- 1 - 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Law Offices of 

BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, 

FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.

2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300 

Phoenix, Arizona 85016 

Telephone: (602) 274-1100 

Ty D. Frankel (027179) 

tfrankel@bffb.com 

Law Offices of 

BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, 

FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.

600 W. Broadway, Suite 900 

San Diego, California 92101 

Telephone: (619) 756-7748 

Patricia N. Syverson (020191) 

psyverson@bffb.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Sergiu A. Schipor, on behalf of himself and 

all others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

Mesa Airlines, Inc., a Nevada corporation, 

 Defendant. 

 Case No. 

COMPLAINT 

 [JURY TRIAL DEMANDED] 

Plaintiff Sergiu A. Schipor (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated, alleges the following for his Complaint against Defendant Mesa Airlines, 

Inc. (“Defendant” or “Mesa Airlines”): 

Case 2:17-cv-04044-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/02/17 Page 1 of 12
- 2 - 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

I. NATURE OF THE CASE 

1. Plaintiff brings this action against Mesa Airlines for its failure to pay 

minimum wage in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201–219 

(“FLSA”) and the Arizona Wage Statute, A.R.S. §§ 23-350 – 23-355; 23-363 – 23-364. 

2. This lawsuit is brought as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) to 

recover unpaid minimum wage compensation, liquidated damages, and statutory penalties 

resulting from Mesa Airlines’ violations of the FLSA. This lawsuit is also brought as a 

class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, to recover unpaid minimum wage 

compensation, timely payment of wages, and treble damages resulting from Mesa Airlines’ 

violations of the Arizona Wage Statute. For both collective and class action purposes, the 

proposed class consists of: 

All Mesa Airlines pilots whose wages were withheld by Mesa 

Airlines within the past three years as a result of entering into a 

promissory note related to mandatory pilot training (the 

“Pilots”). 

3. For at least three years prior to the filing of this action (the “Liability Period”), 

Mesa Airlines has knowingly and intentionally failed to pay its Pilots the statutorily required 

minimum wage. 

4. Mesa Airlines operates a regional airline based in Phoenix, Arizona. 

5. Mesa Airlines hired Plaintiff and Pilots to operate its flights. 

6. This compensation scheme was developed by Mesa Airlines to alter the 

typical at-will nature of the employment relationship. Mesa Airlines requires Plaintiff and 

Pilots, as a condition of their employment, to pay back to the company an amount promised 

through a Promissory Note for mandatory pilot training if the Pilots do not remain employed 

with Mesa Airlines for a minimum of twelve months. Mesa Airlines withholds all of the 

Pilots’ wages for designated pay periods if they default on the Promissory Note and leave 

the company’s employ. 

Case 2:17-cv-04044-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/02/17 Page 2 of 12
- 3 - 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated Pilots, avers that 

this policy constitutes a de facto deduction in violation of the FLSA’s requirement that Mesa 

Airlines pay wages “free and clear” and “unconditionally.” Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief 

and the recovery of both actually withheld wages and “conditionally paid” wages and 

requests liquidated damages pursuant to Section 16(b) of the FLSA. 

II. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

8. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties under 29 U.S.C. 

§ 216(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

9. Plaintiff’s state law claim is sufficiently related to the FLSA claim that it 

forms part of the same case or controversy. This Court therefore has supplemental 

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims under the Arizona Wage Statute pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1367. 

10. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c) because Mesa Airlines 

employed Plaintiff in this District; Mesa Airlines conducts business in this District; and all 

or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this 

District. 

III. PARTIES 

11. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was employed by Mesa Airlines in Maricopa 

County, Arizona. From December 2014 to on or around November 20, 2015, Plaintiff was 

employed full-time by Mesa Airlines as a pilot. 

12. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Plaintiff consents in writing to opt-in to this 

lawsuit. Plaintiff’s Consent to Become a Party Plaintiff and Opt-In to Lawsuit is attached 

as Exhibit A to this Complaint. 

13. Defendant Mesa Airlines, Inc. is a Nevada corporation authorized to do 

business in Arizona. Mesa Airlines is an employer as defined in 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), A.R.S. 

§ 23-350, and A.R.S. § 23-362. 

Case 2:17-cv-04044-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/02/17 Page 3 of 12
- 4 - 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14. Plaintiff and the Pilots are employees as defined in 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(1), and 

are non-exempt employees under 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1) and 29 C.F.R. part 541, A.R.S. § 

23-350, A.R.S. § 23-362. 

15. At all relevant times, Mesa Airlines has been engaged in interstate commerce 

and has been an enterprise whose gross annual volume of sales made or business done is 

greater than $500,000. 

IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

16. Mesa Airlines hires Plaintiff and Pilots to work as pilots for the airline in 

Phoenix, Arizona. 

17. Plaintiff was employed as a pilot for Mesa Airlines from December 2014 to 

on or around November 20, 2015. 

18. During his employment, Plaintiff earned $22.18 per flight hour. He was also 

entitled to a nontaxable per diem rate of pay for each per diem hour worked. 

19. As a condition of his employment with Mesa Airlines, Plaintiff was required 

to complete mandatory pilot training. 

20. In addition, as a condition of his employment with Mesa Airlines, Plaintiff 

was required to enter into a Jet Training Event Promissory Note with Mesa Airlines related 

to the costs associated with the mandatory pilot training he was required to complete. 

Exhibit B. 

21. Pursuant to the Promissory Note, Plaintiff promised to pay Mesa Airlines a 

sum of $12,712.00, which amount was conditioned on him completing the mandatory pilot 

training and remaining employed by Mesa Airlines for a requisite period of time. Id. 

22. The Promissory Note provided Plaintiff a credit against the principal amount 

of $12,712.00 depending on the length of service he had with Mesa Airlines. Id. 

23. Pursuant to the Promissory Note, Mesa Airlines indicated that it would offset 

the unpaid balance of the Promissory Note owed to Plaintiff in the event Plaintiff leaves 

Case 2:17-cv-04044-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/02/17 Page 4 of 12
- 5 - 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

employment prior to twelve months from the date of successful completion of the pilot 

training program. 

24. For example, if Plaintiff left employment with Mesa Airlines within one 

month of successful completion of the pilot training program, he owed Mesa Airlines the 

full $12,712.00 amount from the Promissory Note. If Plaintiff left employment with Mesa 

Airlines within ten to eleven months, he owed Mesa Airlines $2,112.00. There was a sliding 

scale based on the number of months of employment. Id.

25. In or around November 2015, Plaintiff notified Mesa Airlines that he would 

be leaving its employ. 

26. Plaintiff’s employment with Mesa Airlines ended on November 20, 2015, 

which was after eight to nine months of service as a pilot with Mesa Airlines. 

27. According to the Promissory Note Plaintiff was required to enter into as a 

condition of his employment, Mesa Airlines maintained that Plaintiff owed the company 

$4,232.00 for the mandatory pilot training. Id. 

28. As a result of the amount promised under the Promissory Note, Mesa Airlines 

did not pay Plaintiff any wages for his final pay period working as a pilot for the company 

in or around November 2015. Rather, Mesa Airlines withheld approximately $1,011.86 in 

wages earned and paid him zero dollars for the final pay period of Plaintiff’s employment. 

29. Plaintiff’s wages were not paid “free and clear” as required by the FLSA, and 

Plaintiff’s right to receive the requisite minimum wage cannot be waived. 

30. Plaintiff’s net pay for his final pay period that concluded with his separation 

on November 20, 2015 was zero dollars, which is below the minimum wage. 

31. Plaintiff discovered that Mesa Airlines was withholding all wages from his 

final paycheck, including the minimum wage, by email and written correspondence dated 

on or around December 21, 2015 and December 23, 2015 respectively. Exhibits C & D. 

32. The duties, compensation, and training practices applicable to Plaintiff are 

indicative of the similarly situated Pilots. 

Case 2:17-cv-04044-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/02/17 Page 5 of 12
- 6 - 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

33. Mesa Airlines’ improper policies and compensation practices applied to 

Plaintiff and the similarly situated Pilots he will represent. 

34. Mesa Airlines continuously recruits Pilots to fill open pilot positions, which 

requires the Pilots, including Plaintiff, to complete mandatory pilot training. 

35. Rather than simply pay for the Pilots’ training, Mesa Airlines requires the 

Pilots to enter into a Promissory Note with Mesa Airlines for thousands of dollars. The 

amount owed from the promissory note is reduced in proportion to the length of months the 

Pilots have been with Mesa Airlines and after twelve months of service the Pilots are no 

longer indebted to the company under the Promissory Note. 

36. However, many Pilots leave Mesa Airlines’ employ before the twelve-month 

period on the Promissory Notes expires. If that occurs, Mesa Airlines systemically reduces 

the Pilots’ wages and withholds payment of the minimum wage for their outstanding pay 

periods at the time of separation. 

37. For any Pilots who do not remain employed by the company for a minimum 

of twelve months following completion of the mandatory pilot training, Mesa Airlines 

refuses to pay the minimum wage for their final pay period. 

38. Mesa Airlines has willfully violated and continues to willfully violate federal 

and Arizona wage and hour statutes and regulations with the intent of altering the at-will 

relationship of the Pilots by depriving them of compensation at the minimum wage if they 

do not remain employed by Mesa Airlines for a requisite amount of time. 

39. In fact, Mesa Airlines has been filing lawsuits against its Pilots, even after 

withholding payment of the minimum wage, to recoup wages promised to the Pilots that 

should have been paid free and clear to them regardless of the costs associated with training. 

29 C.F.R. § 531.35. 

40. This compensation scheme was intentionally designed by Mesa Airlines to 

circumvent the requirements of the FLSA and Arizona Wage Statute and induce Pilots to 

remain employed by Mesa Airlines for a minimum of twelve months. 

Case 2:17-cv-04044-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/02/17 Page 6 of 12
- 7 - 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

V. COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS

41. Mesa Airlines’ illegal minimum wage practices were widespread with respect 

to the proposed class. The failure to pay minimum wage was not the result of random or 

isolated individual management decisions or practices. Mesa Airlines systematically elects 

to reduce Pilots’ wages below the minimum wage if they do not work for more than twelve 

months in relation to their mandatory pilot training. 

42. Mesa Airlines’ minimum wage practices were routine and consistent. 

Throughout the Liability Period, Pilots systematically had their wages reduced to below the 

minimum wage. Although the issue of damages may involve individual calculations, 

whether Mesa Airlines minimum wage practices violated the FLSA is a central liability 

issue common to all Pilots. 

VI. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

43. The state law claims under the Arizona Wage Statute are brought as a class 

action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3). The class is defined in 

paragraph 2 above. 

44. Throughout the Liability Period, Mesa Airlines has employed a large number 

of Pilots. The class is therefore so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. 

Members of the class can readily be identified from business records maintained by Mesa 

Airlines. 

45. Proof of Mesa Airlines’ liability under the Arizona Wage Statute involves 

factual and legal questions common to the class. Whether Mesa Airlines paid Pilots timely 

payment of wages and minimum wage as required by A.R.S. §§ 23-350 – 23-355 and 23-

363 – 23-364 is a question common to all Pilots. 

46. Like Plaintiff, all Pilots worked without being timely paid the statutorily 

required minimum hourly wage. Plaintiff’s claim is therefore typical of the claims of the 

class. 

Case 2:17-cv-04044-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/02/17 Page 7 of 12
- 8 - 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

47. Plaintiff has no interest antagonistic to those of other Pilots, and has retained 

attorneys who are knowledgeable in wage and hour and class action litigation. The interests 

of Pilots are therefore fairly and adequately protected. 

48. This action is maintainable as a class action under Rule 23(b)(3) because 

questions of law or fact common to the Pilots predominate over any questions affecting only 

individual members. 

49. In addition, a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair 

and efficient adjudication of the controversy. The Arizona Wage Statute recognizes that 

employees who are denied their wages often lack the ability to enforce their rights against 

employers with far superior resources. In addition, because the damages suffered by 

individual class members may be relatively small, the expense and burden of individual 

litigation makes it difficult for members of the class to individually redress the wrongs done 

to them. 

50. Plaintiff’s Arizona Wage Statute claim is easily managed as a class action. 

The issue of liability is common to all Pilots. Although the amount of damages may differ 

by individual, they are objectively ascertainable and can be easily calculated. 

VII. COUNT ONE 

(Failure to Pay Minimum Wage – Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206) 

51. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above allegations as though fully 

set forth herein. 

52. Plaintiff and Pilots were employees entitled to the statutorily mandated 

minimum hourly wage. 29 U.S.C. § 203. 

53. Mesa Airlines is an employer. 29 U.S.C. § 203. 

54. Mesa Airlines failed to pay minimum wage to Plaintiff and Pilots during their 

employment. 

55. For example, Plaintiff received zero dollars for his pay check for the pay 

period concluding on November 20, 2015. 

Case 2:17-cv-04044-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/02/17 Page 8 of 12
- 9 - 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

56. Mesa Airlines’ failure to pay minimum wage to Plaintiff and Pilots was 

willful. Mesa Airlines knew Plaintiff and Pilots were not paid the required minimum wage 

and had no reason to believe their failure to pay minimum wage was not a violation of the 

FLSA. 

57. Plaintiff and the Pilots are entitled to statutory remedies provided pursuant to 

29 U.S.C. § 216(b), including but not limited to liquidated damages and attorneys’ fees and 

costs. 

VIII. COUNT TWO

(Failure to Pay Timely Wages Due – Arizona Wage Statute, 

A.R.S. § 23-350 et seq.) 

58. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above allegations as though fully 

set forth herein. 

59. Plaintiff and Pilots were employed by Mesa Airlines as defined by A.R.S. § 

23-350(2). 

60. Plaintiff performed services as a pilot for Mesa Airlines at its direction in 

exchange for compensation. 

61. Mesa Airlines improperly withheld Plaintiff’s final paycheck and paid him 

zero dollars for the final pay period he was employed. 

62. Mesa Airlines was aware of its obligation to pay timely wages pursuant to 

A.R.S. §§ 23-350 – 23-355. 

63. Mesa Airlines was aware that it was obligated to pay all wages due to Plaintiff 

and the Pilots. 

64. Mesa Airlines failed to timely pay Plaintiff and the Pilots their wages due 

without a good faith basis for withholding wages. 

65. Mesa Airlines willfully failed and refused to timely pay wages due to Plaintiff 

and the Pilots. As a result of Mesa Airlines’ unlawful acts, Plaintiff and the Pilots are 

entitled to the statutory remedies provided pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-355. 

Case 2:17-cv-04044-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/02/17 Page 9 of 12
- 10 - 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IX. COUNT THREE 

(Failure to Pay Minimum Wage – Arizona Minimum Wage Law, 

A.R.S. § 23-362 et seq.) 

66. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above allegations as though fully 

set forth herein. 

67. Plaintiff and the Pilots were employees entitled to minimum wage as defined 

by A.R.S. § 23-362(A). 

68. Mesa Airlines was an employer. A.R.S. § 23-362(B). 

69. Mesa Airlines failed to pay Plaintiff any wages for his pay period ending 

November 20, 2015 when his employment with the company ended. 

70. As a result, Mesa Airlines paid Plaintiff less than $8.05 per hour for hours 

worked during the final pay period he was employed by Mesa Airlines. 

71. Mesa Airlines is aware of its obligation to pay state minimum wages pursuant 

to A.R.S. § 23-363. 

72. Mesa Airlines failed to pay minimum wage as required by state law. A.R.S. 

§ 23-363. 

73. Mesa Airlines has willfully failed to pay minimum wage due to Plaintiff and 

the Pilots. As a result of Mesa Airlines’ unlawful acts, Plaintiff and the Pilots are entitled 

to the statutory remedies provided pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-364. 

X. REQUESTED RELIEF 

 WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated, prays: 

 A. For the Court to order Mesa Airlines to file with this Court and furnish 

to Plaintiff’s counsel a list of the names and addresses of all Mesa Airlines’ Pilots from 

across the State of Arizona who currently work or have worked as pilots within the last three 

(3) years and had their paychecks withheld as a result of entering into a Promissory Note 

related to training; 

Case 2:17-cv-04044-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/02/17 Page 10 of 12
- 11 - 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 B. For the Court to authorize Plaintiff’s counsel to issue notice at the 

earliest possible time to all Mesa Airlines’ Pilots from across the State of Arizona who 

currently work or have worked as pilots within the last three (3) years and had their 

paycheck withheld as a result of entering into a Promissory Note related to training, 

informing them that this action has been filed and the nature of the action, and of their right 

to opt into this lawsuit if they did not timely receive minimum wage as required by the 

FLSA and the Arizona Wage Statute during the Liability Period; 

 C. For the Court to declare and find that Mesa Airlines committed one or 

more of the following acts: 

 i. violated minimum wage provisions of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 

206, by failing to pay minimum wage to Plaintiff and persons similarly situated who opt 

into this action; 

 ii. willfully violated minimum wage provisions of the FLSA, 29 

U.S.C. § 206; and 

 iii. willfully violated the Arizona Wage Statute by failing to timely 

pay all wages due to Plaintiff and those similarly situated, as well as willfully failing to pay 

them the state minimum wage pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 23-350 et seq. and 23-362 et seq.; 

 D. For the Court to award compensatory damages, including liquidated 

damages pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and/or treble damages pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-355, 

to be determined at trial; 

 E. For the Court to award unpaid minimum wages, plus an additional 

amount equal to twice the unpaid wages pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-364, to be determined at 

trial; 

 F. For the Court to award restitution; 

 G. For the Court to award Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs 

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), A.R.S. § 23-364 (G), and A.R.S. §§ 12-341 and 12-341.01; 

 H. For the Court to award pre- and post-judgment interest; 

Case 2:17-cv-04044-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/02/17 Page 11 of 12
- 12 - 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 I. For the Court to award Plaintiff’s resulting consequential damages, in 

an amount to be proven at trial; and, 

 J. For such other monetary, injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief 

as the Court deems just and proper. 

JURY DEMAND 

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. 

DATED: November 2, 2017. 

BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN 

& BALINT, P.C. 

By s/ Ty D. Frankel 

Ty D. Frankel 

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1000 

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3311 

Telephone: 602-274-1100 

Facsimile: 602-798-5860 

BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN 

 & BALINT, P.C. 

Patricia N. Syverson (020191) 

600 W. Broadway, Suite 900 

San Diego, California 92101 

Telephone: (619) 756-7748 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Case 2:17-cv-04044-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/02/17 Page 12 of 12