-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

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, AZ 85060

Clifford P. Bendau, II (030204)

Christopher J. Bendau (032981)

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, Arizona 85060

Telephone: (480) 382-5176

Facsimile: (602) 956-1409

Email:cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com

chris@bendaulaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Maya Hunter,

 Plaintiff, 

vs.

Baio Enterprises, Inc., an Arizona 

corproation, and Martha A. Baio,

 Defendants.

No. 

COLLECTIVE ACTION 

COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO THE 

FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, 29 

U.S.C. § 201, ET SEQ.

(Demand for Jury Trial)

Plaintiff, Maya Hunter, individually, and on behalf of all other persons similarly 

situated, allege as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This is an action for equitable relief, minimum wage, overtime pay, 

liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest under the Fair Labor Standards 

Act (“FLSA”), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Plaintiff bring this action on behalf of 

herself and all similarly-situated current and former Case Aides of Defendants.

Case 2:18-cv-00503-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/14/18 Page 1 of 32
-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

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, AZ 85060

2. Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, brings

this action against Defendants1 for their unlawful failure to pay minimum wage and 

overtime in violation of the FLSA.

3. Plaintiff brings a collective action under the FLSA to recover the unpaid 

overtime wages owed to them individually and on behalf of all other similarly-situated 

case aides, current and former, of Defendants. Members of the Collective Action are 

referred to as the “Collective Members.”

4. Plaintiff and the Collective Members are current and former employees of 

Defendants and bring this action on behalf of themselves and all similarly-situated 

current and former case aides who Defendants failed to compensate overtime under the

FLSA, and who were therefore not paid one-and-one-half times their regular rates of pay 

for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek. 

5. Plaintiff and the Collective Members are current and former employees of 

Defendants and bring this action on behalf of themselves and all similarly-situated 

current and former case aides who Defendants failed to timely compensate their wages, 

including minimum wage under the FLSA and Arizona Law, and who were therefore not 

paid minimum wage or any wages as required by Arizona Law. 

6. The Collective Members are all current and former case aides who were 

employed by Defendants at any time starting three years before this Complaint was filed, 

up to the present.

 1 All Defendants to this action are collectively referred to as either “Baio Enterprises” or 

“Defendants” unless specified otherwise.

Case 2:18-cv-00503-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/14/18 Page 2 of 32
-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

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, AZ 85060

7. The FLSA was enacted “to protect all covered workers from substandard 

wages and oppressive working hours.” Under the FLSA, employers must pay all nonexempt employees at least the statutory minimum wage, and an overtime wage premium 

of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay, for all time they spend working in 

excess of 40 hours in a given workweek.

8. The Arizona Minimum Wage Act, A.R.S. § 23-363 establishes the 

minimum wage that employers are required to compensated their employees.

9. The Arizona Wage Act, Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) § 23-355

recognizes that employers must pay their employees all wages earned.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all 

preceding paragraphs.

11. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 

29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. because this action arises under the Constitution and laws of the 

United States. 

12. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c) 

because acts giving rise to the claims of Plaintiffs and the Collective Members occurred 

within the District of Arizona, and Defendants regularly conduct business in and have 

engaged in the wrongful conduct alleged in the Complaint – and, thus, are subject to 

personal jurisdiction in – this judicial district.

Case 2:18-cv-00503-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/14/18 Page 3 of 32
-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

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, AZ 85060

PARTIES

13. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all 

preceding paragraphs. 

14. At all times material to the matters alleged in this Complaint, Plaintiff was 

an individual residing in Maricopa County, Arizona, and is a former employee of 

Defendants.

15. At all material times, Plaintiff was a full-time employee of Defendants who 

worked as a case aid from approximately August 26, 2016 through approximately 

September 5, 2017.

16. At all material times, Plaintiff was employed by Defendants and paid on an 

hourly basis. 

17. At all relevant times, Defendants employed case aides to perform various 

duties, including, but not limited to, providing transportation for children to and from 

visits, supervising visits, keeping notes of visits, writing reports for visits, and completing 

other necessary paperwork.

18. At all material times, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants as defined 

by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(1).

19. At all material times, Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee under 29 U.S.C. 

§ 213(a)(1).

20. Plaintiff has given her written consent to be a party Plaintiff in this action 

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), a true and accurate copy of which is attached to this 

Complaint as “Exhibit A.”

Case 2:18-cv-00503-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/14/18 Page 4 of 32
-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

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, AZ 85060

21. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other 

persons similarly situated who are current or former case aides of Defendants, including 

but not limited to current or former case aides of Defendants who agree in writing to join 

this action seeking recovery under the FLSA.

22. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other 

similarly situated current and former employees of Defendants–specifically, current or 

former case aides of Defendants who Defendants failed to compensate overtime under the 

FLSA and, therefore, did not receive an overtime premium for time spent working in 

excess of 40 hours in a given workweek.

23. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other 

similarly situated current and former employees of Defendants–specifically, current or 

former case aides of Defendants who Defendants failed to timely compensate all wages 

under the FLSA and Arizona law and, therefore, were not properly compensated 

minimum wage, overtime, and all wages due and owing in any workweek that they 

worked for Defendants.

24. Defendant Baio Enterprises, Inc. is an Arizona corporation, authorized to 

do business in the State of Arizona and was at all relevant times Plaintiff’s and the 

Collective Members’ Employer as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).

25. Under the FLSA, Defendant Baio Enterprises, Inc. is an employer. The 

FLSA defines “employer” as any individual who acts directly or indirectly in the interest 

of an employer in relation to an employee. At all relevant times, Defendant Baio 

Enterprises, Inc. had the authority to hire and fire employees, supervised and controlled 

Case 2:18-cv-00503-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/14/18 Page 5 of 32
-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

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, AZ 85060

work schedules or the conditions of employment, determined the rate and method of 

payment, and maintained employment records in connection with Plaintiff’s and the 

Collective Members’ employment with Baio Enterprises. Having acted in the interest of 

Baio Enterprises in relation to their employees, including Plaintiff, Baio Enterprises, Inc.

is subject to liability under the FLSA. 

26. Under the FLSA, Defendant Martha A. Baio is an employer. The FLSA 

defines “employer” as any individual who acts directly or indirectly in the interest of an 

employer in relation to an employee. At all relevant times, Defendants Martha A. Baio

was the owner of Baio Enterprises, Inc. At all relevant times, she had the authority to 

hire and fire employees, supervised and controlled work schedules or the conditions of 

employment, determined the rate and method of payment, and maintained employment 

records in connection with Plaintiff’s and the Collective Members’ employment with 

Baio Enterprises. As a person who acted in the interest of Baio Enterprises in relation to 

Baio Enterprises’ employees, including Plaintiff, Defendant Martha A. Baio is subject to 

individual liability under the FLSA. 

27. Defendants, and each of them, are sued in both their individual and 

corporate capacities.

28. Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the injuries and damages 

sustained by Plaintiff and the Collective Members.

29. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and the Collective Members were

“employees” of Defendants as defined by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.

Case 2:18-cv-00503-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/14/18 Page 6 of 32
-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

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, AZ 85060

30. The provisions set forth in the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., apply to 

Defendants.

31. At all relevant times, Defendants were and continue to be “employers” as 

defined by FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.

32. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and the Collective Members are “employees” 

as defined by A.R.S. §§ 23-350 and 23-362. 

33. At all relevant times, Defendants were and continue to be “employers” as 

defined by A.R.S. §§ 23-350 and 23-362. 

34. The provisions set forth in A.R.S. Title 23, Articles 7 and 8 apply to 

Defendants. 

35. Defendants individually and/or through an enterprise or agent, directed and 

exercised control over Plaintiff’s and the Collective Members’ work and wages at all 

relevant times.

36. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and the Collective Members in their work for 

Defendants, were engaged in commerce or the production of goods for commerce.

37. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and the Collective Members, in their work 

for Defendants, were employed by an enterprise engaged in commerce that had annual 

gross sales of at least $500,000.

38. At all relevant times, all Defendants were joint employers of Plaintiff and

the Collective Members. At all relevant times: (1) Defendants were not completely 

disassociated with respect to the employment of Plaintiff and the Collective Members;

and (2) Defendants were under common control. In any event, at all relevant times, 

Case 2:18-cv-00503-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/14/18 Page 7 of 32
-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

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, AZ 85060

Defendants were joint employers under the FLSA, 29 C.F.R. § 791.2(b), and Chao v. AOne Med. Servs., Inc., 346 F.3d 908, 917-918 (9th Cir. 2003), and employed Plaintiffs

and the Collective Members.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

39. Plaintiff realleges and incorporate by reference all allegations in all 

preceding paragraphs.

40. Defendants own and/or operate as Baio Enterprises, Inc., an enterprise 

located in Maricopa County, Arizona.

41. Baio Enterprises is a company that, among other things, provides 

supervised visitation services to families, located in Mesa, Arizona.

42. At all relevant times in her work for Defendants as a case aide, Plaintiff

performed and continue to perform non-exempt duties for an hourly rate of pay. 

43. At all relevant times in their work for Defendants, case aides are and have 

been classified as non-exempt and paid an hourly rate of pay.

44. On approximately August 26, 2016, Plaintiff began employment with 

Defendants as a case aide, performing non-exempt tasks, such as providing transportation 

for children to and from visits, supervising visits, keeping notes of visits, writing reports 

for visits, and completing other necessary paperwork.

45. Rather than paying their case aides–including Plaintiff and the Collective 

Members–an overtime premium for time spent working in excess of 40 hours in a given 

workweek, Defendants simply compensated their case aides a straight hourly rate of pay 

for all hours worked, even those in excess of 40 hours per week. 

Case 2:18-cv-00503-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/14/18 Page 8 of 32
-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

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, AZ 85060

46. In a given workweek, and during each and every workweek, of Plaintiffs’ 

employment with Defendants, they worked between one (1) and fifteen (15) hours of 

overtime without being compensated at one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for 

such time worked.

47. For example, during the workweek of May 21, 2016, Plaintiff worked, at a 

minimum, 14 hours of overtime without being compensated at one and one-half times her

regular rate of pay for such time worked.

48. In their work for Defendants, Plaintiff and the Collective Members were 

non-exempt employees.

49. Throughout the duration of her employment with Defendants, Defendants 

provided Plaintiff and Collective Members with itineraries for each case of estimated 

mileage, drive time, and visit time. However, these itineraries do not necessarily reflect 

the actual amounts of time that Plaintiff and the Collective Members actually spent 

performing work for any given case.

50. Further, upon information and believe, in a given workweek, and during 

each and every workweek, Plaintiff and the Collective Members performed additional 

“make up” visits for various cases that were not included on their itineraries. Further, 

upon information and believe, Defendants did not properly account for this time, and as a 

result, there may be additional unpaid overtime hours not accounted for. 

51. In their work for Defendants, Plaintiff and the Collective Members were 

not outside sales employees.

Case 2:18-cv-00503-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/14/18 Page 9 of 32
-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

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, AZ 85060

52. In their work for Defendants, Plaintiff’s and the Collective Members’ 

primary duty was not making sales as defined by the FLSA or obtaining contracts for 

services of for the use of facilities for which a consideration will be paid by the client or 

customer.

53. In their work for Defendants, Plaintiff and the Collective Members were 

not commissioned sales employees half of whose total earnings consisted of 

commissions.

54. At no point during any workweek during which Plaintiff and Collective 

Members worked for Defendants did more than half of their total earnings consist of 

commissions. 

55. In their work for Defendants as case aides, Plaintiff’s and the Collective 

Members’ primary duty was not managing the enterprise that is Baio Enterprises, or 

managing a customarily recognized department or subdivision of the enterprise that is 

Baio Enterprises.

56. In their work for Defendants as case aides, Plaintiff and the Collective 

Members did not customarily and regularly direct the work of at least two or more other 

full-time employees or their equivalent.

57. In their work for Defendants as case aides, Plaintiff and the Collective 

Members did not have the authority to hire or fire other employees, nor were their

suggestions or recommendations as to the hiring, firing, advancement, promotion, or any 

other change in status of other employees given particular weight.

Case 2:18-cv-00503-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/14/18 Page 10 of 32
-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

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, AZ 85060

58. In their work for Defendants as case aides, Plaintiff’s and the Collective 

Members’ primary duty was not the performance of office or non-manual work directly 

related to the management or general business operations of Baio Enterprises or Baio 

Enterprises’ customers.

59. In their work for Defendants as case aides, Plaintiff’s and the Collective 

Members’ primary duty did not include the exercise of discretion and independent 

judgment with respect to matters of significance.

60. From the beginning of Plaintiff’s and the Collective Members’ employment 

through the present day, Defendants failed to properly compensate Plaintiff and the 

Collective Members for any of their overtime hours. During each and every workweek 

during which Plaintiff and the Collective Members worked for Defendants, they worked 

approximately one (1) to fifteen (15) hours of overtime.

61. Defendants refused and/or failed to properly disclose to or apprise Plaintiff

and the Collective Members of their rights under the FLSA.

62. Defendants engaged in the regular practice of willfully failing to pay 

Plaintiff and the Collective Members one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for 

all time that they suffered or permitted Plaintiffs and Collective Members to work in 

excess of forty (40) hours per workweek.

63. As a result of Defendants’ willful failure to pay Plaintiff and Collective 

Members one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all work in excess of forty 

(40) hours per workweek, Defendants paid Plaintiff less than the applicable overtime 

Case 2:18-cv-00503-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/14/18 Page 11 of 32
-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

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, AZ 85060

wage rate for such work that Plaintiff and the Collective Members performed in excess of 

forty (40) hours per workweek.

64. Defendants engaged in the regular practice of failing to accurately, if at all, 

record the time during which Defendants suffered or permitted Plaintiff and the 

Collective Members to work. As such, Plaintiff’s and the Collective Members’ time 

records understate the duration of time each workweek that Defendants suffered or 

permitted Plaintiff and the Collective Members to work.

65. As a result of Defendants’ willful failure to compensate Plaintiff the 

applicable overtime wage rate for such hours worked, Defendants have violated 29 

U.S.C. § 207(a).

66. Defendants knew that – or acted with reckless disregard as to whether –

their failure to pay to Plaintiffs and the Collective Members one and one-half times their 

regular rates of pay for all work in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek, would 

violate federal and state law, and Defendants were aware of the FLSA overtime wage 

requirements during Plaintiff’s employment. As such, Defendants’ conduct constitutes a 

willful violation of the FLSA. 

67. Defendants have and continue to willfully violate the FLSA by not paying 

Plaintiff and the Collective Members one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for 

all work in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek.

68. Defendants individually and/or through an enterprise or agent, directed and 

exercised control over Plaintiff’s and the Collective Members’ work and wages at all 

relevant times.

Case 2:18-cv-00503-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/14/18 Page 12 of 32
-13-

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

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, AZ 85060

69. In a given workweek, and during each and every workweek of Plaintiff’s

and the Collective Members’ employment with Defendants, Plaintiff and the Collective 

Members worked for Defendants for more than 40 hours and were not paid the applicable 

overtime wage premium of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay under the 

FLSA 29, U.S.C. § 207(a). 

70. Defendants, in at least one work week, failed to pay Plaintiff minimum 

wage by failing to pay her any wages owed for the hours that she worked in that 

workweek, in violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 206(a).

71. Specifically, according to Defendants’ own calculations, during the week of 

September 3, 2017, Plaintiff worked six (6) hours. Defendants admitted that they did not 

pay Plaintiff any wages for the workweek of September 3, 2017.

72. As a result of Defendants failure to pay Plaintiff any wages whatsoever for 

the workweek of September 3, 2017, Defendants violated 29 U.S.C. § 206(a), and 

Defendants owe Plaintiff minimum wage for all hours worked, an additional equal

amount as liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 29 

U.S.C. § 216(b).

73. As a result of Defendants failure to pay Plaintiff any wages whatsoever for 

the workweek of September 3, 2017, Defendants violated the Arizona Minimum Wage 

Act, A.R.S. § 23-362, et seq., and Defendants owe Plaintiff minimum wage for all hours 

worked, an additional amount equal to twice the unpaid wages, interest, and attorneys’ 

fees and costs pursuant to A.R.S § 23-364.

Case 2:18-cv-00503-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/14/18 Page 13 of 32
-14-

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

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, AZ 85060

74. As a result of Defendants failure to pay Plaintiff any wages whatsoever for 

the workweek of September 3, 2017, Defendants violated the Arizona Wage Act, A.R.S. 

§ 23-350, et seq., and Defendants owe Plaintiff all unpaid wages for all hours worked, an 

additional amount equal to twice the unpaid wages, and interest, pursuant to A.R.S § 23-

355.

75. A.R.S § 23-351A requires that employers designate two or more fixed pay 

days per month for the payment of wages to employees.

76. Further, A.R.S. § 23-351C requires such payment to occur within five (5) 

business days of the end of a pay period. 

77. Throughout the duration of Plaintiff’s and the Collective Members’ 

employment with Defendants, Defendants designated one pay period per month, the first 

day of the month through the last day of the month.

78. Throughout the duration of Plaintiff’s and the Collective Members’ 

employment with Defendants, Defendants paid Plaintiff and the Collective Members one 

time per month.

79. Throughout the duration of Plaintiff’s and the Collective Members’ 

employment with Defendants, Defendants compensated Plaintiff and the Collective 

Members on the tenth (10th) day of the month following the end of the most recent pay 

period. 

80. For example, Plaintiff received a paycheck on August 10, 2017 for a pay 

period from July 1, 2017 through July 31, 2017. 

Case 2:18-cv-00503-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/14/18 Page 14 of 32
-15-

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

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, AZ 85060

81. As a result of these late payments of wages, Defendants violated the FLSA, 

29 U.S.C. § 206(a), and Plaintiff and Collective Members are entitled to liquidated 

damages in the amount of the unpaid wages for all such late payments.

82. As a result of these late payments of wages, Defendants violated the 

Arizona Minimum Wage Act, A.R.S. § 23-362, et seq., and Plaintiff and Collective 

Members are entitled to liquidated damages in the amount equal to twice the unpaid 

wages for all such late payments, pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-364.

83. As a result of these late payments of wages, Defendants violated the 

Arizona Wage Act, A.R.S. § 23-350, et seq., and Plaintiff and Collective Members are 

entitled to liquidated damages in the amount equal to twice the unpaid wages for all such 

late payments, pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-355. 

84. Defendants wrongfully withheld wages from Plaintiff and the Collective 

Members by failing to pay all wages due for hours Plaintiff and the Collective Members

worked.

85. Defendants wrongfully withheld wages from Plaintiff and the Collective 

Members by failing to timely pay all wages due for hours Plaintiff and the Collective 

Members worked.

86. Due to Defendants’ illegal wage practices, Plaintiff and the Collective 

Members are entitled to recover from Defendants compensation for unpaid minimum 

wages and overtime wages, an additional amount equal amount as liquidated damages, 

interest, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of this action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

Case 2:18-cv-00503-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/14/18 Page 15 of 32
-16-

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

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, AZ 85060

87. Due to Defendants’ illegal wage practices, Plaintiff and the Collective 

Members are entitled to recover from Defendants compensation for unpaid wages, an 

amount that is treble his unpaid wages as liquidated damages, interest, and reasonable 

attorney’s fees and costs of this action under A.R.S. § 23-355 and A.R.S § 23-364.

COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS

88. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all 

preceding paragraphs.

89. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) on her own 

behalf and as a representative of individuals similarly situated who are current or former 

case aides of Defendants.

90. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) on her own 

behalf and as a representative of individuals similarly situated who are current and former 

case aides of Defendants, who are not or were not paid one and one-half times their 

regular rates of pay for all time in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek that 

Defendants suffered or permitted them to work, in violation of pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 

207(a), who agree in writing to join this lawsuit seeking recovery under the FLSA. 

91. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and the Collective Members are and have 

been similarly situated, have had substantially similar job requirements and pay 

provisions, and are and have been subject to Defendants’ decision, policy, plan, and 

common programs, practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and rules of willfully 

failing and refusing to pay and one and one-half times Plaintiff’s and the Collective 

Members’ regular rates of pay for all time in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek 

Case 2:18-cv-00503-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/14/18 Page 16 of 32
-17-

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

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, AZ 85060

that Defendants suffered or permitted them to work. Plaintiff’s claims stated herein are 

essentially the same as those of the Collective Members. This action is properly 

maintained as a collective action because in all pertinent aspects the employment 

relationship of individuals similarly situated to Plaintiff are identical. 

92. Plaintiff and the Collective Members worked more than forty (40) hours in 

a given workweek without being compensated for the hours worked in excess of forty 

(40) during that workweek. Further, Plaintiff and the Collective Members worked more 

than forty (40) hours in a given workweek without being compensated for the overtime 

hours worked during that workweek.

93. Although Defendants permitted and/or required the Collective Members to 

work in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek, Defendants have denied them full 

compensation for their hours worked over forty (40) in a given workweek.

94. Defendants compensated Plaintiff and the Collective Members once time 

per month, paying Plaintiff and the Collective Members on the tenth (10th) day of the 

month following their monthly pay period from the first day of the month to the last day 

of the month.

95. The Collective Members perform or have performed the same or similar 

work as the Plaintiff.

96. The Collective Members regularly work or have worked in excess of forty 

(40) hours during a given workweek.

97. The Collective Members are not exempt from receiving overtime pay, 

minimum wage, or wages due.

Case 2:18-cv-00503-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/14/18 Page 17 of 32
-18-

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

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, AZ 85060

98. As such, the Collective Members are similar to Plaintiffs in terms of job 

duties, pay structure, and/or the denial of overtime, minimum wage, and wages due.

99. Defendants’ failure to pay overtime and minimum wage compensation 

required by the FLSA results from generally applicable policies or practices, and does not 

depend on the personal circumstances of the Collective Members.

100. Defendants’ failure to timely pay minimum wage compensation and all 

wages due and owing required by Arizona law results from generally applicable policies 

or practices, and does not depend on the personal circumstances of the Collective 

Members.

101. The experiences of Plaintiff, with respect to their pay, are typical of the 

experiences of the Collective Members.

102. The specific job titles or precise job responsibilities of each Collective 

Member does not prevent collective treatment.

103. All class members, irrespective of their particular job requirements, are 

entitled to compensation for hours worked in excess of forty (40) during a given 

workweek.

104. All class members, irrespective of their particular job requirements, are 

entitled to additional compensation for Defendants failure to timely pay wages owed 

during a given workweek and/or a given pay period.

105. Although the exact amount of damages may vary among the Collective 

Members, the damages for the Collective Members can be easily calculated by a simple 

formula. The claims of all Collective Members arise from a common nucleus of facts. 

Case 2:18-cv-00503-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/14/18 Page 18 of 32
-19-

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

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, AZ 85060

Liability is based on a systematic course of wrongful conduct by the Defendants that 

caused harm to all of the Collective Members.

106. As such, Plaintiffs bring their FLSA overtime and minimum wage claims as 

a collective action on behalf of the following class:

The FLSA Collective Members are all of Defendants’ current and 

former case aides who worked for Defendants at any time starting 

three years before this lawsuit was filed up to the present.

107. Defendants are aware or should have been aware that federal law required 

them to pay employees performing non-exempt duties an overtime premium of not less 

than one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for hours worked in excess of forty 

(40) per workweek.

108. Defendants’ unlawful conduct has been widespread, repeated, and 

consistent.

109. This action is properly brought under and maintained as an opt-in collective 

action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

110. The Collective Members perform or have performed the same or similar 

work as Plaintiffs.

111. Upon information and belief, the individuals similarly situated to Plaintiff

include more than fifty (50) employees currently and/or formerly employed by 

Defendants, and Plaintiff is unable to state the precise number of similarly-situated 

employees because that information is solely in Defendants’ possession or control, but it 

can be readily ascertained from their employment records and the records of its payroll 

processor.

Case 2:18-cv-00503-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/14/18 Page 19 of 32
-20-

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

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, AZ 85060

112. Notice can be provided to the Collective Members via first class mail to the 

last address known to Defendants, via email at the last known email address known to 

Defendants, and via text message at the last known telephone number known to 

Defendants.

113. Plaintiff’s claims stated in this complaint are essentially the same as those 

of the Collective Members. This action is properly maintained as a collective action 

because in all pertinent aspects the employment relationship of individuals similarly 

situated to Plaintiffs is identical or substantially similar. 

DAMAGES 

114. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all 

preceding paragraphs.

115. Plaintiff and the Collective Members are entitled to recover overtime 

compensation for the hours they worked in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek for 

which they were not paid at the federally mandated overtime rate–i.e., Plaintiff and the 

Collective Members are entitled one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all 

time spent working in excess of 40 hours per week for Defendants.

116. Plaintiff and the Collective Members are entitled to recover unpaid 

minimum wage compensation for the hours they worked in a given workweek for which 

they were not timely compensated at the federally mandated minimum wage, or for 

which they were not compensated at all.

117. Plaintiff and the Collective Members are also entitled to an amount equal to 

all of their unpaid wages as liquidated damages. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

Case 2:18-cv-00503-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/14/18 Page 20 of 32
-21-

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

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, AZ 85060

118. Plaintiff and the Collective Members are also entitled to recover their 

attorney’s fees and costs as required by the FLSA. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

119. Plaintiff and the Collective Members are also entitled to recover an amount 

equal to twice their unpaid wages as liquidated damages. A.R.S. § 23-355; A.R.S. § 23-

364.

120. Plaintiff and the Collective Members are also entitled to recover their 

attorney’s fees and costs. A.R.S. § 23-365

COUNT ONE: FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

UNPAID OVERTIME

121. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all 

preceding paragraphs.

122. Defendants operated pursuant to their policy and practice of not paying 

Plaintiff and the Collective Members one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for 

all time spent working in excess of 40 hours per workweek.

123. While employed by Defendants, Plaintiff and the Collective Members 

worked overtime each and every workweek for which they worked for Defendants, and 

Defendants did not pay to Plaintiff and the Collective Members one and one-half times 

their regular rate of pay for such time.

124. As a result, Defendants have intentionally failed and/or refused to pay 

Plaintiff and the Collective Members overtime according to the provisions of the FLSA.

Case 2:18-cv-00503-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/14/18 Page 21 of 32
-22-

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

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, AZ 85060

125. Defendants further have engaged in a widespread pattern and practice of 

violating the provisions of the FLSA by failing and/or refusing to pay Plaintiff and the 

Collective Members in accordance with 29 U.S.C. § 207.

126. Plaintiff and the Collective Members believe and therefore aver that 

Defendants owe them unpaid overtime wages for each and every pay period for the 

duration of their employment. 

127. Although at this stage, Plaintiff and the Collective Members are unable to 

state the exact amount owed for all time worked during the course of their employment, 

Plaintiff and the Collective Members believe that such information will become available 

during the course of discovery. Furthermore, when an employer fails to keep complete 

and accurate time records, employees may establish the hours worked by their testimony, 

and the burden of overcoming such testimony shifts to the employer.

128. Defendants knew that – or acted with reckless disregard as to whether –

their refusal or failure to properly compensate Plaintiff and the Collective Members over 

the course of their employment would violate federal and state law, and Defendants were 

aware of the FLSA overtime requirements during Plaintiff’s and the Collective Members’ 

employment. As such, Defendants’ conduct constitutes a willful violation of the FLSA. 

129. Defendants have and continue to willfully violate the FLSA by not paying 

Plaintiff and the Collective Members a wage equal to one and one-half times their regular 

rates of pay for all time spent performing labor for Defendants in excess of their regular 

40-hour workweek.

Case 2:18-cv-00503-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/14/18 Page 22 of 32
-23-

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

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, AZ 85060

130. As a result of Defendants failure or refusal to pay Plaintiff and the 

Collective Members a wage equal to one and one-half times Plaintiff’s and the Collective 

Members’ regular rates of pay for work they performed for Defendants in excess of their 

regular 40-hour workweek, Defendants violated 29 U.S.C. § 207(a). Plaintiff and the 

Collective Members are therefore entitled to compensation of one and one-half times 

their regular rates of pay, to be proven at trial, plus an additional equal amount as 

liquidated damages, together with interest, reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Maya Hunter, individually, and on behalf of all other 

similarly situated persons, requests that this Court grant the following relief in Plaintiff’s 

and the Collective Members’ favor, and against Defendants:

A. For the Court to declare and find that the Defendants committed one or 

more of the following acts:

i. violated the overtime provisions of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207, by 

failing to pay proper overtime wages; and

ii. willfully violated overtime provisions of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207;

B. For the Court to award damages in the amounts of all unpaid overtime 

wages due and owing to Plaintiff and the Collective Members;

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

damages pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), in amounts to be determined at 

trial;

D. For the Court to award prejudgment and post-judgment interest on any 

damages awarded;

Case 2:18-cv-00503-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/14/18 Page 23 of 32
-24-

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

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, AZ 85060

E. For the Court to award Plaintiff’s and the Collective Members’ reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and costs of the action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and 

all other causes of action set forth in this Complaint;

F. For the Court to provide reasonable incentive awards the named Plaintiff to 

compensate her for the time she spent attempting to recover wages for the 

Collective Members and for the risks they took in doing so; and

G. Such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT TWO: FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

UNPAID MINIMUM WAGE

131. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all 

preceding paragraphs.

132. Defendants operated pursuant to their policy and practice of not timely 

paying Plaintiff and the Collective Members their wages for all hours worked.

133. As a result, Defendants have intentionally failed and/or refused to pay 

Plaintiff and the Collective Members wages due and owing according to the provisions of 

the FLSA.

134. Defendants further have engaged in a widespread pattern and practice of 

violating the provisions of the FLSA by failing and/or refusing to pay Plaintiff and the 

Collective Members in accordance with 29 U.S.C. § 206(a).

135. Plaintiff and the Collective Members believe and therefore aver that 

Defendants owe them unpaid wages for each and every pay period for the duration of 

their employment. 

Case 2:18-cv-00503-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/14/18 Page 24 of 32
-25-

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

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, AZ 85060

136. Although at this stage, Plaintiff and the Collective Members are unable to 

state the exact amount owed for all time worked during the course of their employment, 

Plaintiff and the Collective Members believe that such information will become available 

during the course of discovery. Furthermore, when an employer fails to keep complete 

and accurate time records, employees may establish the hours worked by their testimony, 

and the burden of overcoming such testimony shifts to the employer.

137. Defendants knew that – or acted with reckless disregard as to whether –

their refusal or failure to properly compensate Plaintiff and the Collective Members over 

the course of their employment would violate federal and state law, and Defendants were 

aware of the FLSA minimum wage requirements during Plaintiff’s and the Collective 

Members’ employment. As such, Defendants’ conduct constitutes a willful violation of 

the FLSA. 

138. Defendants have and continue to willfully violate the FLSA by not timely

paying Plaintiff and the Collective Members all wages due and owing for all hours 

worked in a given workweek.

139. As a result of Defendants failure or refusal to timely pay Plaintiff and the 

Collective Members all wages due and owing for all hours worked in a given workweek, 

Defendants violated 29 U.S.C. § 206(a). Plaintiff and the Collective Members are 

therefore entitled to compensation for the untimely payments in an amount equal to the 

amount of wages earned for all hours worked in a given workweek throughout the 

duration of their employment with Defendants.

Case 2:18-cv-00503-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/14/18 Page 25 of 32
-26-

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

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, AZ 85060

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Maya Hunter, individually, and on behalf of all other 

similarly situated persons, requests that this Court grant the following relief in Plaintiff’s 

and the Collective Members’ favor, and against Defendants:

A. For the Court to declare and find that the Defendants committed one or 

more of the following acts:

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

206(a), by failing to timely pay all wages due; and

ii. willfully violated overtime provisions of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 

206(a);

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

damages pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), in amounts to be determined at 

trial;

C. For the Court to award prejudgment and post-judgment interest on any 

damages awarded;

D. For the Court to award Plaintiff’s and the Collective Members’ reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and costs of the action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and 

all other causes of action set forth in this Complaint;

E. For the Court to provide reasonable incentive awards the named Plaintiff to 

compensate her for the time she spent attempting to recover wages for the 

Collective Members and for the risks they took in doing so; and

F. Such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Case 2:18-cv-00503-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/14/18 Page 26 of 32
-27-

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

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, AZ 85060

COUNT THREE: ARIZONA MINIMUM WAGE ACT

UNPAID MINIMUM WAGE

140. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all 

preceding paragraphs.

141. Defendants operated pursuant to their policy and practice designating one 

pay period per month and one pay day per month, in violation of A.R.S. § 23-350, et seq.

142. Specifically, Defendants’ designated pay period began on the first day of 

each month and ended on the last day of each month, and Defendants designated the tenth 

(10th) day of each month as the only designated pay day, in violation of A.R.S. § 23-350, 

et seq.

143. As a result, Defendants have intentionally failed and/or refused to pay 

Plaintiff and the Collective Members minimum wages due and owing according to the 

provisions of Arizona law.

144. Defendants further have engaged in a widespread pattern and practice of 

violating the provisions of the Arizona law by failing and/or refusing to pay Plaintiff and 

the Collective Members in accordance with A.R.S. § 23-350, et seq. and A.R.S § 23-362, 

et seq.

145. Plaintiff and the Collective Members believe and therefore aver that 

Defendants owe them unpaid minimum wages for each and every pay period for the 

duration of their employment. 

146. Although at this stage, Plaintiff and the Collective Members are unable to 

state the exact amount owed for all time worked during the course of their employment, 

Case 2:18-cv-00503-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/14/18 Page 27 of 32
-28-

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

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, AZ 85060

Plaintiff and the Collective Members believe that such information will become available 

during the course of discovery. Furthermore, when an employer fails to keep complete 

and accurate time records, employees may establish the hours worked by their testimony, 

and the burden of overcoming such testimony shifts to the employer.

147. Defendants knew that – or acted with reckless disregard as to whether –

their refusal or failure to properly compensate Plaintiff and the Collective Members over 

the course of their employment would violate federal and state law, and Defendants were 

aware of Arizona law’s minimum wage requirements during Plaintiff’s and the Collective 

Members’ employment. As such, Defendants’ conduct constitutes a willful violation of 

A.R.S. § 23-350, et seq., and A.R.S. § 23-362, et seq. 

148. Defendants have and continue to willfully violate A.R.S § 23-362, et seq. 

by not timely paying Plaintiff and the Collective Members minimum wages due and 

owing for all hours worked in a given workweek.

149. As a result of Defendants failure or refusal to timely pay Plaintiff and the 

Collective Members all wages due and owing for all hours worked in a given workweek, 

Defendants violated A.R.S. § 23-362, et seq. Plaintiff and the Collective Members are 

therefore entitled to compensation for the untimely payments in an amount equal to the 

amount of minimum wages earned for all hours worked in a given workweek throughout 

the duration of their employment with Defendants.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Maya Hunter, individually, and on behalf of all other 

similarly situated persons, requests that this Court grant the following relief in Plaintiff’s 

and the Collective Members’ favor, and against Defendants:

Case 2:18-cv-00503-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/14/18 Page 28 of 32
-29-

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

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, AZ 85060

A. For the Court to declare and find that the Defendants committed one or more of 

the following acts:

i. violated A.R.S. § 23-362, et seq., by failing to timely pay all wages 

due; and

ii. willfully violated A.R.S § 23-362, et seq.;

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

damages pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-364, in amounts to be determined at trial;

C. For the Court to award prejudgment and post-judgment interest on any 

damages awarded;

D. For the Court to award Plaintiff’s and the Collective Members’ reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and costs of the action pursuant to A.R.S § 23-364 and all 

other causes of action set forth in this Complaint;

E. For the Court to provide reasonable incentive awards the named Plaintiff to 

compensate her for the time she spent attempting to recover wages for the 

Collective Members and for the risks they took in doing so; and

F. Such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT FOUR: ARIZONA WAGE ACT

UNPAID WAGES

150. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all 

preceding paragraphs.

151. Defendants operated pursuant to their policy and practice designating one 

pay period per month and one pay day per month, in violation of A.R.S. § 23-350, et seq.

Case 2:18-cv-00503-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/14/18 Page 29 of 32
-30-

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

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, AZ 85060

152. Specifically, Defendants’ designated pay period began on the first day of 

each month and ended on the last day of each month, and Defendants designated the tenth 

(10th) day of each month as the only designated pay day, in violation of A.R.S. § 23-350, 

et seq.

153. As a result, Defendants have intentionally failed and/or refused to timely 

pay Plaintiff and the Collective Members wages due and owing according to the 

provisions of Arizona law.

154. Defendants further have engaged in a widespread pattern and practice of 

violating the provisions of the Arizona law by failing and/or refusing to pay Plaintiff and 

the Collective Members in accordance with A.R.S. § 23-350, et seq.

155. Plaintiff and the Collective Members believe and therefore aver that 

Defendants owe them unpaid wages for each and every pay period for the duration of 

their employment. 

156. Although at this stage, Plaintiff and the Collective Members are unable to 

state the exact amount owed for all time worked during the course of their employment, 

Plaintiff and the Collective Members believe that such information will become available 

during the course of discovery. Furthermore, when an employer fails to keep complete 

and accurate time records, employees may establish the hours worked by their testimony, 

and the burden of overcoming such testimony shifts to the employer.

157. Defendants knew that – or acted with reckless disregard as to whether –

their refusal or failure to properly compensate Plaintiff and the Collective Members over 

the course of their employment would violate federal and state law, and Defendants were 

Case 2:18-cv-00503-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/14/18 Page 30 of 32
-31-

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

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, AZ 85060

aware of Arizona law’s wage requirements during Plaintiff’s and the Collective 

Members’ employment. As such, Defendants’ conduct constitutes a willful violation of 

A.R.S. § 23-350, et seq.

158. Defendants have and continue to willfully violate A.R.S § 23-362, et seq. 

by not timely paying Plaintiff and the Collective Members minimum wages due and 

owing for all hours worked in a given workweek.

159. As a result of Defendants failure or refusal to timely pay Plaintiff and the 

Collective Members all wages due and owing for all hours worked in a given workweek, 

Defendants violated A.R.S. § 23-350, et seq. Plaintiff and the Collective Members are 

therefore entitled to compensation for the untimely payments in an amount equal to the 

amount of wages earned for all hours worked in a given workweek throughout the 

duration of their employment with Defendants.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Maya Hunter, individually, and on behalf of all other 

similarly situated persons, requests that this Court grant the following relief in Plaintiff’s 

and the Collective Members’ favor, and against Defendants:

A. For the Court to declare and find that the Defendants committed one or 

more of the following acts:

i. violated A.R.S. § 23-350, et seq., by failing to timely pay all wages 

due; and

ii. willfully violated A.R.S § 23-350, et seq.;

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

damages pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-355, in amounts to be determined at trial;

Case 2:18-cv-00503-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/14/18 Page 31 of 32
-32-

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

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, AZ 85060

C. For the Court to award prejudgment and post-judgment interest on any 

damages awarded;

D. For the Court to provide reasonable incentive awards the named Plaintiff to 

compensate her for the time she spent attempting to recover wages for the 

Collective Members and for the risks they took in doing so; and

E. Such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

REQUEST FOR COLLECTIVE ACTION CERTIFICATION

Plaintiffs request that the Court designate this action as a collective action on 

behalf of the FLSA Collective Members and promptly issue a notice pursuant to 29 

U.S.C. § 216(b) to all similarly situated members of the FLSA opt-in class, apprising 

them of the pendency of this action, and permitting them to timely assert FLSA claims in 

this action by filing individual Consent to Sue Forms pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 14th day of February, 2018.

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM, PLLC

By: /s/ Clifford P. Bendau, II 

Clifford P. Bendau, II

Christopher J. Bendau

Case 2:18-cv-00503-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/14/18 Page 32 of 32