“Defendant also argues the Complaint should be dismissed because it does not identify a week during which Plaintiff worked more than forty hours and was not properly compensated for overtime. The Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately pleaded his overtime claim. He alleged that he worked on average seventy hours per week from December 3, 2014 through January 25, 2016, without receiving overtime pay. Those are factual allegations that give rise to a plausible claim for relief. They put Defendant on notice as to the relevant date range, as well as the approximate number of hours for which Plaintiff claims he was under-compensated, and the ‘FLSA does not require more.’ The Court therefore will not dismiss Plaintiff’s overtime claim for lack of specificity regarding the date ranges and number of hours for which Plaintiff claims he was under-compensated.” 2016 WL 3745685, at * 3 (citations omitted).
Ecoquij-Tzep v. Hawaiian Grill, No. 3:16-CV-00625-M, 2016 WL 3745685 (N.D. Tex. July 12, 2016).