(Civil Damages for Fraudulent Filing of Information Returns under 26 U.S.C. § 7434(a))  135.  Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class Members, repeat and reallege each and  every allegation of the preceding paragraphs hereof with the same force and effect as  though fully set forth herein.  136.  By failing to provide Plaintiff and NJWL Class Members with accurate IRS Forms W-2  for all of the tax years during which they were employed by Defendants, and failing to  properly record, account for, and report to the IRS all monies paid to Plaintiff and the Class  as compensation for all of the work performed during the course of employment with the  Defendants, and failing to properly report employee income and withhold amounts listed  on W-2 forms as monies withheld, Defendants filed fraudulent information returns with  the IRS, in violation of 26 U.S.C. §7434.  137.  Under the Internal Revenue Code, “[i]f any person willfully files a fraudulent information  return with respect to payments purported to be made to any other person, such person may  bring a civil action for damages against the person so filing such return.” 26 U.S.C. §  7434(a).  1.8, NJSA 34:19-7 and NJAC12:2-1.3.    1.8, NJSA 34:19-7 and NJAC12:2-1.3.    1.8, NJSA 34:19-7 and NJAC12:2-1.3.    41.  Plaintiffs brings claims for relief pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure  (“F.R.C.P.”) Rule 23, on behalf of all non-exempt employees, including cooks, servers,  bussers, runners, bartenders and other similarly situated employees, employed by  Defendants on or after the date that is three years before the filing of the Complaint in this  case as defined herein (the “Class period”).   43.  The claims for relief are properly brought under and maintained as an opt-in collective  action pursuant to § 16(b) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The FLSA Collective Plaintiffs  are readily ascertainable. For purposes of notice and other purposes related to this action,  their names and addresses are readily available from Defendants. Notice can be provided  to the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs via first class mail for the last address known to  Defendants.  44.  Plaintiffs also bring claims for relief pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure  (“F.R.C.P.”) Rule 23, on behalf of all non-exempt current and former employees, including  but not limited to other cooks, chefs and staff, on or after the date that is six years before  the filing of the Complaint in this case as defined herein (the “Class period”).   46.  The proposed Class is so numerous that a joinder of all members is impracticable, and the  disposition of their claims as a class will benefit the parties and the Court. Although the  precise number of such persons is unknown, and the facts on which the calculation of that  number are presently within the sole control of Defendants; upon information and belief,  there are in excess of twenty (20) Class Members.   47.  The Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those claims, which could be alleged by any member  of the Class, and the relief sought is typical of the relief, which would be sought by each  member of the Class in separate action. All the Class members were subject to the same  corporate practices of Defendants, as alleged herein, which were and are (1) failure to pay  minimum wage, (2) failure to pay overtime, (3) failure to pay sick leave, (4) penalties for  required notices, (5) liquidated damages and (6) attorneys’ fees, interest, and costs.    48.  Defendants’ corporate-wide policies and practices affected all Class members similarly,  and Defendants benefited from the same type of unfair and/or wrongful acts as to each  Class member. The Plaintiffs and other Class members sustained similar losses, injuries  and damages arising from the same unlawful policies, practices and procedures.   49.  The Plaintiffs are able to fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class and have  no interests antagonistic to the Class. The Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys who are  experienced and competent in both class action litigation and employment litigation and  have previously represented plaintiffs in wage and hour cases.   52.  There are questions of law and fact common to the Class which predominate over any  questions affecting only individual class members, including:  (a)  Whether Defendants employed the Plaintiffs and Class members within the meaning of the  53.  Erdem worked for the Defendants at the 178 Piermont Road, Cresskill, NJ 07626.   54.  Erdem was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee from approximately  December 2015 to April 27, 2019. During this time period, Erdem would work six (6) days  per week for a total of 67 hours.    56.  Defendants paid Erdem $12.50 per hour for forty hours of work.   57.  Defendants refused and failed to pay Erdem for sick leave.   58.  Defendant falsely reported that Erdem only worked 40 hours per week on the pay stubs  provided despite Erdem working approximately 68 hours per week.   59.  For the hours worked in excess of forty each week, Defendants failed to pay Erdem at the  required minimum wage rate.   60.  Although Erdem worked over forty hours per week, Defendants failed to pay Erdem at the  required overtime premium rate.   61.  Defendants reported that Erdem was paid an hourly rate of $12.50 per hour.   62.  The Defendants did not provide any of the required notices to Erdem upon his hire or at  any time thereafter; said violation include but are not limited to the following: NJSA 12:21-  63.  The Defendants did not provide Erdem with a proper wage statement with each payment  he received.   64.  Defendants failed to pay Erdem for sick leave, failed to pay Erdem minimum wage, and  failed to pay Erdem for the overtime hours worked.   Wage Claims for Erdal   65.  Erdal worked for the Defendants at the 178 Piermont Road, Cresskill, NJ 07626.   66.  Erdal was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee from approximately  2011 to April 27, 2019. During this time period, Erdal would work six (6) days per week  for a total of 67 hours.    68.  Defendants paid Erdal $12.50 per hour for forty hours of work.   69.  Defendants refused and failed to pay Erdal for sick leave.   70.  Defendant falsely reported that Erdal only worked 40 hours per week on the pay stubs  provided despite Erdal working approximately 68 hours per week.   71.  For the hours worked in excess of forty each week, Defendants failed to pay Erdal at the  required minimum wage rate.   72.  Although Erdal worked over forty hours per week, Defendants failed to pay Erdal at the  required overtime premium rate.   73.  Defendants reported that Erdal was paid an hourly rate of $12.50 per hour.   74.  The Defendants did not provide any of the required notices to Erdal upon his hire or at any  time thereafter; said violation include but are not limited to the following: NJSA 12:21-  75.  The Defendants did not provide Erdal with a proper wage statement with each payment he  received.   76.  Defendants failed to pay Erdal for sick leave, failed to pay Erdal the minimum wage, and  failed to pay Erdal the overtime hours worked.   Wage Claims for Yavuz   77.  Yavuz worked for the Defendants at the 178 Piermont Road, Cresskill, NJ 07626.   79.  During Yavuz’s employment with the Defendants, Yavuz worked in excess of forty (40)  hours per week.    80.  Defendants paid Yavuz $12.50 per hour for forty hours of work.   81.  Defendants refused and failed to pay Yavuz for sick leave.   82.  Defendant falsely reported that Yavuz only worked 40 hours per week on the pay stubs  provided despite Yavuz working approximately 68 hours per week.   83.  For the hours worked in excess of forty each week, Defendants failed to pay Yavuz at the  required minimum wage rate.   84.  Although Yavuz worked over forty hours per week, Defendants failed to pay Yavuz at the  required overtime premium rate.   85.  Defendants reported that Yavuz was paid an hourly rate of $12.50 per hour.   86.  The Defendants did not provide any of the required notices to Yavuz upon his hire or at  any time thereafter; said violation include but are not limited to the following: NJSA 12:21-  87.  The Defendants did not provide Yavuz with a proper wage statement with each payment  he received.   88.  Defendants failed to pay Yavuz for sick leave, failed to pay Yavuz the minimum wage, and  failed to pay Yavuz the overtime hours worked.    89.  Although the Plaintiffs, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class members worked over forty  hours per week, Defendants never paid them for the extra hours worked.   90.  Although the Plaintiffs, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class members worked over forty  hours per week, Defendants never paid them at the required minimum wage rate.   92.  Although the Plaintiffs, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class members had earned sick  leave, Defendants never paid them for the sick leave hours earned.   93.  Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not paying  either the FLSA minimum wage or the New Jersey State minimum wage to the Plaintiffs,  FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class members.    94.  Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not paying  either the FLSA overtime rate (of time and one-half) or the New Jersey State overtime rate  (of time and one-half) to the Plaintiffs, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class members.    95.  Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not providing  proper wage statements to the Plaintiffs and Class members, in violation of the NJWL.   96.  Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not providing  proper notices to the Plaintiffs and Class members, at the beginning of employment and at  any time thereafter, in violation of the NJWL.   97.  Upon information and belief, Defendants were well aware of the FLSA and the NJWL  having been fined and penalized in the past for violating said laws.   98.  Despite knowledge, Defendants intentionally and maliciously acted in violation of the  FLSA and the NJWL.   99.  The Plaintiffs retained Akin Law Group PLLC to represent the Plaintiffs, FLSA Collective  Plaintiffs and Class members, in this litigation and has agreed to pay the firm a reasonable  fee for its services.  Wage Claims for Erdem  