15.  Cintas employed Plaintiff, Mark Cassingham, as a Technician at its San Jose,  California branch.  Cintas employed Plaintiff in that capacity since January 29, 2016 to May 19,  2017, and at all times, paid him by the hour, most recently at the rate of $22.00 per hour.   16.    Cintas employs Plaintiff and other Technicians to install, repair, and maintain fire  alarm systems in accordance with established NFPA standards, manufacturer’s specifications, local  jurisdictional codes that exceed NFPA standards, and OSHA and other safety regulations.   17.  Cintas provides Plaintiff and other Technicians with a “Service Philosophy” policy  when they are hired, which requires them to follow all of the current policies, procedures, and  practices as defined by Cintas’ operation manual.  This document is in Cintas’ possession.   41.  Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) of the FLSA on his own  behalf and on behalf of:  All current and former Technicians who worked for Cintas at any time  after August 29, 2014 and through the date of Judgment.  (Hereinafter referred to as the “Collective.”)  Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this definition as  necessary.   42.  Excluded from the proposed Collective are Cintas’ executives, administrative and  professional employees, including computer professionals and outside sales persons.   46.  Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on their  own behalf and on behalf of:   All current and former Technicians who worked for Cintas at any time  after August 29, 2014 and through the date of Judgment.  (hereinafter referred to as the “Rule 23 Nationwide Class”).  Plaintiff reserves the right to amend  this definition as necessary.   47.  The members of the Rule 23 Nationwide Class are so numerous that joinder of all  Rule 23 Nationwide Class members in this case would be impractical.  Plaintiff reasonably  estimates there are thousands of Rule 23 Nationwide Class members. Rule 23 Nationwide Class  members should be easy to identify from Cintas’ computer systems and electronic payroll and  personnel records.   59.  Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on their  own behalf and on behalf of:   All current and former Technicians who worked for Cintas in California at any  time after August 29, 2013 and through the date of Judgment.  (hereinafter referred to as the “Rule 23 California Class”).  Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this  definition as necessary.   60.  The members of the Rule 23 California Class are so numerous that joinder of all  Rule 23 California Class members in this case would be impractical.  Plaintiff reasonably estimates  there are hundreds of Rule 23 California Class members. Rule 23 California Class members should  be easy to identify from Cintas’ computer systems and electronic payroll and personnel records.   61.  Commonality.  There is a well-defined community of interest among Rule 23  California members and common questions of law and fact predominate in this action over any  questions affecting individual members of the Rule 23 California Class.  These common legal and  factual questions, include, but are not limited to, the following:  a.  Whether the pre- and post-shift time spent by the Rule 23 California Class members  on the preparation of Inspection Reports is compensable time;   b.  Whether the pre- and post-shift time spent by the Rule 23 California Class members  travelling to the first worksite of the day is compensable time;  c.  Whether the pre- and post-shift time spent by the Rule 23 California Class members  travelling from the last worksite of the day is compensable time; and  d.  Whether Cintas’ failure to compensate the Rule 23 California Class members for  these essential work activities amounts to a violation of California labor and employment laws.   72.  Plaintiff incorporates all other paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.   73.  At all times relevant to this action, Cintas was an employer under 29 U.S.C. § 203(d)  of the FLSA, subject to the provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.     74.  At all relevant times to this action, Cintas has engaged in interstate commerce or in  the production of goods for commerce, as defined by the FLSA.   89.  Plaintiff incorporates all other paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.   95.  Plaintiff incorporates all other paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.   CALIFORNIA: Failure To Pay Overtime  (California Labor Code §§ 510 and 1194)  On Behalf of Plaintiff and the California Class   CALIFORNIA:  Failure To Pay Minimum Wage  (California Labor Code §§ 1182.12, 1194, 1197, 1194.2 and 1198)  On Behalf of Plaintiff and the California Class   CALIFORNIA:  Unlawful and/or Unfair Competition Law Violations   (California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.)  On Behalf of Plaintiff and the California Class  123.  Plaintiff incorporates all other paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.  124.  California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq. prohibits unfair competition  in the form of any unlawful, unfair, deceptive, or fraudulent business practices.  125.  Plaintiff brings this cause of action individually and as a representative of all others  subject to Cintas’ unlawful acts and practices.  126.  During all relevant times, Cintas committed unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent acts  as defined by California Business & Professions Code § 17200.  Cintas’ unlawful, unfair, and/or  fraudulent business practices include, without limitation, failing to pay overtime wages, failing to  pay overtime wages at the correct rate, failing to pay minimum wages, failing to pay wages at the  designated rate, and failing to provide employees with accurate wage statements.  127.  As a result of these unlawful and/or unfair and/or fraudulent business practices,  Cintas reaped unfair benefits and illegal profits at the expense of Plaintiff and the California Class.   Cintas must disgorge these ill-gotten gains and restore to Plaintiff and the California Class  Members all wrongfully withheld wages, including, but not limited to minimum wages and  overtime compensation.  128.  Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the members of the California Class,  respectfully requests that judgment be awarded to provide restitution and interest, and the relief  requested below in the Prayer for Relief.  NATIONWIDE:  Failure To Pay Overtime  (Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.)  On Behalf of Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective  