 [Violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act—Overtime Wage  Brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective]   18.  Defendants committed the following alleged acts knowingly, intentionally and  willfully.   19.  Defendants knew that the nonpayment of minimum wages, overtime pay, spread  of hours pay, and failure to provide the required wage notice at the time of hiring would  financially injure Plaintiff and similarly situated employees and violate state and federal laws.    20.  From November 10, 2015 until May 1, 2016 Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to  work as a waitress for Defendants’ restaurant located at 1170 Wantagh Avenue, Wantagh, NY  11793.    21.  Plaintiff worked five days per week with two days off on Wednesdays and  Thursdays. Plaintiff worked from 11:00 a.m. until 10:30 p.m., or 11:00 p.m. if needed, on  Mondays, Tuesdays, and Fridays. Plaintiff worked from 12:20 p.m. until 11:00 p.m. or 11:30  p.m., if needed, on Saturday. Sundays, Plaintiff worked from 12:20 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. or  10:30 p.m., if needed. Plaintiff received a break of one hour and a half each day except for  Sundays. She was not allowed to take any break on Sundays. Plaintiff worked approximately  fifty and a half (50.5) hours per week.    22.   At all relevant periods of time, Plaintiff was paid a fixed month salary of $430  per month.   23.  Plaintiff was a tipped employee and received approximately $120 per day in tips.   24.  However, during all the relevant periods, Defendants have a policy and practice of  unlawful deduction of tips and distributing tips to untipped workers. Specifically, Defendants  6  deducted a percentage of Plaintiff’s tips for to share with the staff in the Hibachi and Kitchen  area. Plaintiff was a waitress in both of these sections.    25.  Plaintiff was not required to utilize any means of recording or verifying the hours  she worked (e.g. punch clock, sign-in sheet, fingerprint or ID scanner).    26.  Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff for minimum wages or overtime  compensation according to state and federal laws.   27.  Plaintiff was not compensated for New York’s “spread of hours” premium for  shifts that lasted longer than ten (10) hours.    28.  The applicable minimum wage for the period of December 31, 2014 to December  30, 2015 was $8.75 per hour.    29.  The applicable minimum wage for the period of December 31, 2015 to the present  is $9.00 per hour.   30.  Defendants did not provide Plaintiff with a wage notice at the time of her hiring.    31.  Defendants committed the following alleged acts knowingly, intentionally and  willfully.    32.  Defendants knew that the nonpayment of minimum wages, overtime and the  “spread of hours” premium would economically injure Plaintiff and the Class Members by their  violation of federal and state laws.    33.  While employed by Defendants, Plaintiff was not exempt under federal and state  laws requiring employers to pay employees overtime.    34.  Plaintiff and the New York Class Members’ workdays frequently lasted longer  than 10 hours.   7   35.  Defendants did not pay Plaintiff and other Class members’ New York’s “spread  of hours” premium for every day in which they worked over 10 hours.    36.  Defendants did not post the required New York State Department of Labor  posters regarding minimum wage pay rates, overtime pay and pay day.   37.  Defendants did not provide Plaintiff 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  Plaintiff’s and other Class members’ pay increase(s).    38.  Defendants committed the foregoing acts against the Plaintiff, the FLSA  Collective Plaintiff, and the Class.   39.  On or about April 29, 2016, Defendant Tom Cheng witnessed Plaintiff vomiting.  He became aware that this was due to Plaintiff’s pregnancy.   40.  On May 1, 2016, Tom Cheng fired Plaintiff.   41.  This termination was unlawful and discriminatory, as it was based on Plaintiff’s  pregnancy.  42.  Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not  paying either the FLSA minimum wage or the New York State minimum wage to Plaintiff or  other similarly situated employees.    43.  Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not  paying Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees either the FLSA overtime rate (of time  and one-half), or the New York State overtime rate (of time and one-half), in violation of the  8  FLSA and New York Labor Law and the supporting federal and New York State Department of  Labor Regulations.    44.  Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not  paying the New York State “spread of hours” premium to Plaintiff and other similarly situated  employees.   45.  Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all other and former non- exempt employees who have been or were employed by the Defendants at their restaurant  location for up to the last three (3) years, through entry of judgment in this case (the “Collective  Action Period”) and whom failed to receive minimum wages, spread-of-hours pay, and overtime  compensation 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.    46.  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 thirty (30) 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).    47.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Collective Action  Members, and have retained counsel that is experienced and competent in the field of  9  employment law and class action litigation. Plaintiff has no interests that are contrary to or in  conflict with those members of this collective action.   48.  This action should be certified as collective action because the prosecution of  separate actions 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.    49.  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.    50.  Questions of law and fact common to members of the collective action  predominate over questions that may affect only individual members because Defendants have  acted on grounds generally applicable to all members. Among the questions of fact common to  Plaintiff and other Collective Action Members are:   a. Whether the Defendants employed Collective Action members within the meaning of  the FLSA;   b. Whether the Defendants failed to pay the Collective Action Members the minimum  wage in violation of the FLSA and the regulations promulgated thereunder;   10  c. Whether the Defendants failed to pay the Collective Action Members overtime wages  for all hours worked above forty (40) each workweek in violation of the FLSA and the  regulation promulgated thereunder;   d. Whether the Defendants failed to pay the Collective Action Members spread of hours  payment for each day an employee worked over 10 hours;  e. Whether the Defendants failed to provide the Collective Action Members with a wage  notice at the time of hiring as required by the NYLL;  f. Whether the Defendants’ violations of the FLSA are willful as that terms is used within  the context of the FLSA; and,   g. Whether the Defendants are liable for all damages claimed hereunder, including but  not limited to compensatory, punitive, and statutory damages, interest, costs and  disbursements and attorneys’ fees.    51.  Plaintiff knows of no difficulty that will be encountered in the management of this  litigation that would preclude its maintenance as a collective action.    52.  Plaintiff and others similarly situated have been substantially damaged by  Defendants’ unlawful conduct.   53.  Plaintiff brings their NYLL claims pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure  (“F. R. C. P.”) Rule 23, on behalf of all non-exempt persons employed by Defendants at each of  their three restaurant locations doing business as Mt. Fuji Sushi Hibachi on or after the date that  is six years before the filing of the Complaint in this case as defined herein (the “Class Period”).    54.  All said persons, including Plaintiff, are referred to herein as the “Class.” The  Class members are readily ascertainable. The number and identity of the Class members are  11  determinable from the records of Defendants. The hours assigned and worked, the positions held,  and the rate of pay for each Class Member is also determinable from Defendants’ records. For  purpose of notice and other purposes related to this action, their names and addresses are readily  available from Defendants. Notice can be provided by means permissible under said F.R.C.P 23.    55.  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 thirty (30) members of the class.    56.  Plaintiff’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 minimum wage and  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. Plaintiff and other Class members sustained similar losses, injuries and damages  arising from the same unlawful policies, practices and procedures.    57.  Plaintiff is able to fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class and has  no interests antagonistic to the Class. Plaintiff is represented by attorneys who are experienced  and competent in representing plaintiffs in both class action and wage and hour employment  litigation cases.   12   58.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of the controversy, particularly in the context of wage and hour litigation where  individual Class members lack the financial resources to vigorously prosecute corporate  defendants. Class action treatment will permit a large number of similarly situated persons to  prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously, efficiently, and without the  unnecessary duplication of efforts and expenses that numerous individual actions engender. The  losses, injuries, and damages suffered by each of the individual Class members are small in the  sense pertinent to a class action analysis, thus the expenses and burden of individual litigation  would make it extremely difficult or impossible for the individual Class members to redress the  wrongs done to them. Further, important public interests will be served by addressing the matter  as a class action. The adjudication of individual litigation claims would result in a great  expenditure of Court and public resources; however, treating the claims as a class action would  result in a significant saving of these costs. The prosecution of separate actions by individual  members of the Class would create a risk of inconsistent and/or varying adjudications with  respect to the individual members of the Class, establishing incompatible standards of conduct  for Defendants and resulting in the impairment of class members’ rights and the disposition of  their interests through actions to which they were not parties. The issues in this action can be  decided by means of common, class-wide proof. In addition, if appropriate, the Court can, and is  empowered to, fashion methods to efficiently manage this action as a class action.    59.  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  13  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.    60.  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 Plaintiff and the Class within the meaning of the New  York law;   b. Whether  Defendants  paid  Plaintiff  and  Class  members  the  New  York minimum  wage for all hours worked;  c. Whether Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to overtime under the New York  Labor Law;   d. Whether Defendants maintained a policy, pattern and/or practice of failing to pay  Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class spread-of-hours pay as required by the NYLL;   e. Whether the Defendants provided wage notices at the time of hiring to Plaintiff and  class members as required by the NYLL;  f. 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  61.  Plaintiff  re-alleges  and  incorporates  by  reference  all  preceding  paragraphs  as   though fully set forth herein.   14   62.  At all relevant times, upon information and belief, Defendants have been, and  continue to  be,  “employers”  engaged  in  interstate  “commerce”  and/or  in  the  production  of  “goods”  for  “commerce,”  within  the  meaning  of  the  FLSA,  29  U.S.C.  §§206(a) and  §§207(a). Further, Plaintiff is covered within the meaning of FLSA, U.S.C. §§206(a) and 207(a).    63.  At all relevant times, Defendants employed “employees” including Plaintiff,  within the meaning of FLSA.    64.  Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Defendants have had gross  revenues in excess of $500,000.    65.  The FLSA provides that any employer engaged in commerce shall pay employees  the applicable minimum wage. 29 U.S.C. § 206(a).    66.  At  all  relevant  times,  Defendants  had  a  policy  and  practice  of  refusing  to   pay  the statutory minimum wage to Plaintiff, and the collective action members, for some or all  of the hours they worked.    67.  The FLSA provides that any employer who violates the provisions of 29 U.S.C.  §206 shall  be  liable  to  the  employees  affected  in  the  amount  of  their  unpaid  minimum  compensation, and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages.    68.  Defendants  knowingly  and  willfully  disregarded  the  provisions  of  the  FLSA   as evidenced  by  failing  to  compensate  Plaintiff and  Collective  Class  Members  at  the  statutory minimum wage when they knew or should have known such was due and that failing to  do so would financially injure Plaintiff and Collective Action members.   69.  Plaintiff  re-alleges  and  incorporates  by  reference  all  preceding  paragraphs  as   though fully set forth herein.    70.  At all relevant times, plaintiff was employed by Defendants within the meaning of  New York Labor Law §§2 and 651.    71.  Pursuant to the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act, an employer who fails to  pay the minimum wage shall be liable, in addition to the amount of any underpayments, for  liquidated damages equal to the total of such under-payments found to be due the employee.    72.  Defendants knowingly and willfully violated Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’  rights by failing to pay them minimum wages in the lawful amount for hours worked.   73.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as  though fully set forth herein.    74.  The FLSA provides that no employer engaged in commerce shall employ a  covered employee for a work week longer than forty (40) hours unless such employee receives  compensation for employment in excess of forty (40) hours at a rate not less than one and one- half times the regular rate at which he or she is employed, or one and one-half times the  minimum wage, whichever is greater. 29 USC §207(a).    75.  The FLSA provides that any employer who violates the provisions of 29 U.S.C.  §207 shall be liable to the employees affected in the amount of their unpaid overtime  compensation, and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages. 29 USC §216(b).    76.  Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective their overtime pay  violated the FLSA.   16   77.  At all relevant times, Defendants had, and continue to have, a policy of practice of  refusing to pay overtime compensation at the statutory rate of time and a half to Plaintiff and  Collective Action Members for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek,  which violated and continues to violate the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§201, et seq., including 29 U.S.C.  §§207(a)(1) and 215(a).    78.  The FLSA and supporting regulations required employers to notify employees of  employment law requires employers to notify employment law requirements. 29 C.F.R. §516.4.    79.  Defendants willfully failed to notify Plaintiff and FLSA Collective of the  requirements of the employment laws in order to facilitate their exploitation of Plaintiff’s and  FLSA Collectives’ labor.    80.  Defendants knowingly and willfully disregarded the provisions of the FLSA as  evidenced by their failure to compensate Plaintiff and Collective Class Members the statutory  overtime rate of time and one half for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per week when  they knew or should have known such was due and that failing to do so would financially injure  Plaintiff and Collective Action members.   81.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as  though fully set forth herein.   17   82.  Pursuant to the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act, an employer who fails to  pay proper overtime compensation shall be liable, in addition to the amount of any  underpayments, for liquidated damages equal to the total of such under-payments found to be  due the employee.    83.  Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class their overtime pay  violated the NYLL.    84.  Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class was not in good faith.   85.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as  though fully set forth herein.   86.  Plaintiff brings this Cause of Action pursuant to 29 U.S.C § 216(b) on behalf of  themselves and all other similarly situated persons, if any, who consent in writing to join this  action.   87.  The FLSA prohibits any arrangement between the employer and a tipped  employee whereby any part of the tip received becomes the property of the employer. A tip is the  sole property of the tipped employee.    88.  Upon information and belief, Defendants did not allow Plaintiff and the FLSA  Collective to retain all the tips they earned. Rather, upon information and belief, Defendants  unlawfully retained portions of the tips earned by Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective.   89.  The foregoing conduct, as alleged, constitutes a willful violation of the FLSA  within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 255. Defendants were aware or should have been aware that  18  the practices described in this Collective Action Complaint were unlawful. Defendants have not  made a good faith effort to comply with the FLSA with respect to the compensation of Plaintiff  and the FLSA Collective.   90.  Because Defendants' violations of the FLSA have been willful, a three-year  statute of limitations applies, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 255.   91.  Due to Defendants' FLSA violations, Plaintiff, on behalf of themselves and the  FLSA Collective, are entitled to recover from Defendants the tips that were unlawfully retained  by the Defendants, an additional, equal amount as liquidated damages for Defendants' willful  violations of the FLSA, together with interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and  disbursements in connection with this action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).  91.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as  though fully set forth herein.   92.  The NYLL and supporting regulations require employers to provide written notice  of the rate or rates of pay and the basis thereof, whether paid by the hour, shift, day, week, salary,  piece, commission, or other; allowances, if any, claimed as a part of minimum wage, including  tip, meal, or lodging allowances; the regular pay day designated by the employer; the name of the  employer; any “doing business as” names used by the employer; the physical address of  20  employer’s main office or principal place of business, and a mailing address if different; the  telephone number of the employer. NYLL §195-1(a).   92.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all  preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.    93.  At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff were employed by some or all of the  Defendants within the meaning of NYLL §§ 2 and 651.    93.  Defendants intentionally failed to provide notice to employees in violation of  New York Labor Law § 195, which requires all employers to provide written notice in the  employee’s primary language about the terms and conditions of employment related to rate of pay,  regular pay cycle and rate of overtime on his or her first day of employment.   94.  Defendants not only did not provide notice to each employee at Time of Hire,  but failed to provide notice to each Plaintiff even after the fact.   94.  NYLL § 196-d bars an employer from retaining “any part of a gratuity or of  any charge purported to be gratuity [.]”   95.  Defendants retained part of Plaintiff’s gratuities for unauthorized purpose in  violation of NYLL § 196-d.    95.  Due to Defendants’ violations of New York Labor Law, Plaintiff is entitled to  recover from Defendants, jointly and severally, $50 for each workday that the violation occurred  or continued to occur, up to $5,000, together with costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to New  York Labor Law. N.Y. Lab. Law §198(1-b).  96.  Defendants retained part of Plaintiff’s gratuities and distributed them to tip- ineligible employees in violation of NYLL § 196-d.    96.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as  though fully set forth herein.   97.  Defendants’ retention of Plaintiff’s gratuities was willful.   19   97.  The NYLL and supporting regulations require employers to provide detailed  paystub information to employees every payday. NYLL §195-1(d).   98.  Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendants, jointly and  severally, damages in the amount of unlawfully retained gratuities and an amount equal to one  quarter of their unlawfully retained gratuities in the form of liquidated damages, as well as  reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of the action, including pre-and post-judgment interest,  pursuant to NYLL § 198.  98.  Defendants have failed to make a good faith effort to comply with the New  York Labor Law with respect to compensation of Plaintiff, and did not provide the paystub on or  after Plaintiff’s payday.   99.  Due to Defendants’ violations of New York Labor Law, Plaintiff is entitled to  recover from Defendants, jointly and severally, $250 for each workday of the violation, up to  21  $5,000 for each Plaintiff together with costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to New York Labor  Law N.Y. Lab. Law §198(1-d).  99.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as  though fully set forth herein.   100.  The NYLL requires employers to pay an extra hour’s pay for every day that an  employee works an interval in excess of ten hours pursuant to NYLL §§190, et seq., and §§650,  et seq., and New York State Department of Labor regulations §146-1.6.   101.  Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and Rule 23 Class spread-of-hours pay was  not in good faith.   [Violation of New York Labor Law Unlawful —Retention Gratuities   Under NYLL]   [Violation of New York Labor Law—Time of Hire Wage Notice Requirement]   [Violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act—Minimum Wage  Brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective]   [Violation of New York Labor Law—Minimum Wage]  15   [Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act — Improper Retention of Tips  Brought on behalf of Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective]   [Violation of Title VII for Discrimination Based on Pregnancy]  104.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as  though fully set forth herein.  105.  Title VII prohibits an employer from discriminating against any individual with  respect to the individual’s terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such  individual’s sex.  106.  The PDA amended Title VII to include discrimination on the basis of “pregnancy,  childbirth, or related medical conditions.”  107.  Defendants violated Title VII by wrongfully terminating Plaintiff because of her  pregnancy.  108.  Plaintiff was still able to perform her job at the time of her termination.  109.  As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendant’s pregnancy discrimination,  Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial monetary damages, including, but not  limited to, loss of income, including past and future salary and non-monetary damages,  including, but not limited to, emotional distress and suffering, all in amounts to be determined at  trial.  110.  Defendant’s discriminatory treatment of Plaintiff was willful and/or in reckless  disregard of Plaintiff’s protected rights. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive  damages against Defendant.  [Violation of New York Labor Law—Overtime Pay  Brought on behalf of Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class]   [Violation of New York Labor Law—New York Pay Stub Requirement]   [Violation of New York Labor Law—Spread of Time Pay  Brought on behalf of Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class]   [Violation of NYCHRL for Unlawful Termination Based on Pregnancy]  22  111.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as  though fully set forth herein.  112.  The NYCHRL prohibits an employer from discriminating against any individual  with respect to the individual’s terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such  individual’s sex.  113.  Defendants violated NYCHRL by terminating Ms. Lin’s employment because of  her pregnancy.  114.  As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants’ pregnancy discrimination,  Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial monetary damages, including, but not  limited to, loss of income, including past and future salary and non-monetary damages,  including, but not limited to, emotional distress and suffering, all in amounts to be determined at  trial.  115.  Defendants’ discriminatory treatment of Plaintiff was willful and/or in reckless  disregard of Plaintiff’s protected rights. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive  damages against defendant.  Prayer For Relief  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself, and the FLSA collective plaintiffs and rule  23 class, respectfully requests that this court enter a judgment providing the following relief:   a) Authorizing plaintiff at the earliest possible time to give notice of this collective action,  or that the court issue such notice, to all persons who are presently, or have been  employed by defendants as non-exempt tipped or non-tipped employees. Such notice  23  shall inform them that the civil notice has been filed, of the nature of the action, of their  right to join this lawsuit if they believe they were denied proper hourly compensation and  premium overtime wages;   b) Certification of this case as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of  Civil Procedure;   c) Designation of Plaintiff as representatives of the Rule 23 Class, and counsel of record  as Class counsel;   d) Certification of this case as a collective action pursuant to FLSA;   e) Issuance of notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) to all similarly situated members of  the FLSA opt-in class, apprising them of the pendency of this action, and permitting them  to assert timely FLSA claims and state claims in this action by filing individual Consent  to Sue forms pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and appointing Plaintiff and his counsel to  represent the Collective Action Members;   f) A declaratory judgment that the practices complained of herein are unlawful under  FLSA and New York Labor Law;   g) An injunction against Mt. Fuji Sushi Hibachi, its officers, agents, successors,  employees, representatives and any and all persons acting in concert with them as  provided by law, from engaging in each of unlawful practices and policies set forth  herein;   h) An award of unpaid wages and minimum wages due Plaintiff and the Collective  Action members under the FLSA and New York Labor Law, plus compensatory and  liquidated damages in the amount of twenty five percent under NYLL §§190 et seq.,  §§650 et seq., and one hundred percent after April 9, 2011 under NY Wage Theft  24  Prevention Act, and interest;  i) An award of unpaid overtime wages due under FLSA and New York Labor Law;   j) An award of unpaid “spread of hours” premium due under the New York Labor Law;  k) An award of unlawfully retained gratuities;   l) An award of “spread of hours” premium due under the New York Labor Law;  m) An award of damages for Defendants’ failure to provide wage notice at the time of  hiring as required under the New York Labor Law.  n) An award of liquidated and/or punitive damages as a result of Defendants’ knowing  and willful failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216;   o) An award of liquidated and/ or punitive damages as a result of Defendants’ willful  failure to pay overtime compensation and “spread of hours” premium pursuant to New  York Labor Law;   p) An award of costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys’ and  expert fees pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b) and NYLL §§198 and 663;   q) The cost and disbursements of this action;   r) An award of prejudgment and post-judgment fees;   s) Providing that if any amounts remain unpaid upon the expiration of ninety days  following the issuance of judgment, or ninety days after expiration of the time to appeal  and no appeal is then pending, whichever is later, the total amount of judgment shall  automatically increase by fifteen percent, as required by NYLL §198(4); and   t) Such other and further legal and equitable relief as this Court deems necessary, just,  and proper.   25 