(Declaratory Relief)   (Failure to Pay Proper Overtime Wages – FLSA – 29 U.S.C. § 207)   (Misclassification as Independent Contractor)   20.  Defendants provide, among other services, out-sourced technical support for  firms involved in sales, marketing and/or telemarketing.   21.  Two of the firms for whom Defendants provide out-sourced technical support  were and/or are F9Group, Inc., and Ytel, Inc.   22.  Upon information and belief, Defendants also operate their own businesses that  provide, among other things, telemarketing and transcription services.   23.  In or around June 2009, Defendants hired Plaintiff Louisa Rettler to provide  technical support for customers of other firms who had business relationships with Defendants,  and other duties as requested by Defendants.  Her rate of pay varied from $9.00 per hour  initially up to $11.00 per hour at present.   24.  On or about June 1, 2011, Defendants hired Plaintiff David Hicks to provide  technical support for customers of other firms who had business relationships with Defendants,  and other duties as requested by Defendants.  His rate of pay is $9.40 per hour.   25.  Plaintiffs were employed to perform various tasks for Defendants, including  taking calls for Defendants’ clients, answering customer questions if they called in for  technical support, taking sales and billing calls, attending weekly meetings, filling out service  tickets on each customer call, performing investigations to insure technical systems are  working properly, troubleshooting client service issues, sending emails to other employees.   26.  The majority of work performed by Plaintiffs was acting as online technical  support for various clients of Defendants.   28.  From their date of hire until present, Defendants exerted control over Plaintiffs  by establishing what work they would perform.   29.  From their date of hire until present, Defendants exerted control over Plaintiffs  by establishing when the work would be performed.   30.  From their date of hire until present, Defendants exerted control over Plaintiffs  by establishing how the work would be performed.   31.  From their date of hire until present, Defendants exerted control over Plaintiffs  by establishing where the work would be performed.   32.  Despite exercising the control alleged above, from their date of hire until the  present, Defendants have classified Plaintiffs as independent contractors.   33.  Upon information and belief, most if not all of Defendants’ workers are  classified as independent contractors.   34.  Plaintiffs’ services are integral to the success of Defendants’ business operation.   35.  Plaintiffs did not work for a predetermined amount of wages but instead their pay  was entirely dependent on the amount of time they spent working during any given day.    36.  From their dates of hire until approximately May 20, 2012, Plaintiffs routinely  worked with knowledge of Defendants in excess of forty (40) hours per week.   37.  Despite being routinely required to work in excess of forty hours per week,  Plaintiffs were not paid the premium one and one-half times their regular rate as required under  the FLSA for hours worked over forty in a work week.   38.  For example, from approximately August 1, 2010 through May 20, 2012,  Plaintiff Louisa Rettler worked an average of 10.74 hours in excess of forty (40) hours per  week, for which Plaintiff Louisa Rettler was paid her regular hourly rate of pay rather than the  premium one and one half times her hourly rate as required under the FLSA.   40.  Defendants wrongfully withheld wages from Plaintiffs by failing to pay all  overtime wages due to Plaintiff for hours Plaintiff worked.   41.  The additional persons who may become plaintiffs in this action are customer  service and/or technical support agents who held positions similarly situated to Plaintiffs and  who worked in excess of forty (40) hours during one or more work weeks during the relevant  time periods but who did not receive pay at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for  all of their hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours.   42.  Upon information and belief, the records concerning the number of hours worked  and amounts paid to Plaintiffs any other similarly situated employees are in the possession and  custody of Defendants and the amount of employees is numerous.   43.  Defendants’ failure and/or refusal to properly compensate Plaintiffs at the rates  and amounts required by the FLSA was willful and knowing.   44.  Defendants refused and/or failed to properly disclose or apprise Plaintiff of his  rights under the FLSA.   45.  Plaintiffs have retained the law firm of Phillips Law Group, P.C., to represent  them in this litigation and have agreed to pay a reasonable fee for the services rendered in the  prosecution of this action on his behalf.  46.  Plaintiffs incorporate and adopt paragraphs 1 through 45 above as if fully set  forth herein.   48.  Defendants’ systems and practices relating to their non-payment of overtime to  technical support and customer service employees have existed for at least three years  throughout Defendants’ business.   49.  There are numerous similarly situated employees and former employees of  Defendants who have been improperly compensated in violation of the FLSA and who would  benefit from the issuance of Court-Supervised Notice of the present lawsuit and the  opportunity to join the present lawsuit.     50.  The similarly situated employees are numerous technical support and customer  service employees who have the same or similar job description as Plaintiff and perform the  same or similar job functions.   51.  Those similarly situated employees are known to Defendants and are readily  identifiable and locatable through Defendants’ records.  Specifically, all technical support and  customer service employees and former technical support and customer service employees of  Defendants who have been employed with Defendants, would benefit from Court-Supervised  Notice and the opportunity to join the present lawsuit and should be so notified.   52.  Defendants further have engaged in a widespread pattern and practice of  violating the provisions of the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiffs and all similarly situated  employees and former employees in accordance with § 207 of the FLSA, as described in the  previous paragraphs.   53.  As a result of Defendants’ violations of the FLSA, Plaintiffs, as well as all others  similarly situated, have suffered damages by failing to receive compensation in accordance  with § 207 of the FLSA.   55.  Defendants’ actions in failing to compensate Plaintiffs, as well as all other  similarly situated employees and former employees, in violation of the FLSA, were willful.   56.  Defendants have not made a good faith effort to comply with the FLSA.   57.  Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated are also entitled to an award of  attorneys’ fees pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).  WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request a judgment be entered in their favor and against  Defendants for actual and liquidated damages, as well as costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees,  and such other and further relief as deemed just and proper by this Court.  58.  Plaintiffs incorporate and adopt paragraphs 1 through 57 above as if fully set  forth herein.   59.  Plaintiffs’ working relationships with Defendants as described above were as  employees.    60.  Defendants misclassified Plaintiffs as independent contractors.   61.  In addition to providing Defendants with presumed justification to violate the  FLSA, the misclassification also allowed Defendants not to pay employment taxes, shifting the  burden onto the Plaintiffs in the form of self-employment taxes.   63.  Plaintiffs incorporate and adopt paragraphs 1 through 62 above as if fully set  forth herein.   64.  Plaintiffs and Defendants have a FLSA dispute pending, which the Court has  jurisdiction to hear pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as a federal question exists.   65.  The Court also has jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief  pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202.   66.  Plaintiffs may obtain declaratory relief.   67.  Defendants employed Plaintiffs and others similarly situated.   68.  Defendants business is an enterprise covered by the FLSA, as concerns its  employer-employee relationship with Plaintiffs and others similarly situated.   69.  Plaintiffs were individually covered by the FLSA.   70.  Plaintiffs and others similarly situated are entitled to overtime wages pursuant to 