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

Philip J. Nathanson (Arizona State Bar #013624)

Kate Sokolova (Arizona State Bar #032559)

THE NATHANSON LAW FIRM

8326 E. Hartford Dr., Suite 101

Scottsdale, AZ 85255

Phone Number: (480) 419-2578

Fax Number: (480) 419-4136

philipj@nathansonlawfirm.com

kate.sokolova@nathansonlawfirm.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

ARIZONA DISTRICT

Alyssa Jones,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Riot Hospitality Group, LLC n/k/a Noatoz LLC;

RHG Ventures, LLC; 4425 Saddlebag, LLC; 

4425 Saddlebag 2 LLC; JW Bar, LLC; Milo 

Companies, LLC; Rooke, LLC; MRM 

Hospitality, LLC; Ryan Hibbert, individually

and in his official capacity

Defendant

Case No. 2:17-CV-04612-BSB

FOURTH AND FINAL AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

(Jury Trial Demanded)

Assigned to Hon. Murray Snow

Plaintiff, Alyssa Jones, by her attorneys, Philip J. Nathanson and The Nathanson 

Law Firm, complains against the Defendants, Riot Hospitality Group n/k/a Noatoz, LLC, 

LLC, RHG Ventures, LLC, 4425 Saddlebag, LLC, 4425 Saddlebag 2, LLC, JW Bar, LLC, 

Milo Companies, LLC, Rooke, LLC, MRM Hospitality, LLC (collectively Riot Hospitality 

Group), and Ryan Hibbert, individually and in his official capacity, and alleges as follows:

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 451, 1331 and 

1343. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to (1) Title VII of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-5(f)(1); (2) and Section 

102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981a; (3) Arizona Civil Rights 

Case 2:17-cv-04612-GMS Document 99 Filed 05/17/19 Page 1 of 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

28

Act, A.R.S. §§41-1461 et seq. (the ACRA); and (4) Arizona State Common Law claim on 

sexual battery.

2. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391.

3. The employment practices and sexual battery alleged to be unlawful were 

committed within the County of Maricopa, State of Arizona.

4. Defendant Riot Hospitality Group, LLC is an Arizona limited liability company 

having its principal place of business within the State of Arizona, County of Maricopa for 

purposes of jurisdiction and venue. 

5. Defendant Riot Hospitality Group, LLC changed its name to Noatoz, LLC on 

September 12, 2018.

6. Defendant Noatoz, LLC is an Arizona limited liability company having its principal 

place of business within the State of Arizona, County of Maricopa for purposes of 

jurisdiction and venue.

7. Noatoz, LLC is one of the multiple entities comprising the single integrated 

enterprise known as the Riot Hospitality Group.

8. Defendant RHG Ventures, LLC is a member of Riot Hospitality Group, LLC n/k/a 

Noatoz, LLC and is an Arizona limited liability company having its principal place of 

business within the State of Arizona, County of Maricopa for purposes of jurisdiction and 

venue. 

9. Defendant RHG Ventures is one of the multiple entities comprising the single 

integrated enterprise known as the Riot Hospitality Group.

10. Defendant 4425 Saddlebag, LLC is an Arizona limited liability company having its 

principal place of business within the State of Arizona, County of Maricopa for purposes 

of jurisdiction and venue.

11. Defendant 4425 Saddlebag, LLC is one of the multiple entities comprising the single 

integrated enterprise known as the Riot Hospitality Group.

Case 2:17-cv-04612-GMS Document 99 Filed 05/17/19 Page 2 of 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

28

12. Defendant 4425 Saddlebag 2, LLC is an Arizona limited liability company having 

its principal place of business within the State of Arizona, County of Maricopa for purposes 

of jurisdiction and venue.

13. Defendant 4425 Saddlebag 2, LLC is managed by Riot Hospitality Group, LLC

n/k/a/ Noatoz, LLC and its original member was RHG Ventures LLC. 

14. Defendant 4425 Saddlebag 2, LLC is one of the multiple entities comprising the 

single integrated enterprise known as the Riot Hospitality Group.

15. On March 27, 2018 Defendant 4425 Saddlebag 2, LLC changed its member from 

RHG Ventures LLC to Rooke, LLC.

16. Defendant JW Bar, LLC is an Arizona limited liability company having its principal 

place of business within the State of Arizona, County of Maricopa for purposes of 

jurisdiction and venue.

17. Defendant JW Bar, LLC is a member managed LLC, whose sole member is Jon 

Wright Trust.

18. Defendant JW Bar, LLC is one of the multiple entities comprising the single 

integrated enterprise known as the Riot Hospitality Group.

19. Defendant Milo Companies, LLC at the time of the events was an Arizona limited 

liability company having its principal place of business within the State of Arizona, County

of Maricopa for purposes of jurisdiction and venue.

20. Upon information and belief, on September 19, 2018 Defendant Milo Companies 

LLC changed its registration and moved its place of residence to Nevada.

21. Upon information and belief, Defendant Milo Companies LLC continues to do 

business in the State of Arizona and is managed by Defendant Ryan Hibbert.

22. Defendant Milo Companies, LLC is one of the multiple entities comprising the 

single integrated enterprise known as the Riot Hospitality Group.

Case 2:17-cv-04612-GMS Document 99 Filed 05/17/19 Page 3 of 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

28

23. Defendant Rooke LLC at the time of the events was an Arizona limited liability 

company having its principal place of business within the State of Arizona, County of 

Maricopa for purposes of jurisdiction and venue.

24. Upon information and belief, Defendant Rooke, LLC moved its place of residence 

to the State of Delaware on February 28, 2018, and re-registered in the State of Arizona as 

a Foreign Company.

25. Defendant Rooke, LLC’s original members were Ryan Hibbert, Michael Troyan 

and Jon Wright. In 2014 the members changed to Milo Companies, LLC, JW Bar, LLC 

and MRM Hospitality, LLC.

26. Defendant Rooke, LLC is one of the multiple entities comprising the single 

integrated enterprise known as the Riot Hospitality Group.

27. Defendant MRM Hospitality, LLC is an Arizona limited liability company having 

its principal place of business within the State of Arizona, County of Maricopa for purposes 

of jurisdiction and venue.

28. Defendant MRM Hospitality, LLC is owned and managed by Michael Troyan.

29. Defendant MRM Hospitality, LLC is one of the multiple entities comprising the 

single integrated enterprise known as the Riot Hospitality Group.

30. Upon information and belief, all corporate Defendants are all operated as part of, 

and grouped under, the Riot Hospitality Group tradename and operate from the same place 

of business, 7525 E Camelback Rd. #100, Scottsdale, AZ 85251.

31. Defendant Ryan Hibbert is a citizen of Maricopa County, Arizona. At all times 

relevant to this Complaint, Defendant, Ryan Hibbert was a principal in Riot Hospitality 

Group, LLC Defendant. Mr. Hibbert owned operated and managed El Hefe, and was the 

person in charge of all operations.

32. El Hefe is owned, operated and managed by one or more Defendants comprising 

Riot Hospitality Group.

Case 2:17-cv-04612-GMS Document 99 Filed 05/17/19 Page 4 of 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

28

33. Plaintiff, Alyssa Jones, has worked as a cocktail waitress at the El Hefe Super 

Macho Taqueria, in Scottsdale, Arizona (“El Hefe”), from November of 2015 to February 

6, 2018. Plaintiff lives in Chandler, Arizona.

34. At all relevant times, Riot Hospitality Group and the above referenced entities that 

form a single integrated enterprise therewith, has continuously been an employer within 

the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

35. At all times Plaintiff, Alyssa Jones, performed her job satisfactory.

36. Plaintiff was hired approximately three years ago by Defendant Hibbert to work at 

El Hefe in Scottsdale. 

37. After Plaintiff started working at El Hefe, Defendant Hibbert would deliberately 

come around to the area where Plaintiff was working and would interact with Plaintiff 

during her shifts at El Hefe, asking her in the course of doing so if she would “hang out” 

with him. 

38. Thereafter, at two company parties, Defendant Hibbert insisted that Plaintiff drink 

to excess and be with him. 

39. After one of these episodes, Mr. Sanchez, Plaintiff’s supervisor, gave Plaintiff a ride 

home, and began to socialize with her. Mr. Sanchez ingratiated himself with Plaintiff by 

giving her better shifts at work so she could socialize with him.

40. When Plaintiff refused to continue socializing with Mr. Sanchez, he began to take 

away Plaintiff’s shifts at work and impose on Plaintiff other adverse employment actions.

41. Defendants Hibbert and Mr. Sanchez sexually harassed Plaintiff by requesting that 

Plaintiff and her co-workers (other cocktail waitresses) hang out with potential and actual 

customers who spent a lot of money drinking expensive bottles of wine and champagne, 

so those customers would want to come to El Hefe and consume such high-priced liquor.

42. Defendants Hibbert and Mr. Sanchez requested Plaintiff and her co-workers, all the 

time, to go to dinner with her regular customers and big spenders so that Plaintiff could get 

them to come back to El Hefe and book tables with her.

Case 2:17-cv-04612-GMS Document 99 Filed 05/17/19 Page 5 of 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

28

43. During the 2015 Christmas party a Dierks Bentley’s Whiskey Row bar Hibbert 

forced Plaintiff into performing oral sex on him in order to keep her job.

44. Sometime around January or February of 2016, Hibbert came to El Hefe and cut 

Plaintiff from work (took her off the working shift) and told her that they were going to go 

get massages. Plaintiff had no choice but to agree to Hibbert’s instruction.

45. Hibbert then took Plaintiff to Omni Scottsdale Resort & Spa at Montelucia. When 

Plaintiff entered the massage room she observed Hibbert being completely naked. Plaintiff 

felt very uncomfortable in light of the situation and informed Hibbert several times that she 

needed to go back to work. However, Hibbert did not take Plaintiff to work upon her 

request. 

46. On the evening of August 4, 2017, Plaintiff was working at El Hefe.

47. On the evening of August 4, 2017, a good friend of Hibbert, Rezwan Manji was a 

customer of El Hefe, consuming alcohol. 

48. Defendant Hibbert and Mr. Sanchez encouraged Plaintiff to socialize with 

customers like Hibbert’s Friend, who came in and spend a lot of money buying and 

drinking alcohol.

49. After Plaintiff had already been working the dinner shift for a couple of hours, 

Hibbert’s Friend tried to grab Plaintiff and told her that it was his friend Steve's birthday, 

and he wanted to get a table and have Plaintiff join them. Plaintiff was working and did not 

respond right away.

50. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff received a text message from Hibbert’s Friend saying 

that she had snubbed him and didn't give him attention. ·

51. Subsequently, Plaintiff’s manager, and a couple of the other servers came up to her, 

asking her what did she do, because Hibbert’s Friend left El Hefe and did not spend a lot 

of money, as he otherwise would have, but for Plaintiff’s “rude” behavior towards him. 

52. Plaintiff’s manager then instructed Plaintiff that she needed to text Hibbert’s Friend

and try to make things better, and try to get him to come back to El Hefe and spend money. 

Case 2:17-cv-04612-GMS Document 99 Filed 05/17/19 Page 6 of 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

28

53. Plaintiff followed manager’s instructions, texted Hibbert’s Friend and apologized. 

Hibbert’s Friend responded by asking Plaintiff to encourage him to come back to El Hefe, 

which she did, because of what her manager told her to do. Then Hibbert’s Friend came 

back to El Hefe. They purchased a table and started to purchase some champagne.

54. Hibbert’s Friend then went up to one of Plaintiff’s bosses and told him that he 

wanted Plaintiff to be cut immediately, meaning that she would be taken off the work shift 

that night so she could go drink with Hibbert’s Friend and his friends. 

55. Plaintiff’s boss said okay because Hibbert’s Friend was Hibbert's best friend, and 

he spent a lot of money at El Hefe.

56. Plaintiff’s boss and manager pulled her outside and told her that: “We are cutting 

you. But you can’t go home, you have to go drink with him. You’ll still get paid for” 

Hibbert’s Friend’s “coming in and having a table, but you need to stay there and drink with 

him and try to get him to spend more money." Plaintiff had no choice but to say okay.

57. Plaintiff then went to the table of Hibbert’s Friend, at El Hefe and started drinking 

with him and his friends for a while, until Hibbert’s Friend and his friends decided that 

they were ready to leave El Hefe and move on to a different venue.

58. Plaintiff had no choice but to go with them to a different venue. At that point, they 

were all pretty drunk, including Plaintiff, who had been drinking a lot because they were 

telling her that she needed to catch up.

59. The entire group then went to Dakota bar, in Scottsdale. They all had a few more 

drinks, and Plaintiff realized that she was pretty drunk.

60. Hibbert’s Friend told her to come after-partying with them, and to hang out with 

them. 

61. Plaintiff was planning on having an Uber driver take her all the way back home to 

Chandler. However, Hibbert’s Friend told Plaintiff that if she stayed with them and went 

to an after party with them, and hung out with them, he would help her and get her an Uber 

Case 2:17-cv-04612-GMS Document 99 Filed 05/17/19 Page 7 of 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

28

home so that Plaintiff didn't have to pay for it. Plaintiff agreed to that because it made the 

most sense.

62. Yet, Hibbert’s Friend ordered an Uber driver and instructed the driver to take them 

back to Hibbert Friend’s house. 

63. After arriving at the house, Hibbert’s Friend became sexually aggressive with 

Plaintiff, who said no and refused to have sexual relations. Plaintiff told Hibbert’s Friend

she had her monthly menstrual period and that she did not feel comfortable. She wanted 

to go to her home.

64. Hibbert’s Friend grabbed Plaintiff’s head and began smashing her head against the 

wall while holding the back of her neck. He did this at least three times, causing extreme 

pain. Plaintiff became dizzy and felt the pain. Then she blacked out. 

65. During that night, Plaintiff did go in and out of consciousness a few times, but she 

could not see anything. When she awoke the next day, she had no clothes on and had her 

menstrual blood all over her. She had been raped by Hibbert’s Friend. Her head hurt really 

bad, and she was extremely distressed about what had occurred.

66. She left Hibbert’s Friend’s home and went to Urgent Care, where she was diagnosed 

with a concussion.

67. Subsequently Plaintiff filed a complaint for battery against Hibbert’s Friend in the 

State Court.

68. On August 31, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the United 

States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the EEOC) against Riot Hospitality 

Group, which includes all of the Defendant entities comprising the single integrated 

enterprise known as the Riot Hospitality Group.

69. Plaintiff complained to the EEOC as follows: 

 

 “In or around November 2015, I was employed as a Bartender/Server by the 

above employer. Starting around January 1, 2016 Owner Ryan Hibbert would 

require me to drink with him while I was working. He would touch my butt, take 

Case 2:17-cv-04612-GMS Document 99 Filed 05/17/19 Page 8 of 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

28

me to get massages during my shift and had sexual relations with me. The owner 

would try to get me to leave work with him. My manager would text me at night 

and ask me to come over or go somewhere with him. If I refused, he would cut 

my hours. In August 2017, the owner's wealthy friend requested that my manager 

cut me from my duties so I could join him and his friends to drink at their table. 

My manager had me join them. I would get paid for working if a big spender 

requested me and I spent time with him. We left and went to his house and when 

I said I didn't want to have sex, he got very aggressive and smashed my head in to 

the wall. I ended up with a concussion and was out of work for a few days. When 

I returned to work, I was still not feeling well and my hours were cut because my 

manager said I didn't show enough energy. He warned me that I would be written 

up if my energy level didn’t change. I was put on the worse shift. I believe that he 

was afraid that I was going to go to the police about what the owner's best friend 

did to me so he was trying to get me to quit and go away. On or around August 

25, 2017, my manager had a meeting with employees stating that the 

servers needed to continue to build outside relations with regular clients and "big 

spenders" and if it made anyone uncomfortable that they need to quit and find a 

new job. He said the servers should go out to dinner with them and it will start 

affecting our shift time if we don't. He said the servers were not servers they were 

sales people.

70. Upon filing the complaint with the EEOC, Plaintiff’s work conditions became 

intolerable.

71. As the result of Plaintiff’s EEOC complaint, Defendants substantially cut Plaintiff’s 

shifts and even moved Plaintiff to work as at another location – Cake night club, owned by 

Riot Hospitality Group.

72. Thereafter, Cake night club was shut down, at which time Plaintiff was transferred 

back to El Hefe, however with a substantial reduction in work hours, which reduction 

constituted an adverse job action.

73. Defendants’ management employees were constantly humiliating and threatening 

Plaintiff.

74. Plaintiff’s managers began raising their voices at Plaintiff.

75. Defendants’ management made threatening comments, such as “you are skating on 

a thin ice.”

Case 2:17-cv-04612-GMS Document 99 Filed 05/17/19 Page 9 of 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

28

76. Managers began to humiliate Plaintiff by assigning her work that she had never been 

assigned before, nor was it part of Plaintiff’s job duties.

77. Plaintiff’s co-workers shoved Plaintiff into a computer, attempted to further reduce 

Plaintiff shift hours and withhold $50 from Plaintiff’s pay.

78. Plaintiff was continuously harassed, threatened, humiliated and retaliated against up

until Plaintiff could no longer tolerate such treatment and had to resign on or about 

February 6, 2018.

79. On September 15, 2017, the EEOC concluded its first investigation and issued a 

notice of a Right to Sue, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1. 

80. On November 30, 2018, Plaintiff filed her Second Complaint with the EEOC 

alleging constructive discharge and retaliation as the result of the first EEOC filing.

81. EEOC completed its second investigation and issued a second right to sue letter on 

December 20, 2018, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 2.

82. All procedural and/or administrative prerequisites and/or conditions precedent to 

filing Plaintiff’s legal claims against Defendants have been met.

Count I – Sexual Harassment in Violation of Title VII

(Against Corporate Defendants)

83. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates herein by this reference the allegations 

contained in preceding paragraphs.

84. Plaintiff is a member of protected class, female.

85. Riot Hospitality Group and the multiple entities comprising the single integrated 

enterprise known as the Riot Hospitality Group had 15 or more employees in the current 

or preceding calendar year.

86. Defendants Riot Hospitality Group and the multiple entities comprising the single 

integrated enterprise known as the Riot Hospitality Group through its employee Eric 

Sanchez and its principal Ryan Hibbert engaged in unlawful employment practices in 

violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2 by sexually harassing Alyssa Jones.

Case 2:17-cv-04612-GMS Document 99 Filed 05/17/19 Page 10 of 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

28

87. The sexual harassment by Ryan Hibbert included:

A. Asking Plaintiff to “hang out” with him;

B. Demanding Plaintiff to drink in excess with him;

C. Requiring Plaintiff to hang out and go to dinners with potential and actual 

customers as a condition of her continued employment.

D. Insisting that she be cut from her shift so that she could participate in a “spa 

day” with him and have a couple’s massage, during which Hibbert was 

completely naked;

E. Persistently touching her on her buttocks;

F. Forcing her to perform oral sex on him at the company’s holiday party.

88. The sexual harassment by Eric Sanchez included:

A. Requiring Plaintiff to hang out and go to dinners with potential and actual 

customers as a condition of her continued employment

B. Requiring Plaintiff to go out with him 

89. Plaintiff found these actions extremely offensive. 

90. This behavior was unwelcome and created hostile work environment for Plaintiff.

91. Defendants made the offensive acts and requests conditional on Plaintiff’s 

employment.

92. As a direct and proximate result of the sexual harassment by Defendants, Plaintiff 

suffered damages that are compensable under Title VII.

93. Riot Hospitality Group and the multiple entities comprising the single integrated 

enterprise known as the Riot Hospitality Group are vicariously liable for acts of its agents.

94. Defendants’ acts were sufficiently severe to alter the conditions of Plaintiff’s 

employment.

Case 2:17-cv-04612-GMS Document 99 Filed 05/17/19 Page 11 of 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

28

Count II – ACRA Violations (Sexual Harassment and Retaliation)

(Against Corporate Defendants)

95. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates herein by this reference the allegations 

contained in preceding paragraphs.

96. Riot Hospitality Group and the multiple entities comprising the single integrated 

enterprise known as the Riot Hospitality Group is an “employee” within the meaning of 

the Arizona Civil Rights Act, A.R.S. §§41-1461 et seq. (the ACRA). 

97. During the course of her employment, Plaintiff has been subject to hostile and 

offensive work environment because of her sex, including harassment, humiliation, 

intimidation and sexual touching.

98. Acquiescence to Defendants’ conduct and requests was a condition to Plaintiff’s 

continued employment, which constitutes quid pro quo sexual harassment in violation of 

A.R.S. §41-1463.

99. Riot Hospitality Group and the multiple entities comprising the single integrated 

enterprise known as the Riot Hospitality Group are vicariously liable for acts of its agents.

100. Plaintiff suffered an adverse consequence, such as reduction in hours and 

shifts, harassment, humiliation and transfer to a different venue (Cake) as a result of her 

filing EEOC Complaint on August 31, 2017.

101. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct by Defendants in violation of 

the ACRA, Plaintiff suffered damages.

Count III – Retaliation in Violation of Title VII

(Against Corporate Defendants)

102. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates herein by this reference the 

allegations contained in preceding paragraphs.

103. Defendants engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Title 

VII’s prohibitions against retaliation by taking adverse employment actions against 

Plaintiff.

Case 2:17-cv-04612-GMS Document 99 Filed 05/17/19 Page 12 of 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

28

104. Plaintiff engaged in a protected conduct, such as filing a complaint with the 

EEOC and complaining to management.

105. Defendants continuously retaliated by substantially cutting Plaintiff’s hours 

and shifts and subjected Plaintiff to intolerable working conditions, including threats, 

physical altercations, humiliation, harassment raising voices and at Plaintiff and 

transferring her to another venue.

106. The above referenced adverse retaliatory actions occurred after Plaintiff filed 

her EEOC Complaint.

107. As the result of forgoing retaliation, Plaintiff suffered damages.

COUNT IV – Sexual Battery

(Against Ryan Hibbert individually)

108. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates herein by this reference the 

allegations contained in preceding paragraphs.

109. Defendant Hibbert intentionally caused offensive bodily contact with 

Plaintiff on several occasions, which offended her reasonable sense of personal dignity.

110. Hibbert acted in reckless or wanton disregard of Plaintiff’s rights, entitling 

her to an award of punitive damages.

COUNT V – Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

(Against Ryan Hibbert individually)

111. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates herein by this reference the 

allegations contained in preceding paragraphs.

112. Defendant engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct.

113. Defendant’s extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly 

caused emotional distress to Plaintiff.

114. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s intentional infliction of 

emotional suffering, Plaintiff has suffered mental anguish and emotional distress. 

Case 2:17-cv-04612-GMS Document 99 Filed 05/17/19 Page 13 of 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

28

COUNT VI – Wrongful Termination/Constructive Discharge 

in Violation of Title VII 

(Against Corporate Defendants)

115. Plaintiff repleads and realleges and incorporates herein by this reference the 

allegations contained in preceding paragraphs.

116. Plaintiff had been discriminated against and harassed on continuous basis up 

to February 6, 2018 by Defendants and their agents.

117. Plaintiff’s working conditions became intolerable.

118. Any other reasonable person in Plaintiff’s position would have felt 

compelled to resign.

119. Plaintiff resigned on February 6, 2018.

120. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff suffered 

damages

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Alyssa Jones, respectfully prays for judgment against 

Defendants as follows:

1. For Plaintiff’s compensatory damages;

2. For Plaintiff’s damages for mental anguish and emotional distress;

3. For Punitive Damages;

4. For Plaintiff’s economic damages, i.e. lost wages and other earnings (such as lost 

tips) as the result of Plaintiff’s reduction in hours and shifts and as a result of 

Plaintiff’s Constructive Discharge

5. For Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees, costs and pre- and post-judgment interest

6. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper

Case 2:17-cv-04612-GMS Document 99 Filed 05/17/19 Page 14 of 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

28

DATED this 17th day of May, 2019.

ALYSSA JONES

By: /s/Philip J. Nathanson

Philip Nathanson

Kate Sokolova

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 2:17-cv-04612-GMS Document 99 Filed 05/17/19 Page 15 of 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

28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 17, 2019, I electronically transmitted the attached document 

to the Clerk’s office using CM/ECF System for filing, and transmitted a Notice of Service 

of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants:

Christopher Thomas Curran, Esq. (ccurran@clarkhill.com)

Darrel Eugene Davis, Esq. (ddavis@clarkhill.com)

David I Weissman, Esq. (dweissman@clarkhill.com)

Sean Michael Carroll, Esq. (scarroll@clarkhill.com)

Clark Hill PLC

14850 N. Scottsdale Rd., Ste. 500

Scottsdale, AZ 85254

By: /s/ Philip Nathanson

Case 2:17-cv-04612-GMS Document 99 Filed 05/17/19 Page 16 of 16