(Failure to Properly Pay Overtime Wages - FLSA - 29 U.S.C. § 207)   (Failure to Pay Timely Wages Due - Arizona Wage Statute)   19.  Fletcher’s is an Arizona corporation in the business of providing auto repair  and service.     20.  Upon information and belief, Fletcher’s employs approximately seventy  Technicians at its 35 locations throughout Arizona.  Their principal business is to provide  auto repair and service for the company’s customers.     21.  Plaintiff was employed by Fletcher’s as a Technician from on or around  December 2, 2015 until on or around June 25, 2016.       22.  Plaintiff provided service and auto repair on vehicles brought to Fletcher’s  by the company’s customers.    23.  During a typical day, Plaintiff would clock-in at the Fletcher’s shop around  8:00 a.m. and would first make sure the shop was set up properly and check the equipment  he used to service and repair vehicles.   24.  Plaintiff would then go to the office to meet with the manager to get the jobs  and repair orders he was to complete that day.       26.  Once the problem was diagnosed, Plaintiff would then return to his manager  for approval regarding the service or repairs he would be conducting on the vehicle at  issue.     27.  He would then conduct the service or repair work.   28.  Plaintiff was compensated for the time he spent repairing vehicles.  He was  often not compensated for the time he spent diagnosing problems or otherwise preparing  to conduct the actual labor on the vehicle.       29.  Plaintiff was paid a flat rate of $23 and eventually $25 during his  employment.  After completing a service or repair, Plaintiff, as a flat rate Technician, was  credited with a certain number of “labor hours” according to the Mitchell Manual, which  is an industry time guide that assigns labor hours based upon the manufacturer’s  recommendations.  The Mitchell Manual estimates the average time it should take to  complete any number of automotive services on a wide variety of makes and models of  vehicles.      30.  For example, if the Mitchell Manual designated repair of a carburetor at two  labor hours, Plaintiff would be paid his flat rate for each of the labor hours designated by  the Mitchell Manual regardless of the time it actually took him to complete the repair.   31.  At the end of the week, Plaintiff’s hours based on the Mitchell Manual were  totaled and multiplied by his flat rate to determine his weekly compensation.     32.  Plaintiff was not paid a commission.  Plaintiff was paid the exact same  hourly rate regardless of the amount charged to the customer.     34.  Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week as part of  his regular schedule as a Technician, many hours for which he was required to work off  the clock.    35.  Plaintiff typically worked approximately fifty (50) hours per week during  his employment at Fletcher’s.   36.  During a typical day, Plaintiff would start his work for Fletcher’s at around  8:00 a.m. in the morning.  He would survey his equipment and check with management to  obtain orders.  He would then transport vehicles so that he could work on them according  to his schedule.  He would then typically end his day around 5:30 p.m. in the evening.  He  typically worked these hours six days a week.     37.  Despite having worked numerous hours of overtime, Plaintiff was not paid  proper overtime wages at a rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for hours  worked over forty in a work week.   38.  Fletcher’s also failed to timely pay Plaintiff all the wages that he was due in  violation of the Arizona Wage Statute.     39.  Plaintiff’s duties, hours and compensation are indicative of the similarly  situated Technicians.   40.  Fletcher’s improper policies and compensation practices applied to Plaintiff  and all similarly situated Technicians he purports to represent.     42.  All the Technicians are uniformly subject to the same unlawful  compensation practices that Plaintiff was subject to during his employment at Fletcher’s.  43.  Plaintiff brings his claim under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., as a  collective action.  Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and others similarly  situated, properly defined as:  All current and former Fletcher’s employees who worked as  Technicians and were paid a Flat Rate for Fletcher’s during the  Liability Period.    44.  Fletcher’s illegal overtime wage practices were widespread with respect to  the proposed Class.  The failure to pay proper overtime was not the result of random or  isolated individual management decisions or practices.    45.  Fletcher’s overtime wage practices were routine and consistent.  Throughout  the Liability Period, employees regularly were not paid the proper overtime wage despite  working in excess of forty hours per week.   46.  Other Technicians performed the same or similar job duties as Plaintiff.   Moreover, these Technicians regularly worked more than forty hours in a workweek.   Accordingly, the employees victimized by Fletcher’s unlawful pattern and practices are  similarly situated to Plaintiff in terms of employment and pay provisions.   47.  Fletcher’s failure to pay overtime compensation at the rates required by the  FLSA result from generally applicable policies or practices and do not depend on the  personal circumstances of the members of the collective action.  Thus, Plaintiff’s  experience is typical of the experience of the others employed by Fletcher’s.   49.  The state law claims under the Arizona Wage Statute are brought as a class  action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3).  The Class is defined in  paragraph 2 above.   50.  Throughout the Liability Period, Fletcher’s has employed a large number of  Technicians.  The Class is therefore so numerous that joinder of all members is  impracticable.  Members of the Class can readily be identified from business records  maintained by Fletcher’s.   51.  Proof of Fletcher’s liability under the Arizona Wage Statute involves factual  and legal questions common to the Class.  Whether Defendants paid Class members the  proper wages due in accordance with A.R.S. §§ 23-351, 23-353, 23-355 is a question  common to all Class members.   52.  Like Plaintiff, all Class members worked without being paid the statutorily  required wages.  Plaintiff’s claim is therefore typical of the claims of the Class.   53.  Plaintiff has no interest antagonistic to those of other Class members and has  retained attorneys who are knowledgeable in wage and hour and class action litigation.   The interests of Class members are therefore fairly and adequately protected.   54.  This action is maintainable as a class action under Rule 23(b)(3) because  questions of law or fact common to the Class predominate over any questions affecting  only individual members.   56.  Plaintiff’s Arizona Wage Statute claim is easily managed as a class action.   The issue of liability is common to all Class members.  Although the amount of damages  may differ by individual, they are objectively ascertainable and can be easily calculated.  57.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above allegations as though  fully set forth herein.   58.  Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee entitled to the statutorily mandated  overtime pay according to the FLSA.   59.  Fletcher’s was an employer pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).   60.  Fletcher’s failed to comply with 29 U.S.C. § 207 because Plaintiff worked  for Fletcher’s in excess of forty hours per week, but Fletcher’s failed to pay Plaintiff for  those excess hours at the statutorily required rate of one and one-half times Plaintiff’s  regular rate of pay as required by the FLSA.   61.  Fletcher’s failure to pay overtime to Plaintiff was willful.  Fletcher’s knew  Plaintiff was working overtime but failed to properly pay overtime wages.  Fletcher’s had  no reason to believe its failure to pay overtime was not a violation of the FLSA.   62.  Plaintiff is entitled to statutory remedies provided pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §  216(b), including but not limited to liquidated damages and attorneys’ fees.  63.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above allegations as though  fully set forth herein.   64.  Fletcher’s was aware of its obligation to pay timely wages pursuant to 