10.  In or around January 2018, Plaintiff SEBASTIAN LEON was hired by  Defendants to work as a cook for Defendants’ Murray’s Bagels Restaurant located at 242 8th  Avenue, New York, NY 10011. In or around March 2018, Plaintiff LEON was transferred by  Defendants to work at Defendant’s Zucker’s Bagels & Smoked Fish Restaurant located at 370  Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017, where he worked for the remainder of his  employment by Defendants. Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants terminated in May 2019.   11.  Throughout his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff worked four (4) days per  week for ten and a half (10½) hours per day, and one (1) day per week for eleven (11) hours per  day, for a total of fifty three (53) hours each week. During Plaintiff LEON’s employment with  Defendants, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class members worked similar hours.   13.  Plaintiff LEON and other employees of Defendants were expected to work, but  not permitted to clock in, at the beginning of each of their scheduled shifts every week. On three  (3) days of the week, Plaintiff LEON and other employees of Defendants were expected to work,  but not permitted to clock in, for twenty (20) minutes at the beginning of their scheduled shift. In  addition, for two (2) days of the week, Plaintiff LEON and other employees of Defendants were  expected to work, but not permitted to clock in, for one (1) hour at the beginning of their  scheduled shift. Thus, Plaintiff LEON and other employees of Defendants performed three (3)  hours of off-the-clock work each week. Plaintiff LEON and other employees of Defendants were  not paid for this off-the-clock work.   15.  Defendants never provided Plaintiff LEON with wage notices, as required by the  NYLL. Similarly, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class Members were never provided with any  wage notices.   16.  Defendants did not provide Plaintiff LEON with proper wage statements at all  relevant times. Similarly, the Class members also did not receive proper wage statements, in  violation of the NYLL.   17.  Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class members had workdays that  regularly exceeded ten (10) hours in length. However, Defendants routinely failed to pay them  spread of hours premiums due under the NYLL.   18.  Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class members were required by  Defendants to perform unpaid off-the-clock work, resulting in unpaid wages and overtime  premium.   19.  At no time during the relevant time periods did Defendants provide Plaintiff or  the Class members with wage notices or proper wage statements as required by NYLL.    19.  At all relevant times, Plaintiff LEON and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs have been  and are similarly situated, have had substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions,  and have been and continue to be subjected to Defendants’ decisions, policies, plans, programs,  practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and rules—all of which have culminated in a willful  failure and refusal to pay Plaintiff LEON and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs for all hours worked,  including overtime premium at one-and-one half times their base hourly rates for each hour  worked in excess of forty (40) per workweek. Plaintiff LEON’s claims stated herein are  essentially the same as those of the other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs.    20.  The claims for relief are properly brought under and maintained as an opt-in  collective action pursuant to Section 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 the Defendants. Notice can be  provided to FLSA Collective Plaintiffs via first class mail to the last address known to  Defendants.  20.  In or around May 2019, Plaintiff retained Lee Litigation Group, PLLC to  represent Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and Class members, in this litigation and has  agreed to pay the firm a reasonable fee for its services.   21.  In or around June 2019, Plaintiff LEON sent a demand letter addressed to  Defendants’ Restaurant located at 370 Lexington Avenue—Plaintiff LEON’s last place of  employment with Defendants.    21.  Plaintiff brings claims for relief pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure  (“F.R.C.P.”) 23, on behalf of all current and former non-exempt employees, including but not  limited to cooks, food preparers, cashiers, counter persons, and cleaning persons employed by  Defendants on or after the date that is six (6) years before the filing of the Complaint (the  “Class” or “Class Members”).   23.  The proposed Class is so numerous such 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 because the facts on which the  calculation of that number rests are presently within the sole control of Defendants, there is no  doubt that there are more than forty (40) members of the Class.    23.  The demand letter further stated that Plaintiff LEON intended to proceed with his  claims on a class-wide basis on behalf of similarly situated employees of Defendants, but would  be amenable to expedient resolution of this matter. To that end, Plaintiff’s demand letter included  a tolling agreement requesting a timely response from Defendants.   24.  Plaintiff LEON’s claims are typical of those claims that could be alleged by any  member of the Class, and the relief sought is typical of the relief that would be sought by each  member of the Class in separate actions. All the Class members were subjected to the same  corporate practices of Defendants, including (i) mandating unpaid off-the-clock work, (ii) failing  to pay overtime premium, (iii) failing to pay spread of hours, (iv) failing to provide wage  statements in compliance with the New York Labor Law, and (v) failing to provide wage and  hour notices upon hiring and as required thereafter, pursuant to the New York Labor Law.  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. Plaintiffs and other Class members sustained similar losses, injuries, and damages  arising from the same unlawful policies, practices and procedures by Defendants.    24.  At all relevant times, Defendants willfully violated Plaintiff’s and FLSA  Collective Plaintiffs’ rights by failing to pay them wages in the lawful amount for all hours  worked, including those in excess of forty (40) hours worked each week, due to time-shaving.   24.  Defendants did not, and to date have not, signed or otherwise responded to the  tolling agreement.   25.  However, approximately one week after the demand letter was sent, Defendants  appeared to respond by mailing Plaintiff LEON a paycheck in the amount of $829.14. Plaintiff  did not then, and to date has not, cashed this check. A copy of this check has been attached  hereto as Exhibit A.   26.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of the controversy—particularly in the context of the wage and hour litigation  where individual class members lack the financial resources to vigorously prosecute a lawsuit  against corporate defendants. Class action treatment will permit a large number of similarly  situated persons to prosecute common claims in a single forum simultaneously, efficiently, and  without the unnecessary duplication of efforts and expense that numerous individual actions  engender. Because losses, injuries, and damages suffered by each of the individual Class  Members are small in the sense pertinent to a class action analysis, the expenses and burden of  individual litigation would make it extremely difficult or impossible for the individual Class  Members to redress the wrongs done to them. On the other hand, important public interests will  be served by addressing the matter as a class action. The adjudication of individual litigation  claims would result in a great expenditure of Court and public resources; however, treating the  claims as a class action would result in a significant saving of these costs. The prosecution of  separate actions by individual members of the Class would create a risk of inconsistent and/or  varying adjudications with respect to the individual members of the Class, establishing  incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants and resulting in the impairment of class  members’ rights and the disposition of their interests through actions to which they were not  parties. The issues in this action can be decided by means of common, class-wide proof. In  addition, if appropriate, the Court can, and is empowered to, fashion methods to efficiently  manage this action as a class action.    26.  Defendants did not, and to date have not, provided any statement, reasoning, or  context regarding the $829.14 paycheck sent to Plaintiff LEON.   27.  In or around the time Plaintiff LEON received the paycheck from Defendants, he  was informed by his former coworkers that employees of Defendants—including but not limited  to cooks, food preparers, cashiers, counter persons, and cleaning persons at all the Restaurants— each received a check for $300.   29.  Notwithstanding this admission of fault, Defendants did not provide, and still  have not provided, any time or wage statements supporting the claim that each employee was  owed only, and exactly, $300 for Defendants’ timekeeping discrepancies.   30.  Plaintiff LEON believes that the $829.14 he received from Defendants, and the  $300 other employees individually received, constitute an illicit attempt by Defendants to quiet  this dispute without allowing for a proper investigation of Plaintiff’s claims brought on behalf of  himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class.  31.  Plaintiff realleges and reavers Paragraphs 1 through 30 of this class and collective  action Complaint as if fully set forth herein.   32.  At all relevant times, Defendants were and continue to be employers engaged in  interstate commerce and/or the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of the  FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a) and 207(a). Further, Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are  covered individuals within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a) and 207(a).   33.  At all relevant times, Defendants employed Plaintiff and FLSA Collective  Plaintiffs within the meaning of the FLSA.   34.   At all relevant times, each Corporate Defendant had gross annual revenues in  excess of $500,000.00.   35.  Records, if any exist, concerning the number of hours worked by Plaintiff and  FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the actual compensation paid to Plaintiff and FLSA Collective  Plaintiffs are in the possession and custody of the Defendants. Plaintiff intends to obtain these  records by appropriate discovery proceedings to be taken promptly in this case and, if necessary,  Plaintiff will then seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to set forth the precise amount  due.   36.  Defendants failed to properly disclose or apprise Plaintiff and FLSA Collective  Plaintiffs of their rights under the FLSA.   37.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ willful disregard of the FLSA,  Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are entitled to liquidated (i.e., double) damages pursuant  to the FLSA.   38.  Due to the intentional, willful, and unlawful acts of Defendants, Plaintiff and  FLSA Collective Plaintiffs suffered damages in an amount not presently ascertainable of unpaid  overtime premium, and an equal amount as liquidated damages.   40.  Plaintiff realleges and reavers Paragraphs 1 through 39 of this class and collective  action Complaint as if fully set forth herein.   41.  At all relevant times, Plaintiff and the Class members were employed by the  Defendants within the meaning of the New York Labor Law §§ 2 and 651.   42.  At all relevant times, Defendants had a policy and practice of refusing to pay  Plaintiff and the Class Members for all hours worked, including at the statutory rate of time and  one-half the regular rate for overtime hours worked, due to Defendants’ policy of time-shaving.   43.  In addition, Defendants willfully violated Plaintiff and the Class members’ rights  by failing to pay them spread of hours premiums required by state law;   44.  Defendants willfully violated Plaintiff and the Class members’ rights by refusing  to compensate them for off-the-clock hours during which they were required to work;    45.  Defendants failed to properly notify employees of their hourly pay rate and  overtime rate, in direct violation of the New York Labor Law;   46.  Defendants failed to provide a proper wage and hour notice, on the date of hiring  and annually, to all non-exempt employees, in direct violation of the New York Labor Law;   47.  Defendants failed to provide proper wage statements with every payment issued  to Plaintiff and the Class members, as required by New York Labor Law § 195(3).   VIOLATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT  ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF AND FLSA COLLECTIVE PLAINTIFFS   VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK LABOR LAW  ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF AND CLASS MEMBERS  