29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a)(1)(C), 216(b) - Failure to Pay Minimum Wage  101.  Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all preceding paragraphs of the Complaint inclusive,  as if fully set forth herein.  102.  At all relevant times, Defendants together constituted a single integrated  enterprise that was engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the  meaning of the FLSA.  103.  Alternatively, Defendants were associated and joint employers within the  meaning of the FLSA  104.  At all relevant times, Defendants employed Plaintiffs within the meaning of the  29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a)(1)(C), 216(b) - Failure to Pay Minimum Wage  29 U.S.C. §§ 207, 216(b) - Failure to Pay Overtime Wages  167.  Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all preceding paragraphs of the Complaint inclusive,  as if fully set forth herein.  168.  At all relevant times, Defendants together have constituted a single integrated  enterprise that was engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the  meaning of the FLSA.  169.  Alternatively, Defendants have been associated and joint employers of Plaintiffs  and members of the putative collective within the meaning of the FLSA.  25  170.  At all relevant times, Defendants employed Plaintiffs and members of the putative  collective within the meaning of the FLSA.  171.  Plaintiffs and members of the putative collective are non-exempt employees  within the meaning of the FLSA.  172.  Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and the members of the putative collective at  least the federal statutory minimum wage for all hours worked, as required under the FLSA.  173.  Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and the members of the putative collective  time-and-a-half for all hours worked each week in excess of forty, as required under the FLSA.  174.  Defendants’ conduct and practices, described herein, were/are willful, intentional,  unreasonable, arbitrary and in bad faith.  175.  Because Defendants willfully violated the FLSA, a three-year statute of  limitations applies to such violation, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 255.  176.  As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs and members of the putative collective  were illegally denied proper compensation earned, in such amounts to be determined at trial, and  are entitled to recovery of total unpaid amounts, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs,  reasonable attorney’s fees and other compensation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).  29 U.S.C. §§ 207, 216(b) - Failure to Pay Overtime Wages  112.  Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all preceding paragraphs of the Complaint inclusive,  as if fully set forth herein.  18  113.  At all relevant times, Defendants together constituted a single integrated  enterprise that was engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the  meaning of the FLSA.  114.  Alternatively, Defendants were associated and joint employers within the  meaning of the FLSA  115.  At all relevant times, Defendants employed Plaintiffs within the meaning of the  33.  Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all preceding paragraphs of the Complaint inclusive,  as if fully set forth herein.   34.  At all relevant times, the Individual Defendants, acting through the Corporate  Defendants, have operated the Diners.   35.  At all relevant times, Defendants’ operations have been interrelated and unified.   36.  At all relevant times, the Diners have shared a common management, and have  been centrally controlled and/or owned by Defendants.  7   37.  At all relevant times, Defendants have centrally controlled the labor and  employment relations of the Diners.   38.  At all relevant times, Defendants have maintained one central payroll office, and  have imposed and enforced common employee guidelines and procedures in both Diners.   39.  At all relevant times, Defendants have maintained control, oversight, and  direction over Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees at both Diners, including  timekeeping, payroll, and other practices and policies that applied to them.   40.  At all relevant times, Defendants have applied the same employment policies,  practices, and procedures to all their non-exempt workers at both Diners, including the policies,  practices, and procedures complained of herein.   41.  At all relevant times, Defendants have constituted a single integrated enterprise  that employed Plaintiffs and all similarly situated individuals.   42.  In the alternative, at all relevant times, Defendants have been associated and joint  employers of Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals at both Diners, within the  meaning of the FLSA and the NYLL.   43.  At all relevant times, Defendants acted in the interests of each other with regard to  their employees, paid their employees by the same methods, and shared control over their  employees.   44.  At all relevant times, Defendants have:  a. exercised or delegated the authority to hire and fire Plaintiffs and other  similarly situated employees;  b. supervised and controlled the work schedules of Plaintiffs and other similarly  situated employees;   c. determined the rate and method of payment for Plaintiffs and other similarly  situated employees; and  8  d. maintained time and payroll records pertaining to Plaintiffs and other similarly  situated employees.  Plaintiff Lima   45.  Plaintiff Lima began working for Defendants sometime in 2007. He was  terminated on or about January 11, 2015.   46.  Defendants never provided Plaintiff Lima a written notice, in English and  Spanish, containing the information enumerated in NYLL § 195(1)(a).   47.  Plaintiff Lima worked for Defendants as a cook at the Mohegan Diner.   48.  While employed by Defendants, Plaintiff Lima did not perform any job duties  typical of exempt employees.   49.  While employed by Defendants, Plaintiff Lima performed only job duties typical  of non-exempt employees.   50.  Plaintiff Lima generally worked six days per week (every day except  Wednesdays) for twelve hours per day, for a total of seventy-two hours per week.   51.  During 2010, Plaintiff Lima was paid $500 per week, meaning he was paid at an  effective rate of $6.94 per hour for his typical workweek of seventy-two hours. The statutory  minimum wage at the time, under both federal and New York law, was $7.25 per hour.   52.  At some point in 2011 a co-worker at the Mohegan Diner complained to the  Department of Labor. An investigation ensued and, following that investigation, Defendants  temporarily eliminated overtime hours for Plaintiff Lima and most, if not all, of his co-workers.   53.  By 2012 Plaintiff Lima was once again working, on average, seventy-two hours  per week – still for $500.   54.  Sometime in 2013 Plaintiff Lima’s pay was raised to $550 per week, or an  effective rate of $7.64 per hour for his typical workweek of seventy-two hours.   9   55.  By 2014, Plaintiff Lima was being paid $600 per week, or an effective rate of  $8.33 per hour for his typical workweek of seventy-two hours. On December 31, 2014, the New  York statutory minimum wage was increased to $8.75 per hour.   56.  Plaintiff Lima’s pay remained at $600 per week until he was terminated on or  about January 11, 2015.   57.  Except for the brief period in 2011 following the New York Department of  Labor’s investigation at the Mohegan Diner, Plaintiff Lima worked more than forty hours  virtually every week he worked.   58.   He was never paid time-and-a-half for hours he worked in excess of forty in a  week, as required under the FLSA and the NYLL.   59.  Plaintiff Lima worked more than ten hours virtually every day that he worked. He  was never paid an additional hour’s worth of pay at the minimum wage rate, as required under  83.  Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all preceding paragraphs of the Complaint inclusive,  as if fully set forth herein.   84.  During the time Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants, other individuals were  employed in non-exempt positions at the Diners.  13   85.  Like Plaintiffs, some of these other employees would sometimes work over forty  hours per week.   86.  Like Plaintiffs, some of these other employees would sometimes work days in  which their spread of hours exceeded ten.   87.  Plaintiffs and these other employees were not paid time-and-a-half for overtime,  nor were they paid spread-of-hours pay.   88.  At all relevant times, Plaintiffs and other persons employed by Defendants in non- exempt positions were and are similarly situated, in that they were and are subjected to  Defendants’ common policies of: failing to pay their employees at least the New York statutory  minimum wage, whether with or without the “tip credit,” for all hours worked; failing to pay  their non-exempt employees time-and-a-half for all hours worked in excess of forty as required  under the FLSA and the NYLL; failing to pay their non-exempt employees one additional hour  of pay at the basic minimum hourly rate on those days when their spread of hours exceeded ten,  as required under the NYLL; failing to provide to their non-exempt employees, within ten  business days of the commencement of their respective employments, a written notice containing  the information enumerated in NYLL § 195(1)(a); and/or failing to provide to their non-exempt  employees, with every payment of wages, written statements containing the information required  by NYLL § 195(3).   89.  Plaintiffs bring their FLSA claims as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C.  § 216(b), on behalf of themselves and all other current and former non-exempt employees of  Defendants within the applicable statutory period.   90.  The proposed FLSA Collective is defined as:  All non-managerial employees of JONMAROS FOOD CORP. (d/b/a the  MOHEGAN DINER), ABC CORPORATION (d/b/a the CARMEL DINER),  14  JOHN ARGYROS, MARIA ARGYROS, and/or JOHN DOES 1-5 at the  Diners at any time within the three years prior to the filing of this Complaint.   91.  Plaintiffs bring their NYLL claims as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal  Rules of Civil Procedure and the NYLL, on behalf of themselves and all other current and  former non-exempt employees of Defendants within the applicable statutory period.    92.  The proposed Rule 23 Class is defined as:   All non-managerial employees of JONMAROS FOOD CORP. (d/b/a the  MOHEGAN DINER), ABC CORPORATION (d/b/a the CARMEL DINER),  JOHN ARGYROS, MARIA ARGYROS, and/or JOHN DOES 1-5 at the  Diners at any time within the six years prior to the filing of this Complaint.   93.  This action is properly brought as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal  Rules of Civil Procedure.   94.  The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. While the  exact number and identities of class members are unknown at this time and can only be  ascertained through appropriate discovery, Plaintiffs believe that at least forty class members  have worked for Defendants at the Diners during the applicable statutory period without  receiving appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and/or spread-of-hours compensation, as  required by the NYLL.   95.  This litigation is properly brought as a class action because of the existence of  questions of fact and law common to the class which predominate over any questions affecting  only individual members, namely whether Defendants are liable for failure to pay Plaintiffs and  other members of the putative class at least the statutory New York minimum wage, whether  tipped or untipped, for all hours worked; whether Defendants are liable for failure to pay  Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class time-and-a-half for hours worked each week in  excess of forty; whether Defendants are liable for failure to pay Plaintiffs and other members of  15  the putative class for failure to pay Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class one  additional hour of pay at the basic minimum hourly rate on those days when their spread of hours  exceeded ten; for failure to provide to Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class, within  ten business days of the commencement of their respective employments, a written notice  containing the information enumerated in NYLL § 195(1)(a); and for failure to provide to  Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class, with every payment of wages, accurate written  statements containing the information required by NYLL § 195(3).   96.  This litigation is properly brought as a class action because Plaintiffs’ claims are  typical of the claims of the members of the class, inasmuch as all such claims arise from  Defendants’ standard policies and/or practices, as alleged herein. Like all class members,  Plaintiffs were damaged by Defendants’ common policies of failing to pay proper compensation  for all hours worked, and failing to provide timely and accurate notices and statements as  required under NYLL §§ 195(1) and 195(3).   97.  Plaintiffs have no interests antagonistic to the interests of the other members of  the class. Plaintiffs are committed to the vigorous prosecution of this action and have retained  competent counsel experienced in class action litigation. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are adequate  representatives and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.   98.  A class action is an appropriate and superior method for the fair and efficient  adjudication of the present controversy given the following factors:  a. Common questions of law and/or fact predominate over any individual  questions which may arise, and, accordingly, there would accrue significant  savings to both the Court and the class in litigating the common issues on a  classwide instead of on a repetitive individual basis;  b. Because of the relatively small size of individual class members’ claims, class  treatment would provide economies of scale that will enable this case to be  litigated on a cost-effective basis, when compared with repetitive individual  litigation; and  16  c. No unusual difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this  class action in that all questions of law and/or fact to be litigated at the  liability stage of this action are common to the class.   99.  Class certification is also fair and efficient because prosecution of separate actions  by individual class members would create a risk of differing adjudications with respect to such  individual members of the class, which as a practical matter may be dispositive of the interests of  other members not parties to the adjudication, or substantially impair or impede the ability of  those other parties to protect their interests.  100.  Plaintiffs anticipate that there will be no difficulty in the management of this  litigation. This litigation presents FLSA and NYLL claims of a type that have often been  prosecuted on a classwide basis, and the class may be easily identified, and any recovery may be  easily provided to its members, using Defendants’ records.  Defendants Constitute A Single Integrated Enterprise  That Jointly Employed Plaintiffs And All Similarly Situated Individuals   NYCRR § 142-2.2 - Failure to Pay Overtime Wages  132.  Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all preceding paragraphs of the Complaint inclusive,  as if fully set forth herein.  133.  At all relevant times, Defendants employed Plaintiffs within the meaning of the  NYCRR § 142-2.4 - Failure to Pay Spread-of-Hours Compensation  141.  Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all preceding paragraphs of the Complaint inclusive,  as if fully set forth herein.  142.  At all relevant times, Defendants employed Plaintiffs within the meaning of the  NYLL § 652 - Failure to Pay Minimum Wage  NYCRR § 142-2.2 - Failure to Pay Overtime Wages  NYCRR § 142-2.4 - Failure to Pay Spread-of-Hours Compensation  NYLL § 195(1)(a) - Failure to Provide Written Pay Notice  NYLL § 195(3) - Failure to Provide Written Pay Statements  177.  Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as if  fully set forth herein.  26  178.  At all relevant times, Defendants employed Plaintiffs and members of the putative  class within the meaning of the NYLL.  179.  Plaintiffs and members of the putative class are non-exempt employees within the  meaning of the NYLL.  180.  Defendants failed to always pay Plaintiffs and members of the putative class at  least the New York statutory minimum wage for all hours worked.  181.  Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class time- and-a-half for all hours worked each week in excess of forty, as required under the NYLL.  182.  Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class one  additional hour of pay at the basic minimum hourly rate on those days when their spread of hours  exceeded ten, as required under NYCRR § 146-1.6.  183.  Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees,  within ten business days of the commencement of their respective employments, a written notice  containing the information enumerated in NYLL § 195(1)(a).  184.  Defendants failed to provide to Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated  employees, with every payment of wages, written statements containing the information required  by NYLL § 195(3).  185.  Defendants’ conduct and/or practices, as described above, was and/or is willful,  intentional, unreasonable, arbitrary and in bad faith.  186.  A six-year statute of limitations applies to each such violation, pursuant to NYLL  §§ 198(3), 663(3).  187.  As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class were  illegally denied proper compensation earned, in such amounts to be determined at trial, and are  27  entitled to recovery of such total unpaid amounts, liquidated damages, pre-judgment interest,  costs, reasonable attorney’s fees, statutory penalties, and other compensation pursuant to NYLL  §§ 198(3), 663(3).  NYLL § 195(1)(a) - Failure to Provide Written Pay Notice  151.  Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all preceding paragraphs of the Complaint inclusive,  as if fully set forth herein.  152.  At all relevant times, Defendants employed Plaintiffs within the meaning of the  NYLL § 195(3) - Failure to Provide Written Pay Statements  159.  Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all preceding paragraphs of the Complaint inclusive,  as if fully set forth herein.  160.  At all relevant times, Defendants employed Plaintiffs within the meaning of the  NYLL § 652 - Failure to Pay Minimum Wages  124.  Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all preceding paragraphs of the Complaint inclusive,  as if fully set forth herein.  125.  At all relevant times, Defendants employed Plaintiffs within the meaning of the 