25.  Plaintiff seeks to bring this suit to recover from Defendants her full payment of all  unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation and liquidated damages under the applicable  provisions of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), individually, on her own behalf, as well as on behalf  of those in the following collective:   Current and former employees of Defendants who, during the applicable FLSA  limitations period, performed any work for Defendants as non-managerial  employees who give consent to file a claim to recover damages for minimum wage  compensation that is legally due to them and/or overtime compensation that is  legally due to them for time worked in excess of forty hours per week (“FLSA  Plaintiffs”).   26.  Defendants treated Plaintiff and all FLSA Plaintiffs similarly in that Plaintiff and  all FLSA Plaintiffs: (1) performed similar tasks, as described in the “Background Facts” section  below; (2) were subject to the same laws and regulations; (3) were paid in the same or similar  manner; (4) were not paid minimum wage; (5) were required to work in excess of forty hours each  workweek; and (6) were not paid the required rate of one and one-half times their respective regular  rates of pay for all hours worked over forty in a workweek.   7    27.  At all relevant times, Defendants were aware of the requirement to pay Plaintiff  and all FLSA Plaintiffs at an amount equal to one and one-half times their respective regular rates  of pay for all hours worked each workweek above forty, yet Defendants purposefully chose not to  do so.  Thus, Plaintiff and all FLSA Plaintiffs are victims of Defendants’ pervasive practice of  willfully refusing to pay their employees overtime compensation, in violation of the FLSA  28.  In addition, Plaintiff seeks to maintain this action as a class action pursuant to  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 23(b)(3), on her own behalf, individually, as well on  behalf of those who are similarly-situated who the Defendant subjected to violations of the NYLL  and the NYCCRR during the applicable statutory period.   29.  Under FRCP 23(b)(3), a plaintiff must plead that:   a. The class is so numerous that joinder is impracticable;   b. There are questions of law or fact common to the class that       predominate over any individual questions of law or fact;   c. Claims or defenses of the representative are typical of the class;   d. The representative will fairly and adequately protect the class; and,   e. A class action is superior to other methods of adjudication.    30.  The Rule 23 Class that Plaintiffs seek to define includes:   Current and former employees of Defendants who, during the applicable NYLL  limitations period, performed any work for Defendants as non-managerial  employees who: (1) were not paid at the minimum wage; and/or (2) worked in  excess of forty hours per week without receiving overtime compensation; and/or  (3) were not paid spread of hours; and/or (4) were not issued accurate or any pay  stubs/wage statements on each payday containing the information that N.Y. Lab.  Law § 195(3) requires; and/or (5) were not issued wage notices at the time of their  8   hire, or at any time thereafter as required by N.Y. Lab. Law § 195(1) ("Rule 23  Plaintiffs").   Numerosity   31.  During the previous six years, Defendants have employed, in total, at least forty  employees that are putative members of this class.  Common Questions of Law and/or Fact   32.  There are common questions of law and fact that govern the claims of each and  every Rule 23 Plaintiff, including but not limited to the following: the duties that the Defendants  required and require each Rule 23 Plaintiff to perform; whether the Defendants required and  require each Rule 23 Plaintiff to work in excess of forty hours per week; whether the Defendants  compensated and compensate the Rule 23 Plaintiffs at the minimum wage rate; whether the  Defendants compensated and compensate the Rule 23 Plaintiffs at the legally-mandated rate of  one and one half times their respective straight-time rates of pay for all hours worked per week  over forty; whether the Defendants compensated or compensate each Rule 23 Plaintiff for spread  of hours pay at the at the prevailing minimum wage for each day during which there was a split  shift and/or the spread of hours exceeded 10 hours; whether the Defendants furnished and furnish  the Rule 23 Plaintiffs with accurate wage statements on each payday containing the information  required by N.Y. Lab. Law § 195(3); whether the Defendants kept and maintained records with  respect to each hour that the Rule 23 Plaintiffs worked; whether the Defendants kept and  maintained records with respect to the compensation that they paid to the Rule 23 Plaintiffs;  whether the Defendants maintain any affirmative defenses with respect to the Rule 23 Plaintiffs'  claims; whether the Defendants’ actions with respect to the Rule 23 Plaintiffs were in violation of  9   the NYLL and supporting regulations; if so, whether the Defendants’ violations were in willful  violation of the NYLL and supporting regulations; and if so, what constitutes the proper measure  of damages  Typicality of Claims and/or Defenses   33.  As described in the background facts section below, Defendants, despite the title  that it assigned to Plaintiff, employed Plaintiffs as non-managerial, non-exempt employees.  Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Rule 23 Plaintiffs whom she seeks to represent,  as the Rule 23 Plaintiffs work, and/or have worked for Defendants in excess of forty hours per  week, as non-managerial employees, and Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff minimum wage,  overtime, or spread of hours.  Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Plaintiffs enjoy the same statutory rights  under the NYLL to be paid at the statutory minimum wage rate, at a rate of one and one-half times  their straight time rates for all hours worked per week in excess of forty, and spread of hours, and  to be furnished with accurate wage statements and wage notices.  Plaintiff and the Rule 23  Plaintiffs have all sustained similar types of damages as a result of Defendants’ failure to comply  with the NYLL and supporting regulations.  Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Plaintiffs have all suffered  injury, including lack of compensation or under-compensation, due to Defendants’ common  policies, practices, and patterns of conduct.  Thus, Plaintiffs’ claims and/ or the Defendants’  defenses to those claims are typical of the Rule 23 Plaintiffs' claims and the Defendants’ defenses  to those claims.  10   Adequacy   34.  Plaintiff, as described below, worked the same or similar hours as the Rule 23  Plaintiffs throughout her employment with Defendants. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff  minimum wage, overtime pay for her hours worked over forty each week, or spread of hours,  which is substantially-similar to how the Defendants paid the Rule 23 Plaintiffs.  Plaintiff is no  longer employed with the Defendant, and thus has no fear of retribution for her testimony.  Plaintiff  fully anticipates testifying under oath as to all of the matters raised in this Complaint and that will  be raised in the Defendants’ Answer. Thus, Plaintiff would properly and adequately represent the  current and former employees whom the Defendants have subjected to the treatment alleged  herein.  Superiority   35.  Plaintiff has no, or few, material facts relating to the Rule 23 Plaintiffs' claims that  are atypical of those of the putative class. Indeed, at all relevant times herein, Defendants treated  Plaintiffs identically, or at the very least, substantially similarly, to the Rule 23 Plaintiffs.   36.  Any lawsuit brought by an employee of the Defendants for the same violations  alleged herein would be identical to a suit brought by any other employee for the same violations.  Thus, separate litigation would risk inconsistent results.    37.  Accordingly, this means of protecting the Rule 23 Plaintiffs' rights is superior to  any other method, and this matter is properly maintainable as a Class Action under FRCP 23(b)(3).   11    38.  Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel has substantial experience in this field of law.  39.  Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Queens.    40.  At all relevant times, Defendants Musa and Galvis were the owners and day-to-day  overseers of Delicias Tropical Restaurant who in that capacity were responsible for hiring and  firing employees, determining their rates and methods of pay and the hours that employees were  required to work.     41.  Prior to the filing of this Collective and Class Action Complaint with Jury Demand,  Defendants Delicias Tropical Restaurant and Galvis agreed to toll the statute of limitations for  claims brought under the FLSA and NYLL from May 3, 2019 until and including June 30, 2019,  for Named Plaintiff Franco as well as opt in Plaintiffs Alvarez and Lopez.   42.  From on or about May 1, 2013 to on or about December 15, 2014, and on or about  January 1, 2016 to on or about March 8, 2019, Plaintiff Franco worked for Defendants.     43.  Throughout her employment, Plaintiff Franco’s job consisted of preparing food and  pastries, washing and ironing table clothes and linens, taking inventory, disposing of trash and  waitressing.  12    44.  Defendants required Plaintiff Franco to work – and she did in fact work - from 8:00  a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Thursday through Tuesday from on or about May 1, 2013 until on or about  December 31, 2016.    45.  From on or about January 1, 2017 until on or about March 1, 2018 plaintiff worked  Wednesday and Thursday 1:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. and Sunday 12:00  p.m. to 12:00 a.m.    46.  From on or about March 2, 2018 until on or about July 1, 2018 plaintiff worked  from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Thursday through Tuesday.    47.  From on or about July 2, 2018 until on or about September 1, 2018 plaintiff worked  from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday and Friday, 1:00  p.m. to 12:00 a.m. Saturday and 12:00  p.m.  to 12:00 a.m. Sunday.    48.  From on or about September 2, 2018 until on or about March 8, 2019 plaintiff  worked from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Friday, 1:00  p.m. to 12:00 a.m. Saturday and 12:00  p.m. to  12:00 a.m. Sunday.   49.  From on or about May 1, 2013 until on or about December 31, 2016, Defendants  paid Plaintiff a fixed weekly salary of $240.00 which was intended to cover the first forty hours  that she worked each week.  13    50.  From on or about January 1, 2017 until June 1, 2017 Defendants paid Plaintiff a  fixed weekly salary of $135.00, which was intended to cover the first forty hours that she worked  each week.   51.  From on or about June 2, 2017 until March 1, 2018 Defendants paid Plaintiff a fixed  weekly salary of $150.00, which was intended to cover the first forty hours that she worked each  week.   52.  From on or about March 2, 2018 until on or about April 1, 2018, Defendants paid  Plaintiff a fixed weekly salary of $300.00 which was intended to cover the first forty hours that  she worked each week.   53.  From on or about April 2, 2018 until on or about July 1, 2018, Defendants paid  Plaintiff a fixed weekly salary of $360.00 which was intended to cover the first forty hours that  she worked each week.   54.  From on or about July 2, 2018 until on or about September 1, 2018, Defendants  paid Plaintiff a fixed weekly salary of $240.00 which was intended to cover the first forty hours  that she worked each week.   55.  From on or about September 2, 2018 until March 8, 2019 Defendants paid Plaintiff  a fixed weekly salary of $180.00, which was intended to cover the first forty hours per work week  worked.  14    56.  Defendants failed to notify Plaintiff Franco in writing of the tip credit provisions of  the NYLL, or of their intent to apply a tip credit to her wages.   57.  Defendants failed to notify Plaintiff either verbally or in writing of the tip credit  provisions of the FLSA, or of their intent to apply a tip credit to her wages.   58.  Defendants did not satisfy the requirements under the FLSA and NYLL by which  they could apply a tip credit to Plaintiffs’ wages.   59.  Throughout her entire employment, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff with  the applicable minimum wage, as required under the FLSA and NYLL.   60.  Through her entire employment, Defendants suffered or permitted Plaintiff to work  over 10 hours per day.  During such workdays, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff for any  spread of hours pay at the at the prevailing minimum wage for each day during which there was a  split shift, and/or the spread of hours exceeded 10 hours.   61.  Throughout her entire employment, Defendants paid Plaintiff on a weekly basis,  without providing her with any wage statements that reflected the amount of hours that she worked,  her regular rate of pay or her overtime rate of pay for each hour she worked in excess of forty  hours in a given workweek.    62.  Defendants intentionally did not provide Plaintiff with a wage notice at the time of  her hire, or at any time thereafter, containing any of the following information: her rates of pay  15   and basis thereof; whether Plaintiff was paid by the hour, shift, day, week, salary, piece,  commission, or other; whether any allowances were claimed as part of the minimum wage,  including tip, meal, or lodging allowances; the regular pay day designated by Defendants; the name  and physical addresses of Defendants; any “doing business as” names used by Defendants; and  Defendants’ mailing addresses and telephone numbers.   63.  Defendants acted in the manner described herein so as to maximize their profits  while minimizing her labor costs.    64.  Every hour that Plaintiff worked was for Defendants’ benefit.   65.  Defendants treated all FLSA Plaintiffs and Rule 23 Plaintiffs in the manner  described above.  66.  Plaintiff and the FLSA Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all the preceding paragraphs  of this complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth at length.   67.  The minimum wage provisions set forth in the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., and  the supporting federal regulations, apply to Defendants and protect the Plaintiff and the FLSA  Plaintiffs.   68.  Defendants have failed to pay the proper statutory minimum wage to which  Plaintiff and the FLSA Plaintiffs have been entitled under the FLSA.  16    69.  Defendants' unlawful conduct, as described in this Complaint, has been willful and  intentional. Defendants were aware or should have been aware that the practices described in this  Complaint were unlawful.  Defendants have not made a good faith effort to comply with the FLSA  with respect to the compensation of the Plaintiff and the FLSA Plaintiffs.   70.  As Defendants' violations of the FLSA have been willful, a three-year statute of  limitations applies, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 255.   71.  As a result of Defendants' violations of the FLSA, the Plaintiff and the FLSA  Plaintiffs has been deprived of the proper minimum wage compensation in amounts to be  determined at trial, and is entitled to recovery of such amounts, liquidated damages, prejudgment  interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and other compensation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).  72.  The Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all preceding paragraphs  of this complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth at length.   73.  At all times herein pertinent, the Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Plaintiffs were employees  of Defendants within the meaning of the New York Labor Law.   74.  Defendants are employers of the Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Plaintiffs within the  meaning of the New York Labor Law.  17    75.  The minimum wage provisions of Article 19 of the New York Labor Law and its  supporting regulations apply to Defendants.   76.  Defendants have failed to pay the Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Plaintiffs the proper  minimum wages to which they were entitled under the New York Labor Law.   77.  By Defendants’ failure to pay the Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Plaintiffs proper  minimum wages for hours worked up to the first 40 hours per week, they have willfully violated  the New York Labor Law Article 19, §§ 650 et seq., and the supporting New York State  Department of Labor Regulations.   78.  Due to Defendants’ violations of the New York Labor Law, Plaintiff and the Rule  23 Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Defendants their unpaid minimum wages, liquidated  damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of the action, and pre-judgment and post-judgment  interest.  79.  Plaintiff and the FLSA Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all the preceding paragraphs  of this complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth at length.   18    80.  Defendants were required to directly pay the Plaintiff and the FLSA Plaintiffs an  overtime premium of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over  forty (40) in a given workweek.     81.  As described above, Defendants are employers within the meaning of the FLSA,  while Plaintiff and the FLSA Plaintiffs are employees within the meaning of the FLSA.    82.  As also described above, Plaintiff and the FLSA Plaintiffs worked in excess of forty  (40) hours per week, yet Defendants failed to compensate them in accordance with the FLSA’s  overtime provisions.    83.  The Defendants willfully violated the FLSA.    84.  As such, Plaintiff and the FLSA Plaintiffs are entitled to overtime pay for all hours  worked per week in excess of forty (40) at the rate of one and one-half times their respective  standard rate of pay.    85.  Plaintiff and the FLSA Plaintiffs are also entitled to liquidated damages and  attorneys’ fees for the Defendants’ violation of the FLSA’s overtime provisions.    86.  All of the foregoing constituted willful and repeated violations of the Fair Labor  Standards Act, so the applicable statute of limitations is three years pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 255(a).  19   Unpaid Minimum Wage under the FLSA   Unpaid Minimum Wage under the NYLL   Unpaid Overtime under the FLSA  