17.  The business of Defendants and their affiliates consists of manufacturing,  delivering, and selling breads and baked goods to grocery stores and other outlets across the  United States under the brand names Sara Lee, Nature’s Harvest, and others.     19.  Defendants and their affiliates operate out of several terminals in New York,  including warehouses in Watertown and Canton, New York.      20.  Defendants and their affiliates have employed several hundred individuals in New  York since April 10, 2014 to deliver baked goods products in New York.   21.  Plaintiffs and other individuals who perform this work are designated as independent  contractors, as opposed to employees of Defendants. They are referred to by Defendants as  Distributors (“Distributors”).    22.  Bimbo asserts on its website that it is the “[o]nly commercial bakery manufacturer  to serve all 50 states,” and that it is “a leader in the baking industry, known for its category  leading brands, innovative products, freshness and quality,” and that it “operates more than 60  bakeries, employs more than 22,000 associates and distributes products through 11,000 sales  routes throughout the United States.”   23.  Plaintiffs and other Distributors deliver Defendants’ baked goods and other Bimbo  products to retailers and other customers, thereby providing an integral service to the baked goods  business of Bimbo and its affiliates and performing their work within Defendants’ usual course  of business.   25.  The duties of Plaintiffs and other Distributors entail operating commercial motor  vehicles that have a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,001 pounds within New York to  transport commercial goods.  At times, Plaintiffs also operate vehicles weighing less than 10,000  pounds for more than a de minimis period of time because, for example, Plaintiffs and others  often visit stores in their personal vehicles to drop off small orders of products and to arrange  displays.   26.  Defendants compensate Plaintiffs and other Distributors for delivering  Defendants’ products, based on a formula that is unilaterally determined by Defendants and takes  into account the number and types of products that are delivered and sold.   27.  Defendants treat Distributors as independent contractors, claiming that they are  not entitled to the protections of the New York Labor Laws.   28.  In addition, the use by Defendants of Distributors allows Defendants to reduce  their normal business expenses, and to reduce the burdens on their employees, and to shift those  burdens to Distributors without additional compensation and by deducting amounts from the  Distributors pay.    29.  In order to work for Defendants, Plaintiffs and other Distributors were required to  pay a substantial sum of money to purchase purported “Distribution Rights” and then enter into a  “Distributor Agreement” with Defendants.  Most Distributors finance these purchases through loans  facilitated by Defendants.   30.  The terms and conditions of each Distributor’s Distributor Agreement are the  same in all material respects.    48.  Plaintiffs bring this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of  all individuals who, either individually or through a corporate entity, personally deliver or have  delivered Defendants’ products in New York pursuant to a Distributor Agreement since April 10,  2014.   49.  The members of the class are so numerous that joinder of all of them is  impracticable, and treatment of a class action is the superior method to adjudicate the class  members’ claims.  Upon information and belief, there are approximately fifty members of the  putative class.   50.  There are issues of law and fact common to all class members because  Defendants have misclassified them as independent contractors rather than as employees and  have unlawfully deprived them of the wage treatment and benefits accorded employees. These  questions of law and fact predominate over any questions affecting only individual class  members.   51.  The named plaintiffs and class counsel will fairly and adequately represent the  interests of the class.  53.  Plaintiffs and other putative class members are Defendants’ employees, as defined  by N.Y. Lab. Law § 862 (the New York State Commercial Goods Transportation Industry Fair  Play Act).   54.  Defendants routinely diverted, withheld, and deducted amounts from the wages of  Plaintiffs and other Distributors.   55.  These deductions constituted a violation of N.Y. Lab. Law § 193.  56.  Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation above as if restated herein  verbatim.   57.  Plaintiffs and other putative class members are Defendants’ employees, as defined  by N.Y. Lab. Law § 862 (the New York State Commercial Goods Transportation Industry Fair  Play Act).   59.  Defendants failed to supply Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class with an accurate  statement of wages as required by N.Y. Lab. Law § 195, containing the dates of work covered by  that payment of wages; name of employee; name of employer; address and phone number of  employer; rate or rates of pay and basis thereof; whether paid by the hour, shift, day, week, salary,  piece, commission, or other; gross wages; hourly rate or rates of pay and overtime rate or rates of  pay if applicable; the number of hours worked, including overtime hours worked if applicable;  deductions; and net wages.   60.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated drivers are entitled to damages of $50 for each  workweek that Defendants failed to provide a wage notice, or a total of $2,500 per class member,  and damages of $100 for each workweek that Defendants failed to provide accurate wage  statements, or a total of 2,500 per class member, as provided for by N.Y. Lab. Law § 198,  reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and injunctive and declaratory relief.   61.  Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation above as if restated herein  verbatim.   62.  Plaintiffs and other putative class members are Defendants’ employees, as defined  by N.Y. Lab. Law § 862 (the New York State Commercial Goods Transportation Industry Fair  Play Act).   63.  Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed Rule 23 class routinely worked in excess  of forty (40) hours per workweek for Defendants.   N.Y LABOR LAW § 193 - UNLAWFUL WITHHOLDING AND   DEDUCTIONS FROM WAGES  (INDIVIDUAL AND CLASS ACTION)   N.Y. LABOR LAW § 650, et seq. – FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES  (INDIVIDUAL AND CLASS ACTION)   N.Y. LABOR LAW § 195 - NOTICE AND RECORD-KEEPING REQUIREMENT  VIOLATION  (INDIVIDUAL AND CLASS ACTION)  