(Failure to compensate for minimum wage)   (Failure to compensate for work performed “off the clock”)   (Unpaid overtime compensation under the FLSA)   17.  Plaintiff GUILLERMO MONTES, files this case as an “opt in” collective action,  as it is specifically allowed by 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).   18.  The class that Plaintiff GUILLERMO MONTES, seeks to represent may be  described as follows:  All current and former employees of Defendant that worked at any  apartment or rental facility location owned or operated by Defendant  in Texas  during the class period, and claims that he or she either failed  to receive all of his or her minimum wage pay in violation of 29  U.S.C.201 et. seq . and seeks payment for such lawfully earned minimum  wage pay, or (b) failed to receive all of his or her overtime  compensation, in violation of 29 U.S.C. 201 et. seq.   20.  Those persons who choose to opt in, referred to as the “Plaintiff’s class”, will be  listed on subsequent pleadings and copies of their written consents to sue will be filed with the  Court.   21.  Plaintiff GUILLERMO MONTES contends that this action is appropriate for  collective action status because Defendant herein has acted in the same manner with regard to all  members of the Plaintiff’s class.  22.  At all times relevant to this action, Defendant has been subject to the requirements of  the Fair Labor Standards Act 29 U.S.C. 201 et.seq.   23.  For purposes of this action, the “relevant period” is defined as such period  commencing on the date that is three years prior to the filing of this action, and continuing thereafter.   24.  Defendant employed Plaintiff GUILLERMO MONTES, from June 1, 2012 until  April 5, 2013 at Defendant’s apartment complex located at 6233 Gulfton Street, Houston, Texas  77081 and known commonly as the “Westward Square” apartments.      25.  During the period of his employment that Plaintiff has worked for Defendant,  Plaintiff has worked as a porter.   26.  During his employment and in the routine performance of his day-to-day job duties.,  Plaintiff has performed non-exempt work, during a significant period of most days, as classified by  the Act, because the performance of Plaintiff’s job required it and because Defendant’s management  required the performance of those non-exempted job duties, as a condition of Plaintiff’s continued  employment.   28.   During the beginning of Plaintiff’s employment, Plaintiff was paid a regular hourly  rate of $5.00 per hour. Defendant violated the minimum wage provisions of the FLSA by failing to  pay Plaintiff and others like him, at least $7.25 per hour.      29.  During Plaintiff’s employment, while working for Defendant, Plaintiff was  required to work overtime hours in excess of 40 hours worked during many seven-day workweeks.   30.  Further, during these hours worked, Plaintiff has performed the function of his job,  which included the performance duties typically performed by “hourly” paid non-exempt employees  because the job required it and the Defendant’s management required it, as a condition of Plaintiff’s  continued employment.   31.  Plaintiff often worked in excess of 40 hours per week during his employment with the  Defendant.  Plaintiff’s regular schedule was Monday through Friday from 7:00 o’clock A.M. until  4:00 o’clock P.M., and on Saturday’s from 7:00 o’clock A.M. until 12:00 o’clock P.M.     32.  Plaintiff and others like him, were routinely required to work in excess of their  weekly schedule, depending upon the necessity of the day’s work.  Sometimes Plaintiff would work  until 7 or 8 o’clock in the evening during the week.  Defendant demanded that Plaintiff and others  like him perform the extra work as a condition of their employment.   33.  On certain weeks, Plaintiff was required to be “on call” and would have to report to  repair apartment rental units that had an emergency.    34.  During Plaintiff’s employment, Plaintiff was never paid for more than $200.00 per  week, despite the fact that he worked more than 40 hours per week.    36.  Defendant failed to pay statutory overtime as required by 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.   37.  Each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs is re-alleged as if  fully written herein.   38.  Plaintiff GUILLERMO MONTES, and all others similarly situated are considered  non-exempt employees under the statutory provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S. C.  201, et seq., as well as by the administrative regulations used to interpret the Act.   39. Plaintiff GUILLERMO MONTES, and all others similarly situated are entitled to  receive overtime pay for all hours they have worked in excess of 40 during each seven-day  workweek.   40.  Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff and all others similarly situated, their  entitled pay (including overtime pay) for those hours they worked in excess of 40 per week.   41.  Defendant has violated 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. by failing to compensate the Plaintiff  and all other similarly situated employees “overtime” pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours  per week.   42.  Defendant has failed to make good faith efforts to comply with the FLSA, and has  willfully and deliberately sought to evade the requirements of the federal statute.   44.  Defendant has failed to keep or record time records reflecting what hour’s  employees, such as the Plaintiff and those similarly situated actually worked.    45.  The Defendant’s conduct was willful within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 255(a).   46.  No lawful exemption excused the Defendant from compensating Plaintiff and all  others similarly situated, overtime pay for hours worked over forty per week.   47.  Defendant knowingly, willfully, or with reckless disregard carried out an illegal  pattern and practice of deceptive and fraudulent accounting practices regarding overtime  compensation due to Plaintiff and to all others similarly situated.   48.  Plaintiff and all others similarly situated seek an amount of back-pay equal to the  unpaid overtime compensation from the date they commenced employment for the Defendant until  the date of trial.   49.  Plaintiff and all others similarly situated further seek an additional equal amount as  liquidated damages, as well as reasonable attorney’s fees and costs as provided by 29 U.S.C. §  216(b), along with post-judgment interest at the highest rate allowed by law.  50.  Each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraph is re-alleged as if fully  written herein.   51.  Other employees have been victimized by this pattern, practice, and policy of the  Defendants that is in violation of the FLSA.   52.  Thus, from personal knowledge, Plaintiff is aware that the illegal practices and  policies of Defendant has been imposed on other workers.   53.  Other, similarly situated employees are being denied their lawful wages.   55.  Plaintiff GUILLERMO MONTES’ experience is typical of the experience of the  member’s class as it pertains to compensation.   56.  The specific job titles or job requirements of the various members of the class do not  prevent collective treatment.   57.  All employees, regardless of their job requirements or rates of pay, who are denied  overtime compensation for hour worked in excess of 40 per week, or denied minimum wage are  similarly situated.   58.  Although the issue of damages may be individual in character, there is no detraction  from the common nucleus of liability facts.   59.  All current and former employees of Defendant’s apartment complexes who at any  time during the three years prior to the date of filing of this action to the date of judgment who were  denied overtime pay for hours worked in excess of forty (40) in any given workweek are properly  included as members of the class.  60.  Each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs is re-alleged as if  fully written herein.   61.  Plaintiff GUILLERMO MONTES, and all others similarly situated are considered  non-exempt employees under the statutory provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S. C.  201, et seq., as well as by the administrative regulations used to interpret the Act.   63.  The Defendants’ conduct was willful within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 255(a).   64.  No lawful exemption excused Defendant from compensating Plaintiff and all  others similarly situated for the statutorily required minimum wage.   65.  Defendant knowingly, willfully, or with reckless disregard carried out an illegal  pattern and practice of deceptive and fraudulent accounting practices regarding minimum wage  compensation due to Plaintiff and to all others similarly situated.    66.  Plaintiff and all others similarly situated seek an amount of back-pay equal to the  unpaid compensation for hours worked, but not recorded or paid, from the date they commenced  employment for the Defendant until the date of trial.   67.  Plaintiff and all others similarly situated further seek an additional equal amount as  liquidated damages, as well as reasonable attorney’s fees and costs as provided by 29 U.S.C. §  216(b), along with post-judgment interest at the highest rate allowed by law.  68.  Each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraph is re-alleged as if fully  written herein.   69.  Other employees have been victimized by this pattern, practice, and policy of the  Defendants that is in violation of the FLSA.   70.  Thus, from personal knowledge, Plaintiff is aware that the illegal practices and  policies of Defendant has been imposed on other workers.   71.  Other, similarly situated employees are being denied their lawful wages.   73.  Plaintiff GUILLERMO MONTES’s, experience is typical of the experience of the  member’s class as it pertains to compensation.   74.  The specific job titles or job requirements of the various members of the class do not  prevent collective treatment.   75.  All employees, regardless of their job requirements or rates of pay, who are denied  minimum wage are similarly situated.   76.  Although the issue of damages may be individual in character, there is no detraction  from the common nucleus of liability facts.   77.  All current and former employees of Defendant’s apartment complexes who at any  time during the three years prior to the date of filing of this action to the date of judgment who were  denied minimum wage compensation in any given workweek are properly included as members  of the class.  X.  78.  Plaintiff GUILLERMO MONTES, and all others similarly situated is  considered non-exempt employees under the statutory provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29  U.S. C. 201, et seq., as well as by the administrative regulations used to interpret the Act.   79.  Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff and all others similarly situated, their  entitled pay for all hours they worked in a workweek.   81.  Defendant failed to maintain a complete, accurate, and contemporaneous record of the  number of hours worked per workweek by Plaintiff and by all other similarly situated employees, as  required by law.   82.  Defendant engaged in wage theft by not compensating Plaintiff and all others  similarly situated for work they were required to perform at Defendant’s bar as part of their regular  job duties by forcing Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees to clock out after the bar  closed, but continue to perform work, oftentimes over an hour after Plaintiff had clocked out.    83.  Defendant demanded this wage theft as a condition of Plaintiff and all those  similarly situated, continued employment.    84.  The Defendant’s conduct was willful within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 255(a).   85.  No lawful exemption excused the Defendant from compensating Plaintiff and all  others similarly situated for hours worked, but not recorded or paid in a workweek   86.  Defendant knowingly, willfully, or with reckless disregard carried out an illegal  pattern and practice of deceptive and fraudulent accounting practices regarding compensation due  to Plaintiff and to all others similarly situated for hours worked, but not recorded or paid.   87.  Plaintiff and all others similarly situated seek an amount of back-pay equal to the  unpaid compensation for hours worked, but not recorded or paid, from the date they commenced  employment for the Defendant until the date of trial.   88.  Plaintiff and all others similarly situated further seek an additional equal amount as  liquidated damages, as well as reasonable attorney’s fees and costs as provided by 29 U.S.C. §  216(b), along with post-judgment interest at the highest rate allowed by law.  XI.  90.  Other employees have been victimized by this pattern, practice, and policy of the  Defendant that is in violation of the FLSA.   91.  Thus, from personal knowledge, Plaintiff is aware that the illegal practices and  policies of Defendant has been imposed on other workers.   92.  Other, similarly situated employees are being denied their lawful wages.   93.  Accordingly, Defendant’s pattern and practice of failing to compensate employees for  work performed, but not recorded or paid, as required by the FLSA results from the Defendant’s  general application of policies and practices, and does not depend on the personal circumstances of  the members class.   94.  Plaintiff GUILLERMO MONTES’ experience is typical of the experience of the  member’s class as it pertains to compensation.   95.  The specific job titles or job requirements of the various members of the class do not  prevent collective treatment.   96.  All employees, regardless of their job requirements or rates of pay, who are denied  compensation for hours worked, but not recorded or paid, are similarly situated.   97.  All employees, regardless of their job requirements or rates of pay, who were the  victims of the wage theft scheme engaged in by the Defendant, are similarly situated   98.  Although the issue of damages may be individual in character, there is no detraction  from the common nucleus of liability facts.  