20.  Plaintiff seeks to bring this suit to recover from Defendants unpaid overtime  compensation and liquidated damages pursuant to the applicable provisions of the FLSA, 29  U.S.C. § 216(b), individually, on his own behalf, as well as on behalf of those in the following  collective:  Current and former hourly employees, who during the applicable  FLSA limitations period, performed any work for Defendants, and  who consent to file a claim to recover damages for overtime  compensation, as well as liquidated damages, which are legally due  to them (“FLSA Plaintiffs”).   21.  Defendants treated Plaintiff and all FLSA Plaintiffs similarly in that Plaintiff and  all FLSA Plaintiffs: (1) performed similar tasks, as described in the “Background Facts” section  below; (2) were subject to the same laws and regulations; (3) were paid in the same or similar  manner; (4) were required to work in excess of forty hours in a workweek; and (5) were not paid  7  the required one and one-half times their respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked per  workweek in excess of forty.    22.  At all relevant times, Defendants are and have been aware of the requirements to  pay Plaintiff and FLSA Plaintiffs at an amount equal to the rate of one and one-half times their  respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked each workweek above forty, yet they  purposefully and willfully chose and choose not to do so.  Thus, all FLSA Plaintiffs are victims to  Defendants’ pervasive practice of willfully refusing to pay their employees overtime compensation  for all hours worked per workweek above forty in violation of the FLSA.  23.  In addition, Plaintiff seeks to maintain this action as a class action pursuant to FRCP  23(b)(3), individually, on his own behalf, as well as on the behalf of those who are similarly  situated whom, during the applicable limitations period, Defendants also subjected to violations of  the NYLL and NYCRR.   24.  Under FRCP 23(b)(3), Plaintiff must plead that:  a. The class is so numerous that joinder is impracticable;  b. There are questions of law or fact common to the class that predominate over any  individual questions of law or fact;  c. Claims or defenses of the representative are typical of the class;  d. The representative will fairly and adequately protect the class; and  e. A class action is superior to other methods of adjudication.   25.  Plaintiff seeks certification of the following FRCP 23 class:  Current and former hourly employees of Defendants who, at any  time during the applicable NYLL limitations period, performed any  work for Defendants within the State of New York (“Rule 23  Plaintiffs”).  8  Numerosity   26.  During the NYLL Statutory Period Defendants have, in total, employed at least  forty employees that are putative members of this class.  Common Questions of Law and/or Fact   27.  There are questions of law and fact common to each and every Rule 23 Plaintiff  that predominate over any questions solely affecting individual members of the FRCP 23 Class,  including but not limited to the following: (1) the duties that Defendants required and require each  Rule 23 Plaintiff to perform; (2) the manner of compensating each Rule 23 Plaintiff; (3) whether  Rule 23 Plaintiffs worked and work in excess of forty hours per week; (4) whether Defendants  failed or fail to pay Rule 23 Plaintiffs at the statutorily required rate of one and one-half times their  respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek; (5)  whether Defendants furnished and furnish Rule 23 Plaintiffs with accurate wage statements on  each payday containing the information that NYLL § 195(3) requires; (6) whether Defendants  furnished and furnish Rule 23 Plaintiffs with accurate wage notices upon hire containing the  information that NYLL § 195(1) requires; (7) whether Defendants kept and maintained accurate  records of hours that Rule 23 Plaintiffs worked; (8) whether Defendants kept and maintained  records with respect to the compensation that they paid to the Rule 23 Plaintiffs; (9) whether  Defendants have any affirmative defenses to any of the Rule 23 Plaintiffs’ claims; (10) whether  Defendants’ actions with respect to the Rule 23 Plaintiffs were in violation of the NYLL and the  NYCRR; and (11) if so, what constitutes the proper measure of damages.  9  Typicality of Claims and/or Defenses   28.  As described in the “Background Facts” section below, Defendants employed  and/or employ Plaintiff and Rule 23 Plaintiffs within the meaning of the NYLL.  Plaintiff’s claims  are typical of the claims of the Rule 23 Plaintiffs whom he seeks to represent, as the Rule 23  Plaintiffs work and/or have worked for Defendants as hourly employees, and Defendants failed  and fail to: (1) pay them overtime pay at one and one-half times their straight-time wage for all  hours worked in a week over forty; (2) provide them with accurate wage statements on each  payday; and (3) provide them with any wage notice upon hire.     29.  Plaintiff and Rule 23 Plaintiffs have all sustained similar types of damages as a  result of Defendants’ failure to comply with the NYLL and NYCRR.  Plaintiff and the Rule 23  Plaintiffs all have suffered injury, including lack of compensation or under-compensation, due to  Defendants’ common policies, practices, and patterns of conduct.  Thus, Plaintiff’s claims and/or  Defendants’ defenses to those claims are typical of the Rule 23 Plaintiffs’ claims and/or  Defendants’ defenses to those claims.  Adequacy   30.  Plaintiff, as described below, worked the same or similar hours as the Rule 23  Plaintiffs throughout his employment with Defendants.  Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at the  statutorily required rate of one and one-half times his regular hourly wage for all hours worked  over forty in a week, did not furnish Plaintiff with accurate wage statements on each payday, and  did not furnish Plaintiff with a wage notice upon hire, which is substantially similar to how  Defendants paid and treated the Rule 23 Plaintiffs.  Plaintiff fully anticipates providing discovery  responses and testifying under oath as to all of the matters raised in this Complaint and that will  10  be raised in Defendants’ Answer.  Thus, Plaintiff would properly and adequately represent the  current and former employees whom Defendants have subject to the treatment alleged herein.   31.  Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel has substantial experience in this field of law.  Superiority   32.  Plaintiff has no, or very few, material facts relating to the Rule 23 Plaintiffs’ claims  that are atypical of those of the putative class.  Indeed, at all relevant times herein, Defendants  treated Plaintiff identically, or at the very least, substantially similarly, to the Rule 23 Plaintiffs.    33.  Any lawsuit brought by an employee of Defendants would be identical to a suit  brought by any other employee for these same violations.  Thus, separate litigation would risk  inconsistent results.    34.  Accordingly, this means of protecting Rule 23 Plaintiffs’ rights is superior to any  other method, and this action is properly maintainable as a class action under FRCP 23(b)(3).  35.  Subject to the time periods pertaining to the transferring of ownership between the  two entity Defendants as explained above in the paragraphs below, Defendants Anthem and AAT  are two privately-owned entities that install(ed), lease(d), and perform(ed) maintenance services  on special effects equipment, servicing venues, clubs, and events throughout New York City,  primarily in Manhattan, as well as out-of-state locations such as Florida, California, Nevada,  Illinois, and Texas.     36.  From the beginning of all relevant times herein until on or about January 1, 2016,  Defendants Poulos, Lodi, and Ojeda owned, operated, and/or managed Defendant AAT,  overseeing its operations on a daily basis, and were ultimately responsible for all matters with  11  respect to hiring, firing, and disciplining AAT’s employees, as well as determining employees’  rates and methods of pay and hours worked.   37.  From at least January 16, 2013 to the present, Defendant Poulos has owned,  operated, and/or managed Defendant Anthem, overseeing its operations on a daily basis, and being  ultimately responsible for all matters with respect to hiring, firing, and disciplining Anthem’s  employees, as well as determining employees’ rates and methods of pay and hours worked.   38.  On or about January 1, 2016, Defendants Lodi and Ojeda sold their ownership  shares of AAT to Defendant Poulos, who then merged AAT’s business into Anthem, which as the  successor entity of Defendant AAT, assumed liability for all debts, legal obligations, and claims  against it.   39.  Defendants employed Plaintiff to work as an hourly audio technician first at AAT  and then at Anthem, collectively, from in or about April 2014 to on or about August 28, 2017.   Defendants Poulos, Lodi, and Ojeda hired him.  Throughout his employment, Plaintiff’s primary  duties consisted of installing audio systems, sound systems, and point of sale systems at business  venues, clubs, and restaurants throughout New York as well as out of state.     40.  From the start of his employment in April 2014 until in or around August 2015,  Defendants AAT, Poulos, Lodi, and Ojeda paid Plaintiff a straight-time rate of $20.00 per hour  and an overtime rate of $30.00 per hour for hours worked in excess of forty-five per week.     41.  From in or around September 2015 until his termination in or around December  2017, first Defendants AAT, Poulos, Lodi, and Ojeda, and then after the sale, Defendants Anthem  and Poulos paid Plaintiff a straight-time rate of $24.00 per hour and an overtime rate of $36.00 per  hour for hours worked in excess of forty-five per week.    12   42.  Throughout his employment, Defendants usually required Plaintiff to work, and  Plaintiff did work, from forty-five to sixty hours per week from 6:00 or 7:00 a.m. to at least 5:00  p.m. each day, for at least five days a week.  Occasionally, when completing complex installation  projects, Defendants required Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did work, as many as seventy to ninety  hours in a week.    43.  By way of example only, during the week of December 5 through December 11,  2016, Defendants required Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did work, five days, for at least fourteen  hours each day, for a total of 70.90 hours.     44.  In exchange for his work, Defendants paid Plaintiff, as they paid all FLSA Plaintiffs  and Rule 23 Plaintiffs pursuant to the same policy or practice, overtime at the rate of time and one- half his straight-time rate only for those hours that Plaintiff worked per week in excess of forty- five.  Thus, for the hours that Plaintiff worked per week between forty and forty-five, Defendants  paid Plaintiff at his straight-time rate only.  This occurred during each week of Plaintiff’s  employment.   45.  For example, during the week of December 5 through December 11, 2016 when, as  described above, Plaintiff worked 70.90 hours, Defendants should have paid Plaintiff for forty  hours at his straight time rate of $24.00, or $960.00, and for 30.9 hours at his overtime rate of  $36.00, or $1,112.40, for a total of $2,072.40 for this week.  Yet, instead, for this week, Defendants  paid Plaintiff for forty-five hours at his straight hourly wage, or $1,080.00, and 25.9 hours at his  overtime hourly rate, or $900.00, for a total of $2,012.40, which is $60.00 less than what Plaintiff  should have received for that workweek.   46.  By way of a second example, during the week of September 21 through September  27, 2015, Defendants required Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did work a total of sixty hours and  13  forty-five minutes.  For this work, Defendants should have paid Plaintiff for forty hours at his  straight time rate of $24.00, or $960.00, and for twenty hours and forty-five minutes at his overtime  rate of $36.00, or $747.00, for a total of $1,707.00 for this week.  Yet, Defendants paid Plaintiff  for forty-five hours at his straight hourly wage, or $1,080.00, and fifteen hours and forty-five  minutes at his overtime hourly rate, or $567.00, for a total of $1,647.00, which, as in the above  paragraph, is $60.00 less than what Plaintiff should have received for that workweek.   47.   Defendants paid Plaintiff on a weekly basis.   48.  On each occasion when they paid Plaintiff, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff  with a wage statement that accurately listed, inter alia, his straight and overtime pay for all hours  worked for that week, computed at the proper rates of pay for every hour worked.   49.  Upon hire, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with any wage notice, let alone  one containing that accurately contained, inter alia, the rates of pay and basis thereof, whether  paid by the hour, shift, day, week, salary, piece, commission, or other, allowances claimed, or the  regular pay day on which he would be paid.    50.  Defendants treated Plaintiff, FLSA Plaintiffs, and Rule 23 Plaintiffs in the same  manner described herein.   51.  Defendants acted in this manner to maximize their profits and minimize their labor  costs and overhead.   52.  Each hour that Plaintiff, FLSA Plaintiffs, and Rule 23 Plaintiffs worked was for  Defendants’ benefit.   53.  Plaintiff and FLSA Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate, and re-allege each and every  allegation set forth above with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein.   14   54.  29 U.S.C. § 207(a) requires employers to compensate their employees at a rate not  less than one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked exceeding forty in  a workweek.   55.  As described above, Defendants are employers within the meaning of the FLSA,  while Plaintiff and FLSA Plaintiffs are employees within the meaning of the FLSA.   56.  As also described above, Plaintiff and FLSA Plaintiffs worked in excess of forty  hours in a workweek, yet Defendants failed to compensate them in accordance with the FLSA’s  overtime provisions.   57.  Defendants willfully violated the FLSA.   58.  Plaintiff and FLSA Plaintiffs are entitled to overtime pay for all hours worked per  week in excess of forty at the rate of one and one-half times their respective regular rates of pay.    59.  Plaintiff and FLSA Plaintiffs are also entitled to liquidated damages and attorneys’  fees for Defendants’ violations of the FLSA’s overtime provisions.  60.  Plaintiff, Rule 23 Plaintiffs, and any FLSA Plaintiff who opts-into this action,  repeat, reiterate, and re-allege each and every allegation set forth above with the same force and  effect as if more fully set forth herein.   61.  NYLL § 160 and 12 NYCRR § 142-2.2 require employers to compensate their  employees at a rate not less than one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours  worked exceeding forty in a workweek.   62.  As described above, Defendants are employers within the meaning of the NYLL  and the NYCRR, while Plaintiff, Rule 23 Plaintiffs, and any FLSA Plaintiff who opts-into this  action, are employees within the meaning of the NYLL and the NYCRR.  15   63.  As also described above, Plaintiff, Rule 23 Plaintiffs, and any FLSA Plaintiff who  opts-into this action, worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek, yet Defendants failed to  compensate them in accordance with the NYLL’s and the NYCRR’s overtime provisions.   64.  Plaintiff, Rule 23 Plaintiffs, and any FLSA Plaintiff who opts-into this action, are  entitled to their overtime pay for all hours worked per week in excess of forty at the rate of one  and one-half times their respective regular rates of pay.   65.  Plaintiff, Rule 23 Plaintiffs, and any FLSA Plaintiff who opts-into this action, are  also entitled to liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees for Defendants’ violations of the  NYLL’s and the NYCRR’s overtime provisions.   66.  Plaintiff, Rule 23 Plaintiffs, and any FLSA Plaintiff who opts-into this action,  repeat, reiterate, and re-allege each and every allegation set forth above with the same force and  effect as if more fully set forth herein.   67.  NYLL § 195(3) requires that employers furnish employees with wage statements  containing accurate, specifically enumerated criteria on each occasion when the employer pays  wages to the employee.   68.  As described above, Defendants, on each payday, failed to furnish Plaintiff, Rule  23 Plaintiffs, and any FLSA Plaintiff who opts-into this action, with accurate wage statements  containing all of the criteria required under the NYLL.   69.  Prior to February 27, 2015, pursuant to NYLL § 198(1-d), Defendants are liable to  Plaintiff, Rule 23 Plaintiffs, and any FLSA Plaintiff who opts-into this action, in the amount of  $100 for each workweek after the violation occurred, up to a statutory cap of $2,500.  16   70.  On or after February 27, 2015, pursuant to NYLL § 198(1-d), Defendants are liable  to Plaintiff, Rule 23 Plaintiffs, and any FLSA Plaintiff who opts-into this action, in the amount of  $250 for each workday after the violation occurred, up to a statutory cap of $5,000.  Failure to Furnish Proper Wage Statements in Violation of the NYLL   Unpaid Overtime Under the NYLL and the NYCRR   Unpaid Overtime Under the FLSA  