17. Dutch Express is a contractor of Amazon which provides courier services for Amazon Prime  Now.    18. Amazon Prime Now is a website and mobile application where customers can place orders  for fast same-day delivery.    19. Plaintiff was hired by Dutch Express as a foot messenger on December 6, 2019, and currently  is still being employed by the latter.   20. Plaintiff’s job duties include performing delivery work for Amazon Prime Now.    21. Plaintiff was informed by Defendants that he would be paid $15/hour.    22. Plaintiff worked 5 days a week.    23. Plaintiff was paid on a weekly basis.     25. The work schedule given to Plaintiff was either 5:30 am – 1:30 pm, or 6:30 am – 2:30 pm, for 8  hours.    26. Plaintiff would report to work pursuant to the work schedule provided to him ahead of time.    27. The workers, including Plaintiff, were required to punch in when they reported to work, and  punch out when they left for the day.    28. Upon arrival, the workers, including Plaintiff, were required to wait for the packages given  to them for delivery.    29. However, pursuant to their company-wide policy, Defendants have not paid the workers,  including Plaintiff, for their waiting time.   30. When the first package was given to a worker, the worker would scan it with a phone  application Amazon Flex, which would create a time entry.    31. Defendants calculated the workers’ pay based on this time entry, and failed to pay for their  substantial waiting time.   32. The price paid by customers through Amazon Prime Now, by default, includes a tip.    33. However, Defendants retained the tips, in whole or in part, and failed to provide to the tips  to the workers, including Plaintiff.   34. The workers, including Plaintiff, use subway on a daily basis to perform delivery work in the  City of New York.   35. However, Defendants have failed to pay for the workers’ MetroCard expenses.    36. In fact, Defendants directly deducted MetroCard costs from the workers’ paychecks.    38. Defendants Hoed, Azogui, and Siso are owners of the corporate defendants. They each  excised operation control as it relates to all employees and former employees, including  Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class.    39. Defendants exploited the powerless delivery workers, including many immigrants and  homeless people who are afraid of speaking out, for profits.     40. Plaintiff brings FLSA claims on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons who work  or have worked for the defendants who elect to opt in to this action (the “FLSA Collective”).    41. The defendants are liable under the FLSA for, inter alia, failing to properly compensate  Plaintiff, and as such, notice should be sent to the FLSA Collective. There are many similarly  situated current and former employees of Defendants who have been underpaid in violation  of the FLSA who would benefit from the issuance of a court-supervised notice of the present  lawsuit and the opportunity to join in the present lawsuit. Those similarly situated  employees are known to Defendants, are readily identifiable, and can be located through  Defendants’ records.    42. Plaintiff also brings this action on behalf of himself and a class of persons under Rule 23 of  the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures.    43. The persons in the Rule 23 Class identified above are so numerous that joinder of all  members is impracticable. Although the precise number of such persons is unknown, the  facts on which the calculation of that number can be based are presently within the sole  control of Defendants.    44. The claims of Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the Rule 23 Class.    46. There are questions of law and fact common to the Rule 23 Class that predominate over any  questions solely affecting individual members of the Rule 23 Class, including but not limited  to:   (a) Whether Defendants have failed to keep true and accurate time records for all  hours worked by Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class;   (b) What proof of hours worked is sufficient where employer fails in its duty to  maintain true and accurate time records;   (c) Whether Defendants have failed to compensate Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class  for work performed in excess of 40 hours per workweek with proper wages as  required by law;   (d) Whether Defendants have failed to make spread of hours payments pursuant to  the NYLL;  (e) Whether Defendants have violated the statement and notice requirements under  the WTPA;  (f) The nature and extent of Rule 23 Class-wide injury and the appropriate measure  of damages for the class; and    47. The claims of Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the Rule 23 Class they seek to represent.  Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class work or have worked for Defendants in its wholesale business  and have not been paid proper wages for the hours that they have worked. Defendants have  acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Rule 23 Class, thereby  making declaratory relief with respect to the Rule 23 Class appropriate.    49. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of  this litigation – particularly in the context of a wage and hour litigation like the present  action, where individual plaintiffs may lack the financial resources to vigorously prosecute a  lawsuit in federal court against a company. The members of the Rule 23 Class have been  damaged and are entitled to recovery as a result of Defendants’ common and uniform  policies, practices, and procedures. Although the relative damages suffered by individual  Rule 23 Class Members are not de minimis, such damages are small compared to expense and  burden of individual prosecution of this litigation. In addition, class treatment is superior  because it will obviate the need for unduly duplicative litigation that might result in  inconsistent judgment against Defendants’ practices.    50. It has been Defendants’ persistent policy, pattern and practice to fail to pay its workers  wages they are entitled.    52. Defendants’ unlawful conduct has been widespread, repeated and consistent.   53. Plaintiffs realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in the preceding paragraphs  as if fully set forth herein.   54. Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees/former employees worked more hours than  those paid for by Defendants.     55. Defendants illegally withheld wages already earned by Plaintiff and other similarly situated  employees/former employees.    56. Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated workers wages for  hours worked in violation of 29 U.S.C. 206(a).    57. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in the preceding paragraphs  as if fully set forth herein.   58. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees/former  employees were employed by Defendants within the meaning of New York Labor Law §§2  and 651.    60. Defendants illegally withheld wages already earned by Plaintiff and other similarly situated  workers.    61. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated workers wages for hours  worked in violation of New York Labor Law Article 6.   62. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in the preceding paragraphs  as if fully set forth herein.   63. Defendants failed to pay minimum wages to Plaintiff and other similarly situated workers,  in violation of the FLSA.    64. As a result, Plaintiff and other similarly situated workers suffered damages.   65. Plaintiffs realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in the preceding paragraphs  as if fully set forth herein.   66. Defendants failed to pay minimum wages to Plaintiff and other similarly situated workers,  in violation of the NYLL.    67. As a result, Plaintiffs and other similarly situated workers suffered damages.   68. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in the preceding paragraphs  as if fully set forth herein.   69. Defendants willfully violated Plaintiff’s rights by failing to provide him with proper wage  notices and wage statements as required by the Wage Theft Prevention Act. The wage  notices and wage statements provided to Plaintiff were incorrect and misleading.     70. Defendants’ such illegal practices also applied to other similarly situated workers.   71. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in the preceding paragraphs  as if fully set forth herein.   72. Defendants unlawfully retained tips paid by customers to Plaintiff and other similarly  situated workers, in violation of the N.Y. Lab. Law §196-d.   73. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in the preceding paragraphs  as if fully set forth herein.   74. Defendants failed to reimburse expenses for the MetroCards used by Plaintiff and other  similarly situated workers, in violation of 29 U.S.C. §206(a) and 29 C.F.R. §531.35.    75. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in the preceding paragraphs  as if fully set forth herein.   76. Defendants failed to reimburse expenses for the MetroCards used by Plaintiff and other  similarly situated workers, in violation of N.Y. Lab. Law §§193 and 198-(b)(2).      Failure to Reimburse Expenses under the FLSA    Minimum Wage Under the FLSA   Minimum Wage Under the NYLL   Unlawful Retained Gratuities Under the NYLL    Unpaid Wages Under the FLSA   Unpaid Wages Under the NYLL  