18. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and those similarly situated were employees of Defendants,  DOES 1 to 10, and each of them, and were engaged in the occupation of computer  analyst, computer programmer, computer technician, network technician, or other  information technology role not properly classified as an exempt/salaried position.     19. Prior to approximately August 16, 2012, Plaintiff and those similarly situated were  treated as exempt and were paid on a salary basis.  Thereafter, Plaintiff and those  similarly situated were made hourly employees.   20. Defendants, DOES 1 to 10, and each of them changed Plaintiff and those similarly  situated from salaried exempt employees to hourly employees as alleged above due to an  allegation that Defendants, DOES 1 to 10, and each of them had misclassified employees  as exempt.  The allegation was meritorious.   37. All prior paragraphs are incorporated by reference as though stated fully here.   38. Plaintiff and class members were at all relevant times non-exempt employees of  Defendants.  Each was entitled to payment of overtime wages for any overtime worked,  pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 USC 207).  Plaintiff’s work duties during  the time period of 2012-2015 consisted of executing computer operations such as batch  processing, along with operations support of pre-installed software.  Plaintiff was not a  computer systems analyst, programmer, or software engineer.  Plaintiff’s duties did not  involve selection, creation, modification, documentation, design or similarly skilled work  with computers; he was an operator.   39. Payment of overtime wages was due on the regular pay date or at the latest by the next  regular pay date following performance of overtime work.  (29 CFR 778.106.)   40. The regular rate of pay is not determined by agreement of the employer and employee,  but is as a matter of law set as an actual fact based upon the amounts typically paid for  the work performed.  This renders the rate set by Defendants, DOES 1 to 10, and each of  them irrelevant for the purposes of overtime determinations.  (29 CFR 778.108.)     41. It is unlawful and void for an employer and employee to agree to set rates of pay in a  manner designed to avoid overtime laws and regulation.  (29 CFR 778.316, 778.317,  778.500 [“Since the term regular rate is defined to include all remuneration for  employment … the overtime provisions of the act cannot be avoided by setting an  artificially low hourly rate upon which overtime pay is to be based and making up the  additional compensation due to employees by other means.”])   55. All prior paragraphs are incorporated by reference as though stated fully here.   56. Eight hours of labor constitutes a day’s work, and any work in excess of 8 hours in 1  workday and any work in excess of 40 hours in any one workweek and any work on the  seventh consecutive day shall be compensated at the rate of no less than one and one half  times the regular rate of pay for an employee.  Any work in excess of 12 hours in one  day, or in excess of 8 hours on the seventh consecutive day shall be compensated at the  rate of no less than twice the regular rate of pay for an employee.  (Labor Code § 510 and  IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001 (“Wage Order”) § 3(A).)   57. Plaintiff and class members are not exempt from California overtime rules of IWC Wage  Order No. 4-2001 because, among other things, they do not earn income in excess of the  amount required for exemption of employees in the computer software field.  (IWC Wage  Order 4-2001 § 1(A)(3)(h)(iv) [$41 per hour in 2001, subject to annual increase as  specified in the regulation].)  Additionally, Plaintiff was not a systems analyst or  similarly skilled professional, as pled above.   58. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that during all times relevant  to this action, many of Defendants' employees working as on site resident apartment  managers, including Plaintiff, worked more than 8 hours per workday on some occasions,  and/or more than 40 hours per workweek, and/or performed work on the seventh  consecutive day of working in an amount to be proven at trial, but did not receive any  overtime wages for overtime hours suffered or permitted to work.   65. All prior paragraphs are incorporated by reference as though stated fully here.     66. Defendants did not provide any accurate paystubs to Plaintiff or those similarly situated  at any time during the relevant statute of limitations because: (1) they did not disclose the  total hours worked; (2) they did not properly state gross or net income earned; (3) they  did not state the actual identity and address of the employer; (4) they did not correctly  state the hourly rates of regular or overtime pay.  As a result, each and every paystub  within the applicable statute of limitations was in violation of Labor Code § 226(a),  which sets forth the specific requirements for paystubs in California.   70. All prior paragraphs are incorporated by reference as though stated fully here.   71. The conduct by Defendants, DOES 1 to 10, and each of them, alleged herein was  unlawful, including failing pay overtime, willfully using True Up payments as an artifice  to lower or avoid overtime obligations, and failing to provide accurate paystubs.      72. Because of the scale of operations in California by Defendants, DOES 1 to 10, and each  of them, this wrongful behavior affects a meaningful group of Californians.  Specifically,  this wrongful behavior affected Plaintiff and class members by causing injury in fact  including to nonpayment of wages, denial of labor code rights, and nondisclosure of  hours worked and wages due.  Given that many or all of the class members, including  Plaintiff, are immigrants on an H1B visa, the behavior is repugnant in that it: (a) targets a  vulnerable population, and (b) violates the spirit of H1B visa rules by using manipulation  of immigrants’ labor rights to lower wages for that vulnerable group while also  depressing wages and job opportunity for U.S. Citizens by negatively impacting the  employment marketplace.   75. All prior paragraphs are incorporated by reference as though stated fully here.   76. The conduct by Defendants, DOES 1 to 10, and each of them, alleged herein was unfair  in a manner tethered to regulatory and statutory obligations under FLSA, Cal. Labor  Code, and IWC Wage Orders, including failing pay overtime, willfully using True Up  payments as an artifice to lower or avoid overtime obligations, and failing to provide  accurate paystubs.      80. All prior paragraphs are incorporated by reference as though stated fully here.   81. Plaintiff and class members had a right to all of the wages they earned in the course and  scope of their employment with Defendants, DOES 1 to 10, and each of them.  This  included but was not limited to their right to overtime wages.   82. Defendants, DOES 1 to 10, and each of them substantially interfered with Plaintiff’s and  the class members’ property by knowingly and intentionally taking possession of it after  it was earned, preventing Plaintiff and the class members from having access to their  money, and refusing to turn over the money owed to Plaintiff and the class members.   83. Plaintiff and the class members did not consent to the foregoing.   84. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff and the class members  sustained harm and attendant damages, including loss of income and loss of the use of  such income (interest).   BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE 17200 (UNLAWFUL PRONG)  BY ALL PLAINTIFF AND CALIFORNIA CLASS AGAINST   DEFENDANTS, DOES 1 TO 10, AND EACH OF THEM   BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE 17200 (UNFAIR PRONG)  BY PLAINTIFF AND CALIFORNIA CLASS AGAINST  DEFENDANTS, DOES 1 TO 10, AND EACH OF THEM   BY PLAINTIFF AND NATIONAL COMMON LAW CLASS AGAINST  DEFENDANTS, DOES 1 TO 10, AND EACH OF THEM   BY PLAINTIFF AND THE NATIONAL CLASS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS,   DOES 1 TO 10 AND EACH OF THEM   OVERTIME  BY PLAINTIFF AND THE CALIFORNIA CLASS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS,   DOES 1 TO 10 AND EACH OF THEM   STUBS IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 226 AND RELATED STATUTES  BY PLAINTIFF AND THE CALIFORNIA CLASS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS,   DOES 1 TO 10, AND EACH OF THEM   VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE § 204, 8 CCR §11040, AND RELATED  STATUTES  BY PLAINTIFF AND THE CALIFORNIA CLASS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS,  