13. Mr. Stewart worked for the Defendant Entities from December 8, 2011  through April 2015.    14. His primary responsibility was the personal assistant of Kaltner, the  owner and chief executive officer of all the Defendant Entities. In that capacity, he  assisted Kaltner with various miscellaneous tasks including ordering food, keeping  track of schedules, booking appointments, booking all travel arrangements and shows,  and cleaning and maintaining Kaltner’s office, and generally performing all  miscellaneous tasks and responsibilities requested of him by Kaltner.    16.  From December 2011 through April 2015, Mr. Stewart was paid an  hourly wage of $52.08 and a weekly wage of $2,083.34. Mr. Stewart never received  any compensation for any overtime work.    17. When Mr. Stewart started working for Defendant Entities, he was aware  Defendant Entities offered all employees benefits including but not limited to health  insurance, paid vacation days, paid vacation, withholdings and contributions towards  Federal Insurance Contributions Act (“FICA”) taxes.    18. None of these benefits were provided by Mr. Stewart during his course  of employment for Defendant Entities.   19. Defendant Entities wrongfully and illegally classified Mr. Stewart and  many other similarly situated employees as independent contractors.    20. In July 2012, Kaltner explicitly ordered all employees to “incorporate”.  In October 2012, Defendant Entities paid Companies Incorporated to establish a LLC  entity for Mr. Stewart and other employees, and thereafter claimed that all employees  were independent contractors and worked for the corporations “owned” by the  employees but set up by and paid for by Defendant Entities.    21. Defendant Entities did not compensate Mr. Stewart for overtime  compensation according to state and federal laws.   23. Defendant Entities did not provide Mr. Stewart and other class members  with written notices about the terms and conditions of their employment upon hire in  relation to their rate of pay, regular pay cycle and rate of overtime pay. These notices  were similarly not provided upon Mr. Stewart’s and other Class members’ pay  increase(s).    24. Defendants committed the foregoing acts against Mr. Stewart, the FLSA  Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class.    25. Defendants  committed  the  following  alleged  acts  knowingly,  intentionally and willfully.    26. In October 2016, Mr. Stewart through counsel advised Defendants as to  Defendants’ violation of the aforementioned statutes. Additionally, Mr. Stewart has  initiated a claim for unemployment insurance benefits with the New York State  Department of Labor.   27. In retaliation for Mr. Stewart’s activities, on December 5, 2016,  Defendants initiated a frivolous action against Mr. Stewart in the Southern District of  New York, civil action no.: 7:16-cv-9337, asserting baseless allegations of trademark  infringement and others to harass Mr. Stewart, taking advantage of his financial  situation in order to pressure him against filing this action.     29. Mr. Stewart brings this action individually and on behalf of all other and  former misclassified and/or non-exempt employees who have been or were employed  by the Defendants for up to the last three (3) years, through entry of judgment in this  case (the “Collective Action Period”) and who failed to receive overtime  compensation pay for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week (the  “Collective Action Members”), and have been subject to the same common decision,  policy, and plan to not provide required wage notices at the time of hiring, in  contravention to federal and state labor laws.   30. Upon information and belief, the Collection Action Members are so  numerous the joinder of all members is impracticable. The identity and precise  number of such persons are unknown, and the facts upon which the calculations of  that number may be ascertained are presently within the sole control of the  Defendants. Upon information and belief, there are more than (15) Collective Action  members, who have worked for or have continued to work for the Defendants during  the Collective Action Period, most of whom would not likely file individual suits  because they fear retaliation, lack adequate financial resources, access to attorneys, or  knowledge of their claims. Therefore, Plaintiff submits that this case should be  certified as a collection action under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §216(b).   32. This action should be certified as collective action because the  prosecution of separate action by individual members of the collective action would  risk creating either inconsistent or varying adjudication with respect to individual  members of this class that would as a practical matter be dispositive of the interest of  the other members not party to the adjudication, or subsequently impair or impede  their ability to protect their interests.   33. A collective action is superior to other available methods for the fair and  efficient adjudication of this controversy, since joinder of all members is  impracticable. Furthermore, inasmuch as the damages suffered by individual  Collective Action Members may be relatively small, the expense and burden of  individual litigation makes it virtually impossible for the members of the collective  action to individually seek redress for the wrongs done to them. There will be no  difficulty in the management of this action as collective action.    35. Mr. Stewart knows of no difficulty that will be encountered in the  management of this litigation that would preclude its maintenance as a collective  action.    36. Mr. Stewart and others similarly situated have been substantially  damaged by Defendants’ unlawful conduct.   37. Mr. Stewart brings his NYLL claims pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil  Procedure (“F. R. C. P.”) Rule 23, on behalf of all misclassified and/or non-exempt  persons employed by Defendants Entities on or after the date that is six years before  the filing of the Complaint in this case as defined herein (the “Class Period”).    39. The proposed Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is  impracticable, and the disposition of their claims as a class will benefit the parities  and the Court. Although the precise number of such persons is unknown, and the facts  on which the calculation of the number is presently within the sole control of the  Defendants, upon information and belief, there are more than fifteen (15) members of  the class.    40. Mr. Stewart’s 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 that would be  sought by each member of the Class in separate actions. All the Class members were  subject to the same corporate practices of Defendants, as alleged herein, of failing to  pay overtime compensation. Defendants’ corporation wide policies and practices,  including but not limited to their failure to provide a wage notice at the time of hiring,  affected all Class members similarly, and Defendants benefited from the same type of  unfair and/or wrongful acts as to each Class member. Mr. Stewart and other Class  members sustained similar losses, injuries and damages arising from the same  unlawful policies, practices and procedures.    43. Upon information and belief, defendants and other employers throughout  the state violate the New York Labor Law. Current employees are often afraid to  assert their rights out of fear of direct or indirect retaliation. Former employees are  fearful of bringing claims because doing so can harm their employment, future  employment, and future efforts to secure employment. Class actions provide class  members who are not named in the complaint a degree of anonymity which allows for  the vindication of their rights while eliminating or reducing these risks.    44. 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 Mr. Stewart and the Class within the meaning  of the New York law;   b. Whether Mr. Stewart and Class members are entitled to overtime under the  New York Labor Law;   c. Whether the Defendants provided wage notices at the time of hiring to  Plaintiff and class members as required by the NYLL;   d. At what common rate, or rates subject to common method of calculation were  and are the Defendants required to pay the Class members for their work  46. At all relevant times, the Defendants had a policy and practice of refusing to  pay overtime compensation to their employees for their hours worked in excess of forty  hours per workweek.    47. As a result of the Defendants’ willful failure to compensate their employees,  including Mr. Stewart and the Collective Action members, at a rate not less than one and  one-half times the regular rate of pay for work performed in excess of forty hours in a  workweek, the Defendants have violated, and continue to violate, the FLSA, 29 U.S.C, §§  201 et seq, including 29 U.S.C. §§ 207(a) (1) and 215(a), including the federal minimum  wage.    48. As a result of the Defendants’ failure to record, report, credit and/or  compensate their employees, including Mr. Stewart and the Collective Action members,  the Defendants have failed to make, keep and preserve records with respect to each of  their employees sufficient to determine the wages, hours and other conditions and  practices of employment in violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§201, et seq., including 29  U.S.C. §§ 211(c) and 215(a).    49. The foregoing conduct, as alleged, constitutes a willful violation of the  FLSA within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 255(a).    51. Mr. Stewart, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated Collective  Action Members and members of the Class repeats and re-alleges each and every  allegation of the preceding paragraphs hereof with the same force and effect as though  fully set forth herein.    52. Defendants willfully violated Mr. Stewart’s rights and the rights of the  members of the Class by failing to pay them overtime compensation at rates not less than  one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of forty  hours in a workweek in violation of the New York Labor Law and its regulations.    53. The Defendants’ New York Labor Law violations have caused Mr. Stewart  and the members of the Class irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at  law.    55. Mr. Stewart, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated  Collective Action Members and members of the Class repeats and re-alleges each and  every allegation of the preceding paragraphs hereof with the same force and effect as  though fully set forth herein.    56. The Defendants failed to furnish to the Mr. Stewart at the time of hiring a  notice containing the rate or rates of pay and basis thereof, whether paid by the hour, shift,  day, week, salary, piece, commission, or other; allowances, if any, claimed as part of the  minimum wage, including tip, meal, or lodging allowances; the regular pay day  designated by the employer in accordance with section one hundred ninety-one of this  article; the name of the employer; any “doing business as” names used by the employer;  the physical address of the employer’s main office or principal place of business, and a  mailing address if different; the telephone number of the employer, and anything  otherwise required by law; in violation of the NYLL, § 195(1).    57. Due to the Defendants’ violation of the NYLL, § 195(1), Mr. Stewart is  entitled to recover from the Defendants liquidated damages of $50.00 per workday that  the violation occurred, up to a maximum of $5,000.00, reasonable attorney’s fees, and  costs and disbursements of the action, pursuant to the NYLL, § 198(1-b).    59. Mr. Stewart re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding  paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.    60. The NYLL and supporting regulations require employers to provide detailed  paystub information to employees every payday. NYLL §195-1(d).    61. Defendants have failed to make a good faith effort to comply with the New  York Labor Law with respect to compensation of each Plaintiff, and did not provide the  paystub that comply with the law on or after Mr. Stewart’s payday.    62. Due to Defendants’ violations of New York Labor Law, Mr. Stewart is  entitled to recover from Defendants, jointly and severally, $250 for each workday of the  violation, up to $5,000 for each Plaintiff together with costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant  to New York Labor Law N.Y. Lab. Law §198(1-d).   63. Mr. Stewart, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated  Collective Action Members and members of the Class repeats and re-alleges each and  every allegation of the preceding paragraphs hereof with the same force and effect as  though fully set forth herein.    65. As a result of this misclassification, Mr. Stewart and all other similarly  situated Collective Action Members and members of the Class suffered economic  harm in connection with FICA taxes and the loss of benefits, whereas Defendants  were enriched in the process.    66. Defendants’ engagement of willful misclassification was to illegally  avoid compliance with unemployment insurance, Workers' Compensation, Social  Security, tax withholding, temporary disability, and minimum wage and overtime  laws that protect workers, depriving workers of the protections they deserve, and it is  therefore against equity and good conscience to permit Defendants to retain the  benefits.    67. Upon information and belief, Kaltner is the sole owner and officer of all  Defendant Entities.    68. Upon information and belief stemming from Mr. Stewart’s employment  as Kaltner’s personal assistant, based on records viewed by Mr. Stewart, Kaltner  routinely used bank accounts of Defendant Entities to pay personal expenses  including spousal support.   69. Upon information and belief, Defendant Entities routinely and freely  intermingled finances, shared the same office, shared the same employees including  Mr. Stewart, and were alter-egos of one another.    71. Upon information and belief, Kaltner used his dominance of the  Defendant Entities to put into place and aforementioned policy of willful  misclassification, resulting in Defendants’ unjust enrichment at the expense of Mr.  Stewart and all other similarly situated Collective Action Members and members of  the Class.  72. Mr. Stewart re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding  paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.    73. Defendants willfully and unlawfully retaliated against Mr. Stewart for  his engagement of protected activities, namely, reporting Defendants’ wrongful  conduct as described in detail above.   74. In retaliating against Mr. Stewart, Defendants knowingly acted in  deliberate disregard of Mr. Stewart’s rights by filing a frivolous action on December 5,  2016, in the Southern District of New York bearing civil action no.: 7:16-cv-9337,  asserting baseless allegations of trademark infringement and others to harass Mr.  Stewart.   75. Defendants conduct violated New York Labor Law § 215.   the Time of Hiring]  