12.  Named Plaintiff brings this action for violations of the FLSA as a collective  action pursuant to Section 16(b) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), on behalf of all persons  presently and formerly employed by Defendants as drivers or in positions with similar duties  subject to Defendants’ unlawful pay practices and policies described herein and who worked for  Defendants at any point in the three years preceding the date the instant action was initiated (the  members of this putative class are  referred to as “Class Plaintiffs”).   13.  Named Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs are similarly situated, have substantially  similar job duties, have substantially similar pay provisions, and are all subject to Defendants’  unlawful policies and practices as described herein.   14.  There are numerous similarly situated current and former employees of  Defendants who were compensated improperly for overtime work in violation of the FLSA and  who would benefit from the issuance of a Court Supervised Notice of the instant lawsuit and the  opportunity to join in the present lawsuit.    15.  Similarly situated employees are known to Defendants, are readily identifiable by  Defendants, and can be located through Defendants’ records.    17.  The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein as if set forth in full.   18.  Named Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as drivers.   19.  Named Plaintiff’s primary duty was providing prearranged passenger  transportation.    20.  Class Plaintiffs’ primary duty was/is providing prearranged passenger  transportation.   21.  Plaintiff primarily drove sedans which transported less than 9 passengers  including Named Plaintiff.     22.  The sedans that Plaintiff drove weighed less than 10,000 pounds.   23.  Class Plaintiffs primarily drove/drive sedans which transported/transport less than  9 passengers including Class Plaintiffs.    24.  The sedans that Class Plaintiffs drove/drive weigh less than 10,000 pounds.     25.  The sedans that Named Plaintiff drove did not contain a meter.   26.  The sedans that Class Plaintiffs drove/drive did not contain a meter.   27.  Defendant Flyte is not a licensed taxicab company.   28.  Named Plaintiff never cruised for passengers.   29.  Class Plaintiffs never cruise/cruised for passengers.   30.  Named Plaintiff’s fares were based on a flat rate as opposed to a meter rate.   31.  Class Plaintiffs’ fares are/were based on a flat rate as opposed to a meter rate.   32.  Named Plaintiff regularly worked 72 or more hours per week.   34.  Defendants compensated/compensate Named Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs by  paying them a commission on the trip fares with no additional compensation provided for hours  worked beyond 40 per workweek.   35.  Named Plaintiff earned an approximate average of $550.00 per workweek.   36.  Named Plaintiff earned an hourly rate of approximately $7.64 per hour.   37.  Named Plaintiff routinely worked at least 32 hours of unpaid overtime per week.   38.  Class Plaintiffs routinely worked/work at least 20 hours of unpaid overtime per  week.   39.  Named Plaintiff worked for Defendants from in or around January 2010 to on or  about June 5, 2013.   40.  At no time did Name Plaintiff hire or fire any employees of Defendants.   41.  At no time did Class Plaintiffs hire or fire any employees of Defendants.   42.  At no time did Name Plaintiff supervise any employees of Defendants.   43.  At no time did Class Plaintiffs supervise any employees of Defendants.   44.  At no time did Name Plaintiff exercise discretion or independent judgment over  matters of significance on behalf of Defendants.   45.  At no time did Class Plaintiffs exercise discretion or independent judgment over  matters of significance on behalf of Defendants.   46.  Accordingly, Named Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs were/are, within the meaning of  the FLSA, non-exempt hourly employees of Defendants.   47.  Defendants failed to pay Named Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs at the rate of at least   48.  Moreover, Defendants failed to implement a system to track the number of hours  worked each workweek by Named Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs.   49.  As a result of Defendants’ aforesaid illegal actions, Named Plaintiff and Class  Plaintiffs have suffered damage.  50.  The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein as if set forth in full.   51.  At all times relevant herein, Defendants have and continue to be “employers”  within the meaning of the FLSA.   52.  At all times relevant herein, Defendants were/are responsible for paying wages to  Named Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs.   53.  At all times relevant herein, Named Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs were/are  employed with Defendants as “employees” within the meaning of the FLSA.   54.  Under the FLSA, an employer must pay an employee at least one and one half  times his or her regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.   55.  Defendants’ violations of the FLSA include, but are not limited to, failing to pay  Named Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 per  workweek, and failing to implement a system to track the number of hours worked each  workweek by Named Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs.   56.  Defendants’ conduct in failing to pay Named Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs  properly was/is willful and was/is not based upon any reasonable interpretation of the law.   Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”)  (Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation/ Failure to Track Hours)  (Named Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs v. Defendants)  