Mark's Pizzeria Complaint

Case 6:15-cv-06462-JWF Document 1 Filed 08/06/15 Page 1 of 18
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ADAM CUNNINGHAM, ALEX CHEFALO, &
REMO PAGLIA,
on behalf of themselves and all other employees
similarly CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION
situated, COMPLAINT
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No.
v. No. 15-cv-6462
SUDS PIZZA, INC., MARKS PIZZERIA, INC., and

MARK S. CRANE,
individually and as Owner and Chief Executive
Officer of Marks Pizzeria, Inc. and Suds Pizza, Inc.,
Defendants.
Plaintiffs Adam Cunningham, Alex Chefalo and Remo Paglia (Named Plaintiffs), on
behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown (Plaintiffs),
through their attorneys, Ferr & Mullin, P.C., bring this class and collective action complaint
against Defendants Suds Pizza, Inc., Marks Pizzeria, Inc., and Mark S. Crane, individually and
as Owner and Chief Executive Officer of Suds Pizza, Inc., and Marks Pizzeria, Inc. (collectively
Defendants). This lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid wages, injunctive relief and declaratory
relief to redress the deprivation of rights secured to the Named Plaintiffs and similarly situated
employees who work or have worked at Defendants pizza restaurants in New York State.
NATURE OF CLAIM
1. Defendants policies that are at issue in this case are: 1) employing individuals to
deliver pizzas using their own vehicles, and paying them minimum wage, or slightly above,
without reimbursement for vehicle-related expenses, resulting in them making less than
minimum wage; 2) charging customers a mandatory service charge for the delivery of food
items, and retaining said charge rather than remitting it to the delivery drivers as customers could
reasonably expect; 3) requiring individuals to work shifts spanning in excess of ten hours without
paying them for one additional hour at the basic minimum rate; 4) requiring employees to wear
uniforms and not maintaining said uniforms or paying employees an allowance for maintenance;
and 5) failure to provide employees with written notices as required by the New York Labor Law
(NYLL) and supporting regulations, including NYLL 195 and 12 NYCRR 146-2.2.
2. Named Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and similarly situated
current and former employees pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (Rule 23) to
remedy the violations of New York Labor Law and supporting New York State Department of
Labor Regulations, including, but not limited to: 12 N.Y.C.R.R. 146-1.6; 146-1.7; 146-2.2;
and 146-2.18.
3. Named Plaintiffs also bring this action on behalf of themselves and similarly
situated current and former employees who elect to opt-in to this action pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 as amended, 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. (FLSA), specifically, the
collective action provision of 29 U.S.C. 216(b).
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 28 U.S.C.
1343 (3) and (4) conferring original jurisdiction upon this Court of any civil action to recover
damages or to secure equitable relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of
civil rights; under 28 U.S.C. 1337 conferring jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any
Act of Congress regulating interstate commerce; and under the Declaratory Judgment Statute, 28
U.S.C. 2201; and under 29 U.S.C. 216(b).
-2-
5. This Courts supplemental jurisdiction of claims arising under the NYLL is also
invoked.
6. Venue is appropriate in the Western District of New York since the allegations
arose in this District, Defendants do business in this District, and the Plaintiffs reside in this
District.
CLASS and COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS
7. The NYLL claims are properly maintainable as a class action under Rule 23.
8. The Rule 23 classes consist of the following:
I. Delivery Minimum Wage Class: All current and former employees employed
as delivery drivers whose hourly pay rate, less unreimbursed expenses associated
with operating their vehicles for work, resulted in them making less than
minimum wage.
II. Delivery Gratuity Class: All current and former employees employed as
delivery drivers and who were not paid the service charges that Defendants
charged their customers for the delivery services said employees performed.
III. Spread of Hours Class: All current and former employees, regardless of rate
of pay, whose workdays, on any given day, spanned in excess of ten hours, as
required by 12 N.Y.C.R.R. 146-1.6, and who were not paid one additional hour
at the basic minimum rate.
IV. Uniform Class: All current and former employees who are/were required to
wear uniforms, the maintenance of which was not performed, or reimbursed for,
by Defendants.
V. Notice Class: All current and former employees who did not receive the
written notices required by NYLL 195 and/or 12 NYCRR 146-2.2.
9. The class action is maintainable under subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4) of Rule
23(a).
10. The number of putative subclass members is likely over 200.
11. The Named Plaintiffs claims share common issues of law and fact as to whether
they were paid properly and have common claims that are typical of the claims of the above class
members because they are or were employed by Defendants in the same capacities and subject to
-3-
the same policies and procedures.
12. Common issues of law and fact predominate in this action because resolution of
them will resolve significant aspects of this litigation for each class member including, but not
limited to, the following:
Whether Defendants violated the FLSA and NYLL by effectively paying their
delivery drivers less than minimum wage;
Whether Defendants violated the NYLL by retaining the service charges that they
charged their customers for the delivery services provided by their drivers;
Whether Defendants violated the NYLL by failing to compensate all employees,

regardless of rate of pay, whose workday spanned in excess of ten hours for one
additional hour at the basic minimum hourly wage;
Whether Defendants violated the NYLL by failing to maintain their employees

required uniforms, or providing an allowance for same; and
Whether Defendants violated the NYLL by failing to provide required written

notices to all employees.
13. Further, there are no known conflicts of interest between the Named Plaintiffs and
the class members. Moreover, the Named Plaintiffs will adequately represent the interests of the
class members because they are similarly situated to the class members.
14. Class Counsel, Ferr & Mullin, P.C., is qualified and able to litigate the Plaintiffs
claims.
15. The Class Counsel concentrates its practice in employment litigation, and is
experienced in class action litigation, including class actions arising under wage and hour laws.
16. The class action is also maintainable under subsection (2) of Rule 23(b) because
the Named Plaintiffs and the class members seek injunctive relief against Defendants and their
officers, agents, successors, employees, representatives and any and all persons acting in concert
with them as provided by law, from engaging in each of the unlawful practices, policies and
-4-
patterns set forth herein.
17. Moreover, the class action is maintainable under subsection (3) of Rule 23(b)
because the Named Plaintiffs and class members seek to resolve common questions of law and
fact that predominate among the Named Plaintiffs and class members, and the class action is
superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. The
class action is also maintainable under Rule 23(c)(4) because resolution of common issues will
significantly advance the litigation or entitle Plaintiffs to injunctive relief.
18. Named Plaintiffs also bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated employees as authorized under 29 U.S.C. 216(b). The employees similarly
situated for purposes of the collective action are:
All Defendants employees who were paid an hourly rate which, after being offset
by unreimbursed expenses necessary for the performance of the employees job,
resulted in said employees receiving less than minimum wage.
19. Defendants knowingly and willfully operate their business with a policy of not
paying the FLSA minimum wage to the Named Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees.
20. There are numerous similarly situated current and former employees of
Defendants who work or worked at Defendants pizza restaurants who would benefit from
issuance of a Court supervised notice of the instant lawsuit and the opportunity to join.
21. Similarly situated employees are known to Defendants and readily identifiable by
Defendants through Defendants payroll records.
22. Therefore, the Named Plaintiffs should be permitted to bring this action as a
collective action for and on behalf of those employees similarly situated pursuant to the opt-in
provision of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 216(b).
-5-
PARTIES
A. Plaintiffs
Named Plaintiffs
23. Adam Cunningham (Cunningham) was an employee of Defendants under the
FLSA and NYLL, was employed within this District during the relevant time period, and resides
within this District.
24. Cunningham worked for Defendants in various capacities, including delivery
driver, assistant manager and general manager, from approximately May, 2005 until June, 2015,
at Defendants location at 121 South Main St., Brockport NY (formerly located at 27 South Main
St., Brockport NY).
25. Alex Chefalo (Chefalo) was an employee of Defendants under the FLSA and
NYLL, was employed within this District during the relevant time period, and resides within this
District.
26. Chefalo worked for Defendants at various times beginning in 2008 and ending in
July, 2015. Chefalo worked, at various times, as a production employee, delivery driver, and
manager. Chefalo worked at Defendants locations at: 2103 Buffalo Rd., Rochester NY; 3670 Mt.
Read Blvd., Rochester NY; 4390 Buffalo Rd., North Chili, NY; and 121 South Main St.,
Brockport NY.
27. Remo Paglia (Paglia) was an employee of Defendants under the FLSA and
NYLL, was employed within this District during the relevant time period, and resides within this
District.
28. Paglia worked for Defendants as a delivery driver from 2011 until approximately
November, 2014 at Defendants location at 121 South Main St., Brockport NY (formerly located
-6-
at 27 South Main St., Brockport NY).
29. The Named Plaintiffs, along with other employees, were subject to Defendants
policies underlying the claims stated herein.
Class Members
30. As described in more detail below, Class Members (or Plaintiffs) are those
employees of any Defendants from August 6, 2009 to the date of judgment who are similarly
situated to the Named Plaintiffs in that they were also subject to Defendants illegal pay policies
complained of herein.
B. Defendants
31. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs were employees of Defendants as defined
by the NYLL and FLSA.
32. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants are employer[s] as defined in the
NYLL and FLSA.
33. Defendants own and operate pizza restaurants in New York State, are
enterprise[s] as defined by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 203(r)(1), and are enterprises engaged in
commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of the FLSA. 29
U.S.C. 203(s)(1).
34. Defendants employees are engaged in interstate commerce, and their annual
gross volume of sales made or business done exceeds $500,000, exclusive of excise taxes.
35. During the course of their employment by Defendants, Plaintiffs handled goods,
including perishable produce and other food and beverage products that moved in interstate
commerce.
-7-
36. Marks Pizzeria, Inc. was founded and incorporated in the State of New York on
January 25, 1994. It maintains corporate offices located at 7450 Pittsford Palmyra Rd., Fairport
NY 14450.
37. Suds Pizza, Inc. was founded and incorporated in the State of New York on April
29, 2008. It maintains corporate offices located at 7450 Pittsford Palmyra Rd., Fairport NY
14450.
38. Marks Pizzeria, Inc. and Suds Pizza, Inc. operate Pizza restaurants throughout
New York State.
39. Members of the public can access information about each location on a common
website found at: www.markspizzeria.com. This information typically includes address, hours of
operation, and store manager.
40. The website does not list ownership information for each location, but indicates
that it is Marks Pizzeria, established in 1992.
41. Members of the public can use the website to order from individual locations,
acquire coupons, join a loyalty and/or birthday club, learn the companys advertising jingle,
purchase gift cards, and apply for employment.
42. Defendants have routinely held meetings attended by members of management
from Defendants pizza restaurants for the purpose of discussing policies, procedures, and other
business matters.
Mark S. Crane
43. Mark S. Crane (Crane) is the founder and, upon information and belief, the sole
owner of Marks Pizzeria, Inc.
44. Crane is the Chief Executive Officer for Marks Pizzeria, Inc.
-8-
45. Crane is directly in charge of the overall operations of Marks Pizzeria, Inc.s
pizza restaurants.
46. As such, Crane is primarily responsible for implementing business decisions as
they pertain to Marks Pizzeria, Inc.s pizza restaurants, including but not limited to decisions
concerning company labor guidelines, budgets, and other financial controls.
47. Crane routinely visits Marks Pizzeria, Inc.s pizza restaurants to observe
operations and speak to individuals.
48. Based on these facts, Crane can be held liable as employer of Plaintiffs for
violations complained of in this matter.
49. Mark S. Crane (Crane) is the founder and, upon information and belief, the sole
owner of Suds Pizza, Inc.
50. Crane is the Chief Executive Officer for Suds Pizza, Inc.
51. Crane is directly in charge of the overall operations of Suds Pizza, Inc.s pizza
restaurants.
52. As such, Crane is primarily responsible for implementing business decisions as
they pertain to Suds Pizza, Inc.s pizza restaurants, including but not limited to decisions
concerning company labor guidelines, budgets, and other financial controls.
53. Crane routinely visits Suds Pizza, Inc.s pizza restaurants to observe operations
and speak to individuals.
54. Based on these facts, Crane can be held liable as employer of Plaintiffs for
violations complained of in this matter.
-9-
COUNT I
Violation of the New York Labor Law Delivery Drivers Minimum Wage
Class Action
55. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 54 of this
Complaint.
56. This count arises from Defendants willful violation of the NYLL, New York
Minimum Wage Act, Article 19, 650 et seq., for Defendants failure to pay Named Plaintiffs
and the class of employees that they seek to represent all their earned minimum wages. Named
Plaintiffs and the class are current and former employees of Defendants who are due, and who
have not been paid, minimum wages under the provisions of the NYLL. Plaintiffs bring Count I
as a class action under Rule 23.
57. Defendants regularly employ individuals as delivery drivers, whose job it is to
deliver prepared food items, such as pizzas and wings, to Defendants customers at said
customers locations.
58. Defendants have a practice of paying delivery drivers the mandatory minimum
wage, or slightly above.
59. The position of delivery driver is one that regularly and customarily receives tips.
60. Defendants require delivery drivers to use their own vehicles to perform delivery
services for Defendants.
61. Defendants require that the personal vehicles operated by their delivery drivers be
safe, legally operated and insured.
62. Defendants do not reimburse delivery drivers for the expenses they incur when
using their vehicles in performance of their employment with Defendants.
- 10 -
63. The expenses incurred by delivery drivers include: gas, other fluids, insurance,
depreciation, and wear and tear including tires, wipers, brakes, etc.
64. The rates per mile set by the Internal Revenue Service for employees for the
relevant period are:
2009 $.55
2010 $.50
2011 $.51 (Jan. 1 June 30)
2011 $.55 (July 1 Dec. 31)
2012 $.555
2013 $.565
2014 $.56
2015 $.575
65. The actual hourly rate received by Defendants delivery drivers is the hourly rate
paid to them by Defendants, less the non-reimbursed expenses they incur in performance of their
jobs.
66. The actual hourly rate received by Defendants delivery drivers is therefore less
than the mandatory minimum wage.
67. The actual rate received by Defendants delivery drivers for hours worked in
excess of forty in one workweek is less than the mandatory minimum wage times one and one-
half.
68. The amount of damages suffered by each Plaintiff as a result of this policy is the
reasonable average cost of operating a vehicle for making a delivery, times the number of
deliveries made. The information necessary to make this calculation is within the control of
Defendants.
- 11 -
COUNT II
Violation of the New York Labor Law Delivery Drivers Service Charge
Class Action
Complaint.
70. Defendants have a policy of charging their customers a service charge for the
delivery of food items, such as pizza and chicken wings, that is performed by Defendants
delivery drivers. Currently this charge is approximately $3.00.
71. Defendants retain the entire service charge for delivery, and do not remit or pass
any portion of it to their delivery drivers.
72. When Defendants customers place orders online for delivery using Defendants
website, regardless of location, the above-mentioned service charge is represented as a charge for
delivery.
73. When Defendants customers place order for delivery by telephone, Defendants
policy is to give its customers a verbal total for their purchase, including the service charge for
delivery.
74. Defendants do not have a policy of itemizing the verbal total given over the
telephone. If customers ask for a breakdown, Defendants policy is to tell them there is a delivery
charge and to inform them of the amount.
75. It is not Defendants policy to routinely inform customers that the service charge
for delivery is retained by Defendants, and not paid fully or in part to Defendants delivery
drivers.
76. Defendants customers can reasonably believe that the service charge for delivery
is paid to Defendants delivery drivers, and that they should therefore tip the drivers less, or
- 12 -
forego a tip entirely.
service charge for delivery that Defendants charged for each delivery made. The information
necessary to make this calculation is within the control of Defendants.
COUNT III
Violation of the New York Labor Law Spread of Hours

Class Action
Complaint.
79. The duration of shifts worked by Defendants employees is determined by
Defendants business needs.
80. Named Plaintiffs and class members often work shifts, the spread of which as
defined by 12 NYCRR 146-1.6, are/were in excess of ten hours.
81. Defendants, as a matter of policy, do not compensate employees who work shifts
with a spread exceeding ten hours with one additional hour of pay at the mandatory minimum
wage.
number of shifts worked with a spread of hours exceeding ten hours times the mandatory
minimum wage at the time each shift was worked. The information necessary to make this
calculation is within the control of Defendants.
- 13 -
COUNT IV
Violation of the New York Labor Law Uniform Maintenance

Class Action
Complaint.
84. Defendants require their employees, including Plaintiffs, to wear uniforms while
at work. Specifically, Defendants require their employees to wear shirts that are supplied by
Defendants.
85. Defendants require that each employees uniform be clean and free of stains and
wrinkles while being worn at work.
86. The nature of Defendants business is such that the shirt portion of the uniform
should be washed prior to each occasion on which it is worn.
87. Defendants do not launder or maintain, with reasonable frequency, any portions
of the uniforms that they require their employees to wear.
88. Defendants do not ensure an adequate supply of clean, properly fitting uniforms.
89. Defendants require employees to purchase some uniform items, such as nametags,
and do not reimburse them for the cost.
90. Defendants have not informed each Plaintiff, in writing, of a policy under which it
will launder required uniform items free of charge with reasonable frequency, and ensure an
adequate supply of clean, properly fitting uniforms.
91. Defendants do not pay their employees an allowance to launder or maintain any
portions of their uniforms.
92. Employees of Defendants who were paid minimum wage actually received less
than minimum wage after unreimbursed expenses for uniform maintenance.
- 14 -
amount of uniform allowance that each should have received for each week worked, as set forth
in 12 NYCRR 146-1.7. The information necessary to make this calculation is within the control
of Defendants.
COUNT V
Violation of the New York Labor Law Required Notices

Class Action
Complaint.
95. This count arises from Defendants willful violation of the NYLL for Defendants
failure to provide written notice to all employees, regardless of rate of pay, as required by NYLL
195(1)(a) at the time of hire for the period April 13, 2009 through present, or each subsequent
January for the period April 13, 2009 through December 31, 2014; with a statement with each
payment of wages, as required by NYLL 195(3); and as required by 12 NYCRR 146-202.
Plaintiffs bring Count V as a class action under Rule 23.
96. The issues involved in this lawsuit present common questions of law and fact.
These common questions of law and fact predominate over the variations which may exist
between members of the classes, if any. The Plaintiffs and the class of similarly-situated persons
on one hand, and Defendants on the other, have a commonality of interest in the subject matter
and remedies sought. The individual Named Plaintiffs believe and assert that they are able to
fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class. If individual actions were
required to be brought by each of the similarly-situated persons injured or affected, it would
necessarily result in multiplicity of lawsuits, creating a hardship to the individuals, to the Court,
and to Defendants. Accordingly, a class action is an appropriate method for the fair and efficient
- 15 -
adjudication of this lawsuit and distribution of the common fund to which the class is entitled.
97. The books and records of Defendants are material to Plaintiffs action as they
disclose the hours worked by each employee and pay received for that work.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the class pray for judgment with respect to Counts I through V
against Defendants as follows:
(a) an order preliminarily and permanently restraining Defendants from engaging in

the aforementioned pay violations;
(b) an award of the value of Plaintiffs unpaid wages and overtime;
(c) an award of the service charges for delivery charged by Defendants but not paid
to their delivery drivers;
(d) an award equal to one hour of pay at the mandatory minimum hourly rate for each
work day spanning in excess of ten hours;
(e) an award crediting Plaintiffs for all hours worked;
(f) an award of fifty dollars for each week that Defendants violated NYLL 195(1),
not to exceed twenty-five hundred dollars;
(g) an award of one hundred dollars for each week that Defendants violated NYLL
195(3), not to exceed twenty-five hundred dollars;
(h) an additional amount as liquidated damages up to one-hundred percent of the total

amount of wages found to be due;
(i) an award of reasonable attorneys fees, expenses, expert fees and costs incurred in
vindicating Plaintiffs rights;
(j) an award of pre- and post-judgment interest;
(k) the amount equal to the value which would make Plaintiffs whole for the
violations; and
(l) such other and further legal or equitable relief as this Court deems to be just and
appropriate.
- 16 -
COUNT VI
Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act Minimum Wages

Section 216(b) Collective Action
Complaint.
99. This count arises from Defendants willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq., for their failure to pay minimum wages to the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs
bring this claim as a collective action under Section 16(b) of the Act. 29 U.S.C. 216(b).
100. Plaintiffs are not exempt from the minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
101. Plaintiffs were paid hourly rates that, when offset by unreimbursed expenses
incurred in the performance of their job duties, were less than the minimum hourly rate.
102. The actual rate received by Defendants delivery drivers for hours worked in
excess of forty in one workweek is less than the mandatory minimum wage times one and one-
half.
reasonable average cost of operating a vehicle for making a delivery, times the number of
deliveries made. The information necessary to make this calculation is within the control of
Defendants.
104. Defendants practices violate the minimum wage provisions of the FLSA.
105. Because the Plaintiffs were all deprived minimum wage payments by the
Defendants policies, Plaintiffs are similarly situated to each other pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
216(b).
- 17 -
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants as follows:
(a) judgment in the amount of the owed minimum wages and overtime for all
time worked by Plaintiffs and those employees who join this lawsuit;
(b) an injunction against Defendants and their officer, agents, successors,

employees, representatives and any all persons acting in concert with them
as provided by law, from engaging in each of the unlawful practices,
policies and patterns set forth herein;
(c) liquidated damages in an amount equal to the amount of unpaid minimum

wages;
(d) an award crediting Plaintiffs for all hours worked;
(e) an award of reasonable attorneys fees, expenses, expert fees and costs
incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs rights;
(f) an award of pre- and post-judgment interest; and
(g) such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper pursuant
to the FLSA.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs demand a jury to hear and decide all issues of fact in accordance with Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b).
Dated: August 6, 2015
FERR & MULLIN, P.C.
By: /s/
Robert Mullin
Attorney for Plaintiffs
7635 Main Street Fishers
P.O. Box 440
Fishers, New York 14453
Telephone: (585) 869-0210
rlmullin@ferrmulinlaw.com
- 18 -

Mark's Pizzeria Complaint

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Mark's Pizzeria Complaint

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Case 6:15-cv-06462-JWF Document 1 Filed 08/06/15 Page 1 of 18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SUDS PIZZA, INC., MARKS PIZZERIA, INC., and

collective action provision of 29 U.S.C. 216(b).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 28 U.S.C.

U.S.C. 2201; and under 29 U.S.C. 216(b).

CLASS and COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS

8. The Rule 23 classes consist of the following:

10. The number of putative subclass members is likely over 200.

the same policies and procedures.

limited to, the following:

Whether Defendants violated the NYLL by failing to compensate all employees,

Whether Defendants violated the NYLL by failing to maintain their employees

Whether Defendants violated the NYLL by failing to provide required written

patterns set forth herein.

significantly advance the litigation or entitle Plaintiffs to injunctive relief.

situated for purposes of the collective action are:

Defendants through Defendants payroll records.

provision of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 216(b).

23. Adam Cunningham (Cunningham) was an employee of Defendants under the

within this District.

24. Cunningham worked for Defendants in various capacities, including delivery

St., Brockport NY).

at 27 South Main St., Brockport NY).

policies underlying the claims stated herein.

by the NYLL and FLSA.

NYLL and FLSA.

New York State.

operation, and store manager.

that it is Marks Pizzeria, established in 1992.

purchase gift cards, and apply for employment.

42. Defendants have routinely held meetings attended by members of management

owner of Marks Pizzeria, Inc.

46. As such, Crane is primarily responsible for implementing business decisions as

concerning company labor guidelines, budgets, and other financial controls.

operations and speak to individuals.

violations complained of in this matter.

owner of Suds Pizza, Inc.

52. As such, Crane is primarily responsible for implementing business decisions as

concerning company labor guidelines, budgets, and other financial controls.

and speak to individuals.

violations complained of in this matter.

55. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 54 of this

as a class action under Rule 23.

57. Defendants regularly employ individuals as delivery drivers, whose job it is to

wage, or slightly above.

services for Defendants.

safe, legally operated and insured.

using their vehicles in performance of their employment with Defendants.

relevant period are:

than the mandatory minimum wage.

69. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 68 of this

delivery drivers. Currently this charge is approximately $3.00.

any portion of it to their delivery drivers.

charge and to inform them of the amount.

forego a tip entirely.

necessary to make this calculation is within the control of Defendants.

Violation of the New York Labor Law Spread of Hours

78. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 77 of this

79. The duration of shifts worked by Defendants employees is determined by

Defendants business needs.

defined by 12 NYCRR 146-1.6, are/were in excess of ten hours.