 Defendants Bombay Pizza Company, LLC d/b/a Bombay Pizza Co.;  Bombay Pizza Company Telfair, LLC and Sovijai, Inc. (collectively referred to as  “Bombay Pizza Co.”) own and operate restaurants located in the territorial jurisdiction of  this Court.    Defendants Viral Patel and Sonali Patel are officers and/or directors and/or  managing members of Bombay Pizza Co.  As such, they have operational control of  Bombay Pizza Co. and/or effectively dominate its administration or otherwise act, or  have the power to act, on behalf of Bombay Pizza Co. vis-à-vis its employees.  This is  includes, but is not limited to, developing and implementing pay practices, hiring and  firing employees, undertaking managerial responsibilities, and otherwise exercising  control of the work situation.    In connection with their business operations, Defendants collectively  employ numerous waiters, waitresses, bartenders, busboys, food runners, cooks, kitchen  help, dishwashers, etc.     From approximately November 2009 through November 2011, Lopez was  employed by Defendants as a cook.    Cooks, including Lopez, are responsible for preparing food.    Defendants do not pay cooks, including Lopez, overtime wages for hours  worked in excess of forty (40) per each seven (7) day workweek at a rate of time and one- half as required by the FLSA.    Instead, cooks, including Lopez, are paid at their regular rate for all  overtime hours worked.     On information and belief, these same illegal pay practices were applied to  all employees of Defendants who were compensated in the same or similar manner to that  of Plaintiff.   Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all of the facts set forth in  the above-sections of this Complaint.    On information and belief, Plaintiff was a nonexempt employee under the  guidelines of the FLSA.    As a nonexempt employee, Plaintiff was legally entitled to be paid at the  minimum wage for all hours worked and at one and one-half times his “regular rate” for  all hours worked in excess of forty (40) during each seven (7) day workweek.  29 U.S.C.  §§ 206(a), 207(a).    Instead, Defendants paid Plaintiff at his straight time rate for all hours  worked over forty (40) each workweek in violation of the FLSA.    As a result, Plaintiff was regularly “shorted” on his paycheck by not being  paid at a rate of time and one-half for hours worked in excess of forty (40) per workweek.    In the event that Defendants classified Plaintiff as exempt from the  overtime requirements of the FLSA, Plaintiff was misclassified, as no proper exemption  enumerated within the guidelines of the FLSA excused Defendants from appropriately  paying Plaintiff full overtime wages for hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per  each seven (7) day workweek, as is specifically required by the FLSA.    Rather, Defendants knowingly, willfully, and with reckless disregard,  carried out his illegal pattern and practice of failing to pay Plaintiff proper overtime  wages.   B.  Defendants Failed to Keep Accurate Records of Time Worked.    The FLSA requires employers to keep accurate records of hours worked by  nonexempt employees.  29 U.S.C. § 211(c).      In addition to the pay violations of the FLSA identified above, Defendants  also failed to keep proper time records as required by the FLSA.  C.  Defendants’ Illegal Actions Were and Are Willful Violations of the FLSA.    The illegal pattern or practice on the part of Defendants with respect to  compensation and failure to maintain accurate time records are direct violations of the   Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all of the facts set forth in  the above-sections of this Complaint.    On information and belief, other employees have been victimized by  Defendants’ patterns, practices and policies identified above in violation of the FLSA.      These employees are similarly situated to Plaintiff because, during the  relevant time period, they held similar positions, were compensated in a similar manner,  and were denied overtime wages at a rate of time and one-half for hours worked in excess  of forty (40) each workweek.    Defendants’ patterns or practices of failing to pay overtime compensation  are generally applicable policies or practices and do not depend on the personal  circumstances of the Members of the Class.    Since, on information and belief, Plaintiff’s experiences are typical of the  experiences of the Members of the Class, collective action treatment is appropriate.     Plaintiff has retained counsel well versed in FLSA collective action  litigation who is prepared to litigate this matter vigorously on behalf of Plaintiff and any  other Members of the Class.     Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all of the facts set forth in  the above-sections of this Complaint.    Defendants’ practice of failing to pay their nonexempt employees overtime  compensation at one and one-half times their regular rates for all hours worked in excess  of forty (40) each workweek is in direct violation of the FLSA.  29 U.S.C. § 207(a).      Defendants violated the FLSA as well as the Texas Labor Code by failing  to pay Plaintiff his full and proper compensation.  29 U.S.C. § 216(b); TEX. LAB. CODE  §§ 61.011-61.020.    Plaintiff is entitled to liquidated damages in an amount equal to his unpaid  regular and overtime wages as a result of Defendants’ failure to comply with the  requirements of the FLSA.  29 U.S.C. § 216(b).  A.  Defendants Failed to Properly Compensate Plaintiff at the Rate of Time and  One-Half for All Overtime Hours Worked.  