(VIOLATION OF FLSA)  A.  FLSA COVERAGE   17.  Progrexion employs more than 1,500 employees at its call centers in Utah, Idaho,  Arizona, and Oklahoma. Progrexion’s hourly call-center employees receive calls from  Progrexion’s clients and assist those clients with repairing their credit reports.3   18.  Upon information and belief, Progrexion is a privately-held company with call  centers located in Salt Lake City, Utah; North Salt Lake, Utah; West Valley, Utah; Provo, Utah;  Rexburg, Idaho; Idaho Falls, Idaho; Phoenix Arizona; and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.   19.  Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members’ job duties consisted of handling phone  calls with Progrexion’s clients, answering customer inquiries, troubleshooting on behalf of  customers, and generally assisting customers with matters related to their credit reports.   20.  Plaintiff Cristin Born was employed by Progrexion in customer service at its call  center located in Phoenix, Arizona from approximately January 2016 until April 2019.   21.  Plaintiff Jessica Chauhan is currently employed by Progrexion in customer service  at its call center located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma from approximately June 2016 to the  present.   22.  Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members are non-exempt call-center employees  who were (and are) paid by the hour.   23.  Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members work approximately forty (40) “on-the- clock” hours per week.   25.  Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members have not been compensated for all the  hours they worked for Progrexion as a result of Progrexion’s corporate policy and practice of  requiring all hourly call-center employees to be ready to take their first phone call the moment  their official shift starts.    26.  Specifically, Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members are required to start and  log-in to their computer, open multiple different Progrexion computer programs, log in to each  Progrexion program, and ensure that each Progrexion program is running correctly—all of which  can take up to thirty minutes—before they are able to take their first phone call, which comes in  as soon as their official shift starts.   27.  During this start up time, Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members were not  compensated although they were expected to have completed this process in advance of their  official start time.   28.  Progrexion required Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members to be ready to accept  their first customer call at the moment the employee’s official shift starts. As such, Progrexion  required (and continues to require) that Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members perform these  start up tasks “off-the-clock” (and without pay) before their official shift begins.    29.  During this start up time, Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members were not  compensated although Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members were expected to have completed  this process in advance of Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members official “on the clock” start  time.   31.  Moreover, Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members worked weeks wherein the  commission payments were greater than the hourly “draw.” During those weeks, Plaintiffs and the  Putative Class Members were not paid by the hour and did not receive any overtime for hours  worked over forty, but were instead misclassified as exempt and paid only commissions.    32.  As a result, Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members have not been compensated  for all hours worked, including all worked in excess of forty (40) in a workweek at the rates  required by the FLSA.   33.  Progrexion has employed other individuals who perform(ed) the same or similar  job duties under the same pay provisions as Plaintiffs.   34.  Progrexion is aware of its obligation to pay for all hours worked and overtime for  all hours worked in excess of forty (40) each week to Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members  but has failed to do so.    35.  Because Progrexion did not pay Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members time and  a half for all hours worked and overtime for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) each week,  Progrexion’s pay policies and practices violated (and continue to violate) the FLSA.    36.  On December 7, 2019 Plaintiff’s Counsel filed an Original Petition in the United  States District Court for the District of Arizona; Cause of Action No. 2:18-cv-04541-DMF.   37.  On February 13, 2019 Progrexion filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration.   39.  From August 2019 until September 2019 the parties prepared to mediate this matter  and on November 15, 2019, the Parties attended Mediation, which ended with no resolution.   40.  On November 15, 2019, after it became apparent that a resolution would not be  reached, Plaintiffs’ counsel emailed a current list of clients to Progrexion, in order to obtain  arbitration agreements to be filed with the American Arbitration Association.4 As of November  15, 2019, Plaintiffs requested arbitration agreements for 108 individuals.   41.  While some arbitration agreements were produced, a number remain outstanding.5    42.  On December 3, 2019, Plaintiff’s Counsel sent a second email to Progrexion  requesting that the outstanding Arbitration Agreements be produced so that those individuals could  proceed in arbitration. 6   43.  On December 5, 2019, Progrexion sent eleven (11) Arbitration Agreements to  Plaintiff’s Counsel.7 At that time, 37 agreements remained outstanding.   45.  On December 13, 2019, while sending a fourth email requesting Progrexion to  produce the outstanding arbitration agreements, Plaintiffs’ Counsel asked Progrexion to agree to  toll the statute of limitations for those individuals whose arbitration agreements were outstanding,  while Plaintiff’s Counsel waited on the production of the remaining Arbitration Agreements.10   46.  On December 13, 2019, Progrexion produced another eleven (11) Arbitration  Agreements, but did not respond to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s suggestion on tolling the statute of  limitations.11 At that time, 31 arbitration agreements remained outstanding   47.  On December 19, 2019 Plaintiffs sent an email to Progrexion with an updated list  of individuals missing Arbitration Agreements, and again requested a response to the suggestion  that the statute of limitations be tolled for those individuals waiting on their arbitration agreements  to proceed in the arbitral forum.12   48.  On December 20, 2019, Progrexion produced another twelve (12) Arbitration  Agreements and again failed to respond to the suggestion that the statute of limitations be tolled  for those individuals waiting on the production of their arbitration agreements.13   50.  From November 15, 2019 until December 20, 2020 Plaintiffs’ Counsel filed ninety- five (95) Arbitration Demands.    51.  As of the date of this filing, twenty-one (21) Arbitration Agreements remained  outstanding. Because those Arbitration Agreements were not timely produced, and because their  statutes of limitations continued to run on their valuable and viable claims, Plaintiffs filed this  lawsuit.   53.  As of the date of this filing, Progrexion has not produced the Arbitration Agreement  for any Plaintiff in this action despite repeated requests for the same.    54.  As of the date of this filing, Progrexion hasnot agreed to toll the statute of  limitations and because Progrexion has not agreed to toll the statute of limitations, Plaintiffs claims  are running.  V.  55.  All previous paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.   56.  The FLSA Collective is defined as:  73.  All previous paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.   74.  Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), this is a collective action filed on behalf of all of  Progrexion’s employees who have been similarly situated to Plaintiffs with regard to the work they  performed and the manner in which they were paid.   75.  Other similarly situated employees of Progrexion have been victimized by  Progrexion’s patterns, practices, and policies, which are in willful violation of the FLSA.   76.  The FLSA Collective Members are defined in Paragraph 70.   77.  Progrexion’s failure to pay Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective Members for all  hours worked and overtime compensation at the rates required by the FLSA, results from generally  applicable policies and practices of Progrexion, and does not depend on the personal circumstances  of Plaintiffs or the FLSA Collective Members.    78.  Thus, Plaintiffs’ experiences are typical of the experiences of the FLSA Collective  Members.   79.  The specific job titles or precise job requirements of the various FLSA Collective  Members do not prevent collective treatment.    80.  All of the FLSA Collective Members—regardless of their specific job titles, precise  job requirements, rates of pay, or job locations—are entitled to be properly compensated for all  hours worked and the proper amount of overtime for all hours worked over forty (40) hours each  week.    81.  Although the issues of damages may be individual in character, there is no  detraction from the common nucleus of liability facts.     83.  Moreover, individual litigation would be unduly burdensome to the judicial system.  Concentrating the litigation in one forum will promote judicial economy and parity among the  claims of the individual members of the classes and provide for judicial consistency.   84.  Accordingly, the FLSA collective of similarly situated plaintiffs should be certified  as defined as in Paragraph 70 and notice should be promptly sent.  