(Collective Action Alleging FLSA Violations)  A.  FLSA COVERAGE   18.  Waitr Incorporated and Landcadia Holdings, Inc. merged on November 15, 2018. The  surviving entity is now known as Waitr Holdings, Inc. (“Waitr”).4   19.  Waitr is a food delivery service that allows its patrons to utilize a mobile or desktop  app to order food and have it delivered from participating restaurants.    20.  Waitr operates in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South  Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.5   21.  Plaintiffs Halley worked for Waitr as a driver from approximately April 2017 to July  2017.    22.  Plaintiff Gongaware has worked and continues to work for Waitr as a driver since  approximately October of 2016 and was misclassified as an independent contractor.    24.  Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members incurred (and continue to incur) costs for  gasoline, vehicle parts and fluids, repair and maintenance services, insurance, depreciation, and other  expenses (“automobile expenses”) while delivering food items for the primary benefit of Waitr.    25.  Waitr does not reimburse its delivery drivers—Plaintiffs and the Putative Class  Members—for their automobile expenses.   26.  This reimbursement policy applies to all of Waitr’s delivery drivers throughout the  United States.   27.  During the applicable FLSA limitations period, the IRS standard business mileage  reimbursement rate has ranged between $.545 and $.575 per mile.6   28.  Plaintiff Halley drove, on average, approximately 469 miles each week.    29.  Plaintiff Gongaware drove, on average, approximately 500 hundred miles each week.    30.  Using the lowest IRS rate in effect during the period of Plaintiffs’ employment as a  reasonable approximation of Plaintiffs’ automobile expenses, every mile driven on the job decreased  Plaintiffs’ net wages by approximately $.55 per mile.    31.  Considering Plaintiff Halley’s estimate of 469 miles driven each week, Waitr underpaid  Plaintiff Halley approximately $257.95 per week ($.55 x 469 average weekly miles).    32.  Likewise, considering Plaintiff Gongaware’s estimate of 500 miles driven each week,  Waitr underpaid Plaintiff Gongaware approximately $275.00 per week (.55 x 500 average weekly  miles).    34.  Further, Waitr (mis)classified some of its drivers as independent contractors and paid  them only a delivery fee, in addition to gratuities received from Waitr’s patrons (if any), and did not  pay them the federally mandated minimum wage or overtime compensation.    35.  Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members would conduct their day-to-day activities  within designed parameters and in accordance with pre-determined operational plans coordinated by  Clean Harbors and/or its clients.   36.  Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members’ duties did not (and currently do not) include  the exercise of independent discretion or judgment.   37.  Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members’ duties did not (and currently do not) concern  work directly related to the management or general business operations of Waitr.   38.  Waitr set all employment-related policies applicable to Plaintiff and the Putative Class  Members.    39.  Waitr maintained control over pricing and marketing and the online platform that  Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members interact with.   40.  Waitr had the power to hire and fire Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members.    41.  Waitr made all personnel and payroll decisions with respect to Plaintiffs and the  Putative Class Members, including but not limited to, the decision to pay Plaintiff and the Putative  Class Members an hourly rate with no overtime pay.     42.  Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members did not employ their own workers.   43.  Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members relied on Waitr for their work.    44.  Waitr did not permit Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members to market any business  or services of their own.    46.  Because Waitr did not adequately reimburse Plaintiffs and the Putative Class members  for their business expenses, and did not pay those employees (mis)classified as independent  contractors any overtime compensation, Waitr’s pay policies and practices violated (and continue to  violate) the FLSA.   V.  47.  All previous paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.   48.  The FLSA Collective is defined as:  65.  All previous paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.   66.  Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), this is a collective action filed on behalf of all of Waitr’s  delivery drivers throughout the United States who have been similarly situated to Plaintiffs with regard  to the work they performed and the manner in which they were paid.   67.  Other similarly situated deliver drivers of Waitr have been victimized by Waitr’s  patterns, practices, and policies, which are in willful violation of the FLSA.   69.  Waitr’s failure to pay Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members minimum wages and  overtime results from generally applicable policies and practices of Waitr, and does not depend on the  personal circumstances of Plaintiffs or the Putative Class Members.    70.  Thus, Plaintiffs’ experiences are typical of the experiences of the Putative Class  Members.   71.  All of the Putative Class Members—regardless of their specific job titles, precise job  requirements, rates of pay, or job locations—are entitled to be paid minimum wage for all hours  worked and overtime compensation for all hours worked over forty (40) in a single workweek.    72.  Although the issues of damages may be individual in character, there is no detraction  from the common nucleus of liability facts.     73.  Absent a collective action, many members of the proposed FLSA collective likely will  not obtain redress of their injuries and Waitr will retain the proceeds of its violations.   74.  Moreover, individual litigation would be unduly burdensome to the judicial system.  Concentrating the litigation in one forum will promote judicial economy and parity among the claims  of the individual members of the classes and provide for judicial consistency.   75.  Accordingly, the FLSA collective of similarly situated Plaintiffs should be certified as  defined as in Paragraph 48 and notice should be promptly sent.   VI. 