10.  During the course of his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff regularly worked  in excess of forty (40) hours in individual weeks.   11.  Defendants failed to pay overtime compensation to Plaintiff for all time worked in  excess of forty (40) hours in an individual week, instead paying part of the compensable time  worked by Plaintiff at Plaintiff’s regular rate of pay.   12.  Plaintiff will seek to certify a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23 for  his state law claim for Illinois-mandated overtime wages (Count II) arising under the IMWL.    13.  The class that Plaintiff seeks to represent is defined as: All individuals employed  by Big Top & Party Rentals, LLC as hourly employees and who worked in excess of forty (40)  4  hours in any individual work weeks for the period of December 11, 2012 through the date of  judgment.   14. Count II is brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23 (a) and (b) because:   a. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable:   b. While the precise number of Class Members has not been determined at this time,  Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants have employed dozens of  individuals in Illinois during the IMWL Class Periods;  c. There are questions of fact or law common to the class, which common questions  predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. These  common questions of law and fact include, without limitation:   i.  Whether Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the Class overtime wages  for all time worked over forty (40) hours in individual work weeks during  the IMWL Class Period.  d. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class  members. Plaintiff’s Counsel is competent and experienced in litigating  discrimination and other employment class actions;   e. The class representatives and the members of the class have been equally affected  by Defendants’ failure to pay Illinois overtime wages;   f. The class representatives, class members and Defendants have a commonality of  interest in the subject matter and remedies sought and the class representatives are  able to fairly and adequately represent the interest of the class. If individual  actions were required to be brought by each member of the class injured or  5  affected, the result would be a multiplicity of actions creating a hardship on the  class members, Defendants, and the Court.   15.  Therefore, a class action is an appropriate method for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this lawsuit.  16.  Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 15 of this Complaint, as  though set forth herein.   17.  The matters set forth in this Count arise from Defendant’s violation of the  overtime provisions of the FLSA.   18.  In the three years prior to the filing of the lawsuit, Defendants suffered or  permitted Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did in fact work, in excess of forty (40) hours in  individual work weeks during his employment with Defendant.   19.  In the three years prior to the filing of the lawsuit, Defendants likewise suffered or  permitted other similarly situated employees to work who did, in fact, perform work for  Defendants in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks but did not compensate them  at least at the overtime wage rate of one and a half times his regular rate of pay for all time  worked in excess of forty (40).   20.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were not exempt from the  overtime wage provisions of the FLSA.   21.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were entitled to be compensated  at the rate of one and a half times their regular rate for all time worked in excess of forty (40)  hours in an individual work week. .  6   22.  Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to compensate Plaintiff and other  similarly situated employees’ overtime wages for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in  individual work weeks.   23.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees are entitled to recover unpaid  overtime wages for up to three (3) years prior to Plaintiff filing this lawsuit because Defendants’  violation was willful.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for a judgment against Defendants as follows:  A. That the Court determine that this action may be maintained as a collective  action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA;  B. A judgment in the amount of unpaid overtime wages for all the time Plaintiff  and similarly situated employees worked in excess of forty (40) hours in  individual work weeks for Defendant;  C. Liquidated damages in the amount equal to the unpaid wages;   D. That the Court declare the Defendant violated the FLSA;   E. That the Court enjoin the Defendant from continuing to violate the FLSA;  F. Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of this action as provided by the FLSA;  and   G. Such other further relief this Court deems appropriate and just.   24.  Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 23 of this Complaint, as  though set forth herein.   25.  The matters set forth in this Count arise from Defendants’ violation of the  overtime wage provision of the IMWL.  7   26.  In the three years prior to the filing of the lawsuit, Defendants suffered or  permitted Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did in fact work, in excess of forty (40) hours in  individual work weeks during his employment with Defendant.   27.  In the three years prior to the filing of the lawsuit, Defendants suffered or  permitted other similarly situated employees to work, and other similarly situated employees did  in fact work, in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks during their employment  with Defendants.   28.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were not exempt from the  overtime wage provisions of the IMWL.   29.  Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were entitled to be compensated  at the rate of one and a half times their regular rate for all time worked in excess of forty (40)  hours in an individual work week.   30.  Defendants violated the IMWL by failing to compensate Plaintiff and similarly  situated employees for all time worked in excess of forty (40) hours in individual work weeks.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for a judgment against Defendants as follows:  A. That the Court determines that this action may be certified as a class  action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a) and (b);  B. A judgment in the amount of unpaid overtime wages for all the time  Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees worked in excess of forty (40)  hours in individual workweeks for Defendants;  C. Statutory damages pursuant to the formula set forth in 820 ILCS  105/12(a);  D. That the Court declare the Defendants violated the IMWL;  E. That the Court enjoin the Defendants from continuing to violate the  8.  Plaintiff Jose Pizano has worked at Big Top from May 2011 through the present.   9.  Plaintiff is employed by Defendants to set up tents, chairs, and other party rental  equipment to various sites around Chicago and the surrounding suburbs.   Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act- Overtime Wages  Section 216(b) Collective Action   Violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law- Overtime Wages  Class Action  