60.  Plaintiffs bring the claims in this Complaint arising out of the NYLL under  Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of themselves and a class  consisting of all persons who have worked as waiters, busboys, bartenders, and runners  for defendants at Russell’s (the “waitstaff”) for the past six years (the “Rule 23 Class”)   61.  The waitstaff in the Rule 23 Class are so numerous that joinder of all  members is impracticable.    62.  Upon information and belief, the size of the Rule 23 Class is at least fifty  people, although the precise number of such employees is unknown.  Facts supporting  the calculation of that number are presently within the sole control of defendants.    64.  Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Rule 23 Class they seek to  represent.     65.  Plaintiffs and the members of the Rule 23 Class work or have worked for  defendants as waitstaff within the six years prior to the filing of this action.     66.  Plaintiffs and the members of the Rule 23 Class enjoy the same statutory  rights under the NYLL to be paid at the correct minimum wage rates, and to keep the  gratuities they earn.    67.  Plaintiffs and the members of the Rule 23 Class have sustained similar  types of damages as a result of defendants’ failure to comply with the NYLL.    68.  Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class have all been injured in that they have  been under-compensated due to defendants’ common policies, practices, and patterns  of conduct.    70.  Plaintiffs have retained counsel competent and experienced in wage and  hour litigation and class action litigation.    71.  There is no conflict between the plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class members.    72.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and  efficient adjudication of this litigation.     73.   The members of the Rule 23 Class have been damaged and are entitled to  recovery as a result of defendants’ common policies, practices, and procedures.     74.  Although the relative damages suffered by the individual class members  are not de minimis, such damages are small compared to the expense and burden of  individual prosecution of this litigation.     75.  Individual plaintiffs lack the financial resources necessary to conduct a  thorough examination of defendants’ compensation practices and to prosecute  vigorously a lawsuit against defendants to recover such damages.     76.  In addition, class action litigation is superior because it will obviate the  need for unduly duplicative litigation that might result in inconsistent judgments about  defendants’ practices.    77.  This action is properly maintainable as a class action under Rule 23(b)(3)  of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  79.  The FLSA Collective consist of over fifty waitstaff who have been victims  of defendants’ common policy and practices that have violated their rights under the  FLSA by, inter alia, willfully denying them minimum wages and unlawfully  misappropriating portions of the waitstaff’s tips.    80.  The FLSA Collective consist of persons who, during their employment  with defendants, worked as servers, bussers, runners, and bartenders and fell into the  category of non-exempt, non-managerial tipped employees who customarily and  regularly earned more than $30 per month in tips.     81.  As part of their regular business practices, defendants have intentionally,  willfully, and repeatedly harmed waitstaff by engaging in a pattern, practice, and/or  policy of violating the FLSA and NYLL.  This policy and pattern or practice includes,  inter alia, the following:  a. failing to keep accurate records of hours worked by the FLSA  Collective as required by the FLSA and the NYLL;  b. failing to notify the FLSA Collective that defendants were taking a “tip  credit” against their wages;  c. failing to pay the FLSA Collective minimum wages for all hours  worked;  d. depriving the FLSA Collective of portions of their tips earned;   e. requiring the FLSA Collective to pay for customer walkouts and/or  other mistakes; and  f. requiring the FLSA Collective to pay for their uniform vests without  providing reimbursement of costs for their purchase or laundering.     82.  Defendants have engaged in their unlawful conduct pursuant to a  corporate policy of minimizing labor costs and denying employees their compensation.   84.  The FLSA Collective would benefit from the issuance of a court- supervised notice of the present lawsuit and the opportunity to join the present lawsuit.     85.  Those similarly situated employees are known to Russell’s and are readily  identifiable and locatable through the records of Russell’s.     86.  Those similarly situated employees should be notified of and allowed to  opt into this action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).  87.  Throughout plaintiffs’ employment, defendants paid the waitstaff at the  reduced tipped employee minimum hourly wage rate.    88.  Defendants did not provide waitstaff with written or oral notices stating  defendants’ intention to take a “tip credit” against plaintiffs’ wages.    89.  The waitstaff’s weekly wage statements did not reflect the amounts that  defendants purportedly claimed to take as a tip credit against their wages.    90.  For example, for the workweek of January 4 to 10, 2016, plaintiff Dowd  worked 28.82 hours and was paid at the reduced hourly minimum wage rate of $7.50.    91.  For that workweek, defendants did not pay Dowd at the full hourly  minimum wage rate of $9.00.     92.  Dowd’s paystub for that workweek, as well as her paystubs from every  workweek throughout her employment, do not reflect the amounts that defendants  claim to have taken as a tip credit against her wages.      94.  For that workweek, defendants did not pay Silvaroli at the full hourly  minimum wage rate of $8.75.     95.  Silvaroli’s paystub for that workweek, as well as her paystubs from every  workweek throughout her employment, do not reflect the amounts that defendants  claim to have taken as a tip credit against her wages.   Defendants’ Unlawful Misappropriation of Waitstaff Tips   96.  Throughout a significant portion of plaintiffs’ employment, defendants  employed, and continue to employ, a dining room manager named Santino.    97.  Throughout Santino’s employment at Russell’s, each waitstaff member,  including plaintiffs, was required to give $3.00 per night of his or her tips to Santino.    98.  Until approximately January 2016, Santino was paid on a salary basis.    Defendants’ Failure to Pay Waitstaff the Full Minimum Wage Rate  