 Defendants  refused  to  pay  Plaintiff  and  those  similarly  situated  overtime  wages   for  hours  worked  beyond  forty  each  workweek  and  beyond  twelve  each  workday.       Rather,   Defendant   only   paid   overtime   wages   when   an  employee   exceeded   80   hours   in   a   two-­week   period,   rather   than   when   an   employee   exceeded   40   hours   in   a   given  workweek,  or  twelve  hours  in  a  given  workday,  as  is  required  by  law.  This  practice   resulted  in  Defendants  failing  to  pay  employees  their  earned  overtime  wages.     For   example,   during   the   pay   period   running   from   February   23,   2020   through   March  7,  2020,  Plaintiff  worked  a  total  of  59.25  hours  and  was  not  paid  overtime  wages   per  Defendants’  practice.  Plaintiff  worked  10  hours  during  the  first  workweek  of  the  pay   period   (February   23   through   February   20,   2020)   and   worked   49.25   hours   during   the   second  workweek  of  the  pay  period  (March  1  through  March  7,  2020).  Defendants  failed   to  pay  Plaintiff  overtime  premiums  for  the  hours  worked  beyond  40  during  the  second   workweek  of  the  pay  period.     Similarly,   during   the   period   from   March   9   through   March   13,   2020,   Plaintiff   worked  47.5  hours  and  was  not  paid  at  a  time-­and-­one-­half  rate  for  the  hours  he  worked   beyond  40.     Employing   this   overtime   avoidance   scheme,   Defendants   willfully   violate   their   employees’  right  to  be  paid  overtime  wages  for  overtime  hours  worked.     At   all   times   relevant   to   this   action,   Defendants   employed   persons,   including   Plaintiff,  within  the  State  of  Colorado.       At   all   times   relevant   to   this   action,   Plaintiff   and   Defendants’   other   employees   performed   woodworking   labor   for   the   benefit   of   Defendants   wherein   Defendants   commanded  when,  where,  and  how  much  labor  Plaintiff  and  others  were  to  perform.     Defendant  Ark  Woodworks,  Inc.  sold  and  offered  for  sale  a  service  (woodworking   services)   to   the   consuming   public,   and   generated   50%   or   more   of   its   annual   dollar   volume  of  business  from  such  sales.     Plaintiff   and   Defendants’   other   employees  handled   woodworking   materials   and   equipment,  such  as  wood,  glue,  hardware,  hand  tools  and  power  tools,  which  moved  in   interstate  commerce  each  year  relevant  to  this  action.     Defendants  enjoyed  more  than  $500,000.00  in  gross  receipts  each  year  relevant   to  this  action.     Plaintiff  asserts  his  First  Claim,  brought  under  the  MWO,  as  a  Fed.  R.  Civ.  P.  23   class   action,   on   his   own   behalf   and   on   behalf   of   a   class   for   which   Plaintiff   seeks   certification.       Pending   any   modifications   necessitated   by   discovery,   Plaintiff   preliminarily   defines  this  “Rule  23  Class”  as  follows:   All  Ark  Woodworks  hourly  employees  who  worked  on  or  after  April   21,  2014.           This  action  is  properly  brought  as  a  class  action  for  the  following  reasons.     Defendants  failed  to  pay  all  their  hourly  employees  overtime  wages  for  overtime   hours  worked.     The   class   is   so   numerous   that   joinder   of   all   the   potential   class   members   is   impracticable.   Plaintiff   does   not   know   the   exact   size   of   the   Class   because   that   information  is  within  the  control  of  Defendants.  However,  Plaintiff  believes  and  alleges   that  the  number  of  Class  Members  is  in  the  50-­75  persons  range.  Membership  in  the   class  is  readily  ascertainable  from  Defendants’  employment  records.         Numerous   questions   of   law   and   fact   regarding   the   liability   of   Defendants   are   common   to   the   Class   and   predominate   over   any   individual   issues   that   may   exist.   Common  questions  of  law  and  of  fact  include:  Whether  Defendants  failed  to  pay  all  their   employees  overtime  wages  for  overtime  hours  worked.     A   class   action   is   superior   to   other   available   methods   for   the   fair   and   efficient   adjudication  of  this  controversy  because  numerous  identical  lawsuits  alleging  identical   causes  of  action  would  not  serve  the  interests  of  judicial  economy.         The  representative  Plaintiff  will  fairly  and  adequately  protect  the  interests  of  the   Members  of  the  Class.  Because  all  Class  Members  were  subject  to  the  same  violations   of  law  perpetrated  by  Defendants,  the  interests  of  absent  Class  Members  are  coincident   with,  and  not  antagonistic  to,  those  of  Plaintiff.  The  representative  Plaintiff  will  litigate   the  Class’s  claims  fully.       The  representative  Plaintiff  is  represented  by  counsel  experienced  in  wage  and   hour  class  action  litigation.     The  prosecution  of  separate  actions  by  individual  Class  Members  would  create  a   risk  of  inconsistent  or  varying  adjudications  with  respect  to  individual  Class  Members   which  would  establish  incompatible  standards  of  conduct  for  Defendants.       Plaintiff  is  unaware  of  any  members  of  the  putative  class  who  are  interested  in   presenting  their  claims  in  a  separate  action.         Plaintiff  is  aware  of  no  pending  litigation  commenced  by  members  of  the  Class   concerning  the  instant  controversy.     It  is  desirable  to  concentrate  this  litigation  in  this  forum  because  all  claims  arose   in  Colorado.     This  class  action  will  not  be  difficult  to  manage  due  to  the  uniformity  of  claims   among  the  Class  Members  and  the  susceptibility  of  wage  and  hour  cases  to  both  class   litigation   and   the   use   of   representative   testimony   and   representative   documentary   evidence.     The   contours   of   the   class   will   be   easily   defined   by   reference   to   the   payroll   documents  that  Defendants  were  legally  required  to  create  and  maintain.  7  CCR  1103-­1   at  12;;  29  C.F.R.  §  516.2.  Notice  will  be  easily  distributed  because  all  members  of  the   putative  class  are  or  were  employed  by  Defendants  and  Defendants  were  required  to   create  and  maintain  records  containing  the  mailing  addresses  of  each  class  member.     §  216(b)  COLLECTIVE  ACTION  ALLEGATIONS     The   relevant   time   period   dates   back   three   years   from   the   date   on   which   this   Complaint  was  filed  and  continues  forward  through  the  date  of  judgment  because  the   FLSA  provides  a  three-­year  statute  of  limitations  for  claims  of  willful  violations  brought   under  the  Act.  29  U.S.C.  §  255(a).     All   potential   collective   action   Members   are   similarly   situated   because   they   worked  for  Defendants  as  hourly  employees  and  were  subject  to  Defendants’  common   policy  of  avoiding  overtime  wage  payments.    Plaintiff  repeats  and  realleges  each  of  the  above  allegations  as  if  fully  set  forth   herein.     Plaintiff  asserts  this  count  on  his  own  behalf  and  on  behalf  of  all  other  similarly   situated  employees.  Fed.R.Civ.P.  23.     Defendant   Ark   Woodworks,   Inc.   was   Plaintiff’s   and   others’   “employer”   as   that   term  is  defined  by  the  MWO  because  it  employed  Plaintiff  and  others  in  Colorado.    7    Plaintiff  repeats  and  realleges  each  of  the  allegations  above  as  if  fully  set  forth   herein.         Plaintiff  asserts  this  count  on  his  own  behalf  and  on  behalf  of  all  others  similarly   situated.    29  U.S.C.  §  216(b).         Plaintiff  and  others  were  “employees”  as  that  term  is  defined  by  the  FLSA.    29   U.S.C.  §  203(e).         Defendants   “employed”   the   Plaintiff   and   others   as   that   term   is   defined   by   the   FLSA.    29  U.S.C.  §  203(g).     Defendants  were  Plaintiff’s  and  others’  “employers”  as  that  term  is  defined  by  the   FLSA.    29  U.S.C.  §  203(d).     Defendants’  violations  of  the  FLSA  were  willful.  29  U.S.C.  §  255(a).     Plaintiff  and  others  have  suffered  lost  wages  and  lost  use  of  those  wages  in  an   amount  to  be  determined  at  trial.     Plaintiff  and  others  are  entitled  to  recover  unpaid  overtime  premiums,  liquidated   damages,  attorney  fees  and  costs.    29  U.S.C.  §  216(b).       WHEREFORE:  As  to  his  FIRST  CLAIM  brought  pursuant  to  the  MWO,  Plaintiff   respectfully  requests  an  Order  from  the  Court  that:   a.   This  action  be  certified  as  a  class  action  pursuant  to  Fed.  R.  Civ.P.  23;;   b.   Plaintiff  be  certified  as  the  class  representative  of  the  Rule  23  Class;;   c.   Undersigned  counsel  be  appointed  Rule  23  class  counsel;;   d.   Prompt  notice  of  this  litigation  be  sent  to  all  potential  Rule  23  class   members;;   e.   Plaintiff  and  the  Rule  23  Class  be  awarded  the  wages  they  are  due,   together  with  attorney  fees  and  costs  of  suit.  Colo.  Rev.  Stat.  §  8-­6-­118;;  7   Violation  of  the  CMWA  (Colo.  Rev.  Stat.  §§  8-­6-­101,  et  seq.)  as  implemented  by  the   MWO  (7  CCR  1103-­1)    Violation  of  the  FLSA  (29  U.S.C.  §  201  et  seq.)   