18.  At all relevant times, Plaintiff and the other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are and  have been similarly situated, have had substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions,  and are and have been subjected to Defendants’ decisions, policies, plans, programs, practices,  procedures, protocols, routines, and rules, all culminating in a willful failure and refusal to pay  them the all overtime wages. The claims of Plaintiff stated herein are essentially the same as  those of the other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs.   19.  The claims for relief are properly brought under and maintained as an opt-in  collective action pursuant to §16(b) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 216(b). The FLSA Collective  Plaintiffs are readily ascertainable. For purposes of notice and other purposes related to this  action, their names and addresses are readily available from the Defendants. Notice can be  provided to the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs via first class mail to the last address known to  Defendants. Plaintiff brings claims for relief as a collective action pursuant to FLSA Section  16(b), 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), on behalf of all non-exempt persons employed by Defendants in New  York State on or after the date that is six years before the filing of the Complaint in this case as  defined herein (“FLSA Collective Plaintiffs”).  21.  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  determinable from the records of Defendants. The hours assigned and worked, the position held,  and rates of pay for each Class member may also be determinable from Defendants’ records. For  purposes 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 F.R.C.P. 23.   22.  The proposed Class is so numerous such that a joinder of all members is  impracticable, and the disposition of their claims as a class will benefit the parties and the Court.  Although the precise number of such persons is unknown because the facts on which the  calculation of that number rests presently within the sole control of Defendants, there is no doubt  that there are more than forty (40) members of the Class.   23.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those claims that 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. Defendants’ corporate-wide policies and practices 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.   25.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of the controversy – particularly in the context of the wage and hour litigation where  individual class members lack the financial resources to vigorously prosecute a lawsuit against  corporate defendants. Class action treatment will permit a large number of similarly situated  persons to prosecute common claims in a single forum simultaneously, efficiently, and without the  unnecessary duplication of efforts and expense that numerous individual actions engender.  Because losses, injuries and damages suffered by each of the individual Class members are small  in the sense pertinent to a class action analysis, 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. On the other hand, 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.   27.  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. What are and were the policies, practices, programs, procedures, protocols and  plans of Defendants regarding the types of work and labor for which Defendants  did not pay the Class members properly;   c. At what common rate, or rates subject to common methods of calculation, was  and are Defendants required to pay the Class members for their work;  d. Whether Defendants failed to properly compensate Plaintiff and Class members  for overtime under state and federal law for all hours worked over 40 per  workweek;  e. Whether Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and Class members the spread-of- hours premium as required by the NYLL;  f. Whether Defendants provided to Plaintiff and Class members proper wage and  hour notice, at date of hiring and annually, per requirements of the NYLL; and  g. Whether Defendants provided to Plaintiff and Class members proper wage  statements with each payment of wages as required by NYLL.  29.  Plaintiff also regularly worked at Defendants’ Park Slope MeltKraft restaurant,  located at 211 7th Avenue, Brooklyn, NY, 11215 and various other seasonal locations.   30.  Throughout Plaintiff’s employment, she regularly worked without taking breaks  from 3:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on Mondays through Fridays, from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays  and Sundays, for a total of up to fifty-six and half (56.5) hours per week.   31.  Throughout Plaintiff’s employment, she was never allowed to take lunch breaks. In  addition, she was never paid a spread-of-hours premium for any Saturdays and Sundays when her  work hours were above ten (10) hours per day.   32.  Throughout her employment, Plaintiff was paid a straight rate of $11 per hour for  all hours worked, including hours in excess of forty (40) hours per week. In addition, she was  never provided with wage notices and wage statements.   33.  Based on Plaintiff’s personal observation, discussions with co-workers, other non- exempt employees in all MeltKraft restaurants were subject to Defendants’ wage-and-hour  policies.   34.  Although Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class members regularly  worked over forty (40) hours per week, Defendants never paid them overtime wages in violation  of the FLSA and NYLL.   36.  Defendants never provided wage notices and wage statements to Plaintiff, FLSA  Collective Plaintiffs and Class members in violation of the NYLL.   37.  Plaintiff retained Lee Litigation Group, PLLC to represent Plaintiff, FLSA  Collective Plaintiffs and Class members, in this litigation and has agreed to pay the firm a  reasonable fee for its services.  38.  Plaintiff realleges and reavers Paragraphs 1 through 37 of this class and collective  action Complaint as if fully set forth herein.   39.  At all relevant times, Defendants were and continue to be employers engaged in  interstate commerce and/or the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of the  FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a) and 207 (a).  Further, Plaintiffs and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are  covered individuals within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a) and 207 (a).   40.  At all relevant times, Defendants employed Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs  within the meaning of the FLSA.   41.  At all relevant times, Corporate Defendants had gross annual revenues in excess of  $500,000.   42.  At all relevant times, Defendants engaged in a policy and practice of refusing to  pay overtime compensation at the statutory rate of time and one-half to Plaintiffs and FLSA  Collective Plaintiffs for their hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek.   42.  Defendants knew of and/or showed a willful disregard for the provisions of the  FLSA as evidenced by their failure to compensate Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs for all  hours worked and at the statutory rate of time and one-half for their hours worked in excess of  forty (40) hours per week when Defendants knew or should have known such was due.   43.  Defendants failed to properly disclose or apprise Plaintiffs and FLSA Collective  Plaintiffs of their rights under the FLSA.   44.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ willful disregard of the FLSA,  Plaintiffs and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are entitled to liquidated (i.e., double) damages pursuant  to the FLSA.   45.  Due to the intentional, willful and unlawful acts of Defendants, Plaintiff and FLSA  Collective Plaintiffs suffered damages in an amount not presently ascertainable of unpaid overtime  wages.   46.  Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of their reasonable  attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b).  47.  Plaintiff realleges and reavers Paragraphs 1 through 46 of this class and collective  action Complaint as if fully set forth herein.   49.  Defendants willfully violated Plaintiff and Class members’ rights by failing to pay  them overtime compensation at the rate of not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of  pay for each hour worked in excess of forty (40) hours in a workweek.   50.  Plaintiff and other Class Members regularly worked for over ten (10) hours per day  on each Saturdays and Sundays, but were never paid “spread-of-hours” premium.   51.  Defendants failed to properly notify Plaintiffs and Class members of their hourly  pay rate and overtime rate, in direct violation of the NYLL.   52.  Defendants failed to provide a proper wage and hour notice, at the date of hiring  and annually, to all non-exempt employees per requirements of the NYLL.   53.  Defendants failed to provide proper wage statements with every payment as  required by NYLL.   54.  Due to the Defendants’ NYLL violations, Plaintiff and Class members are entitled  to recover from Defendants unpaid overtime wages, unpaid spread-of-hours premium, damages  for unreasonably delayed payments, reasonable attorneys’ fees, liquidated damages, statutory  penalties and costs and disbursements of the action, pursuant to the NYLL.    VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK LABOR LAW   VIOLATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT  