17. Plaintiffs bring the second and third causes of action under Rule 23 of the Federal  Rules of Civil Procedure, for themselves and on behalf of a class consisting of all  persons who have worked for Defendants in Ohio from three years preceding the  filing of this lawsuit through the culmination of this litigation in the position of  bartender, or other tipped position, and were not paid the required minimum wage  and/or overtime premium.   18. Class certification for the claims is appropriate under Federal Rules of Civil  Procedure 23(a), and 23(b)(3) because all of the requirements of those Rules are  met.  5   19. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.   20. There are questions of law and fact common to the class, including whether the  putative class members were not compensated for all hours worked including  proper minimum wage and/or overtime pay in violation of Ohio law.     21. The named Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those of the class members.  Plaintiffs’  claims encompass the challenged practices and course of conduct of Defendants.   Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ legal claims are based on the same legal theories as the  claims of the putative class members.  The legal issues as to which laws are  violated by such conduct apply equally to Plaintiffs and to the class.   22. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.   Plaintiffs’ claims are not antagonistic to those of the putative class and they have  hired counsel skilled in the prosecution of class actions.   23. Common questions of law and fact predominate over questions affecting only  individuals, and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair  and efficient adjudication of this controversy.  This proposed class action under  Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 presents few management difficulties, conserves the resources  of the parties and the court system, protects the rights of each class member and  maximizes recovery to them.  37. Defendants have a policy and practice of refusing to pay Plaintiffs and other  similarly situated employees for all hours worked in violation of the Fair Labor  Standards Act.   38. Defendants’ policy and practice resulted and continues to result in Plaintiffs and  other similarly situated employees receiving compensation below the statutory  minimum wage.   39. Defendants’ policy and practice denied and continues to deny Plaintiffs and other  similarly situated employees from receiving payment of the overtime premium for  all hours worked in excess of forty hours in a work week.      40. Defendants knew that they were supposed to pay Plaintiffs, and similarly situated  individuals, at a minimum the base minimum hourly rate set by the FLSA for  tipped employees regardless of the tips they received, but did not.   41. Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ conduct in this regard was a willful violation  of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq.  8   42. Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals who opt into this litigation  are entitled to compensation for all hours worked, including minimum wages,  overtime hours worked, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees and costs,  and any other remedies available at law or in equity.  43. Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class are employees within the meaning  of the Ohio Wage Act.   44. Defendants have failed to pay Plaintiffs and other tipped employees proper  compensation for all hours worked in violation of the Ohio Wage Act.   45. Defendants’ policy and practice resulted and continues to result in Plaintiffs and  other similarly situated employees receiving compensation below the statutory  minimum wage.   46. Defendants’ policy and practice denied and continues to deny Plaintiffs and other  similarly situated employees from receiving payment of the overtime premium for  all hours worked in excess of forty hours in a work week.      47. Defendants knew that they were supposed to pay Plaintiffs, and similarly situated  individuals, at a minimum the base minimum hourly rate set by the Ohio Wage  Act for tipped employees regardless of the tips they received, but did not.   48. Defendants’ conduct in this regard is a willful violation of O.R.C. §§4111.01,  4111.03 and 4111.10.   49. Plaintiffs and other similarly situated tipped employees who worked in Ohio are  9  entitled to compensation for all hours worked, including minimum wages,  overtime hours worked, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, and any other remedies  available at law or in equity.  50. Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class are employees within the meaning  of the Ohio Prompt Pay Act (“OPPA”).   51. Defendants have violated and continues to violate the OPPA because of its willful  failure to compensate Plaintiffs and other tipped employees at the time prescribed  by the OPPA.     52. During all times relevant to this complaint, Plaintiffs and the members of the  putative class are/were not paid wages within 30 days of performing the work.   53. Plaintiffs and similarly situated tipped employees who worked in Ohio are  entitled to compensation including liquidated damages, six percent interest on all  available compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and any other  remedies available at law or in equity.  10  VIOLATION OF THE OHIO WAGE ACT, O.R.C. §§ 4111.01, 4111.03, 4111.10  ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL  OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED INDIVIDUALS  VIOLATION OF THE OHIO PROMPT PAY ACT, O.R.C. § 4113.15, FAILURE  TO PAY WAGES WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF PERFORMING THE WORK ON  BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL  VIOLATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT  ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL  OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED INDIVIDUALS 