion of the New York Labor Law § 194( 4), and  New York State Departme11t of Labor Regulations § 146-2. J.   78.  Due to Defendants' New York Labor Law violations. Plaintiff and Class  members are entitled to recover from Defendants their unpaid overtime compensation.  unpaid "spread or hours" premium, reasonable attorneys'  fees, and costs and  disbursements of this action, pursuant to New York Labor Law§ 663(1) et al. and§ 198.   79.  Plaintiff and Class members are also entitled to liquidated damages  pursuant to New York Labor Law § 663(1 ), as well as civil penalties and/or liquidated  damages pursuant lo the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act.  I Violation of the New York Labor Law J   [Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act]  