23.Defendants operate TT locations throughout the United States, specifically in Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Texas.  24.Defendant, TT provides lawn care, tree and shrub maintenance and pest control services to its residential and commercial clients.  25.Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt hourly-paid "service technician", servicing Defendant's clients.  26.Plaintiff worked in this capacity from approximately April 2009 through May 2011.  27.As a non-exempt "service technician," Plaintiff was paid "day rates" in exchange for work performed for Defendants.  28.However, Defendants'o called "day rates" failed to comply with the FLSA, because Defendants only paid Plaintiff his "day rate" if he worked more than four (4) hours in a work day.  30.Defendants employed hundreds, if not thousands, of employees who were paid under this illegal "day rate" methodology as well.  31.Plaintiff and those similarly situated to him, routinely worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week as part of their regular job duties.  32.Despite working more than forty (40) hours per week, Defendants'ailed to pay Plaintiff, and those similarly situated to him, overtime compensation at a rate of time and a half their regular rate of pay for hours worked over forty in a workweek.  33.Similarly, Defendants'ailed to pay Plaintiff, and those similarly situated to him, at least the minimum wage for all hours of work.  34.Defendants'ailure to pay Plaintiff, and those similarly situated to him, minimum wage and/or overtime premiums, resulted from a nationwide pay policy, whereby all of Defendants'ranches require employees to work forty (40) hours per week as part of their regular job duties.  35.Defendants were/are aware of the unpaid overtime hours performed by Plaintiff and the class members.  37.Defendants were unjustly enriched by accepting the benefit and value of the work performed by its "service technicians," but not compensating Plaintiff, and those similarly situated to him, for such hours of work.  39.Plaintiff and the class members were all salary paid "service technicians" and performed the same or similar job duties as one another such as spraying pesticides to kill weeds, fertilizing and customer service on behalf of Defendants to their customers.  40.Further, Plaintiff and the class members were subjected to the same pay provisions in that they were all salary paid, but were not compensated at time-and-one-half for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek and/or were not paid anything whatsoever, for at least some hours of work each week.  41.Similarly, Plaintiff and the class members were not compensated at a rate of at least minimum wage for at least some hours of work.  42.Thus, the class members are owed minimum and overtime wages for the same reasons as Plaintiff.  43.Defendants'ailure to compensate employees for some hours worked in a workweek as required by the FLSA results from a policy or practice of failure to assure that "service technicians" are/were paid for all hours worked.  45.Defendants knowingly, willfully, or with reckless disregard carried out its illegal pattern or practice of failing to pay overtime compensation with respect to Plaintiff and the class members.  46.Defendants did not act in good faith or reliance upon any of the following in formulating its pay practices: (a) case law; (b) the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. g 201, et seq.; or (c) Department of Labor Wage 8c Hour Opinion Letters or (d) the Code of Federal Regulations.  48.Defendants have acted willfully in failing to pay Plaintiff and the class members in accordance with the law.  49.Defendants have failed to maintain accurate records of Plaintiff and the class members'ork hours in accordance with the law. 50.Plaintiff sues on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of persons under Rules 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  51.Plaintiff brings his unjust enrichment claim on behalf of all employees who were employed by Defendants, at any time since June 2008 to the entry ofjudgment in this case (the "Class Period" ), who were "non-exempt day rate paid service technicians" who have not been paid for all hours actually worked.  52.To the extent such hours worked but not paid constitute so-called "gap-time" this count is brought to seek recovery of all such gap time hours. Thus it is neither duplicative of nor reliant upon the FLSA.  54.The claims of Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the Class, and a class action is superior to other available methods of fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy — — particularly in the context of wage and hour litigation where an individual plaintiff lacks the financial resources to vigorously prosecute a lawsuit in federal court against corporate defendants.  55.The Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.  57.Plaintiff is committed to pursuing this action and has retained competent counsel experienced in employment law and class action litigation.  58.Plaintiff has the same interests in this matter as all other members of the class and Plaintiff's claims are typical of the Class.  59.There are questions of law and fact common to the Class which predominate over any questions solely affecting the individual members of the Class, including but not limited to: a. Whether the Defendants failed to keep true and accurate time records for all hours worked by Plaintiff and members of the Class; b. What proof of hours worked is sufficient where employers fail in their duty to maintain time records; c. Whether Defendants failed and/or refused to pay the members of the Class for all hours worked as alleged; d. Whether the Defendants are liable for all damages claimed hereunder, including but not limited to, costs, disbursements and attorney's fees. 60.Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers paragraphs 1 through 59 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.  61.From at least 2009, and continuing through 2011, Plaintiff worked in excess of the forty (40) hours per week for which Plaintiff was not compensated at the statutory rate of one and one-half times Plaintiff's regular rate of pay.  62.Plaintiff was, and is entitled to be paid at the statutory rate of one and one-half times Plaintiff's regular rate of pay for those hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours.  63.At all times material hereto, Defendants failed, and continue to fail, to maintain proper/accurate time records as mandated by the FLSA.  64.To date, Defendants continue to fail to pay their non-exempt service technician employees their FLSA mandated overtime pay, despite their recognition that their position is non-exempt and entitled to same.  66.Defendants have failed to properly disclose or apprise Plaintiff of Plaintiff's rights under the FLSA.  67.Due to the intentional, willful, and unlawful acts of Defendants, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer damages and lost compensation for time worked over forty (40) hours per week, plus liquidated damages.  68.Plaintiff is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. )216(b). 69.Plaintiff reincorporates and readopts all allegations contained within Paragraphs 1 through 68 above.  70.Plaintiff was/is entitled to be paid minimum wage for each hour he worked during his employment with Defendants.  71.Plaintiff has demanded proper compensation for one or more weeks of work with Defendants, but Defendants have refused and/or failed to compensate him for the same.  73.Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff minimum wage for one or more weeks of work contrary to 29 U.S.C. $ 206.  74.As a direct and proximate result of Defendants'eliberate underpayment of wages, Plaintiff has been damaged in the loss of minimum wages for one or more weeks of work with Defendants. 75.Plaintiff reasserts and reincorporates by reference all allegations contained within paragraphs 1 through 74 above.  76.This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.( 1367(a) because Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim forms a part of the same case or controversy and arises out of the common nucleus of operative facts as his minimum wage and overtime claims.  77.Plaintiff and all others similarly situated to him worked for Defendants as referenced above.  79.Defendants knowingly accepted the service technicians'vertime work, but Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff for this work.  80.Defendants have been unjustly enriched as a result of their accepting the work of Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees without proper compensation. It would be unjust to allow Defendants to enjoy the fruits of the collective class'abor without proper compensation.  81.Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim seeks unpaid straight time compensation for the service technicians'vertime work where Plaintiff made at least the minimum wage for all hours worked. RECOVERY OF MINIMUM WAGES  UNJUST ENRICHMENT 