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

Susan Martin (AZ#014226)

Daniel Bonnett (AZ#014127)

Jennifer Kroll (AZ#019859)

Michael Licata (AZ#033941)

Martin & Bonnett, P.L.L.C.

4647 N. 32nd Street, Suite 185

Phoenix, Arizona 85018

Telephone: (602) 240-6900; Facsimile: (602) 240-2345

smartin@martinbonnett.com

dbonnett@martinbonnett.com

jkroll@martinbonnett.com

mlicata@martinbonnett.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Lisa Volk, individually and on behalf of all 

others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

George A. Steil and Barbara Steil, 

individually, and as husband and wife;

Jennifer Steil and John Doe Steil, 

individually, and as husband and wife; Steil

Corporation, an Arizona corporation; G.G. 

& B, Inc., an Arizona corporation; Sub 

Three Inc., an Arizona corporation; ABC 

entities 1-20; and John and Jane Does 1-20,

Defendants.

No.

COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff, Lisa Volk (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all similarly situated 

current and former employees of Defendants, alleges as follows:

1. This case arises out of unlawful employment practices. Specifically, George A. 

Case 2:17-cv-04737-DGC Document 1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 1 of 14
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

Steil, Barbara Steil, Jennifer Steil, Steil Corporation, Sub Three, Inc., and G. G. & B., Inc. 

(collectively, “Defendants”) have failed to pay and refused to pay overtime compensation 

and the applicable minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) 

29 U.S.C. § 201 et. seq. and Arizona’s wage statutes, Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 23-350 et. seq.

and 23-363 et seq.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this is a 

civil action arising under the laws of the United States. Specifically, this action is brought 

under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). This Court has jurisdiction over the state claim pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1367(a).

3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they are domiciled 

and regularly transact business in and have significant continuous contact with this District.

4. Steil Corporation and G. G. & B., Inc. are each Arizona corporations domiciled in 

this District and each transacts business in this District. In annual reports filed with the 

Arizona Corporation Commission, Steil Corporation and G. G. & B., Inc. each list their 

address as 609 E. Silver Creek Rd., Gilbert, AZ 85296. In the same public filings, George 

and Barbara Steil also list their address as 609 E. Silver Creek Rd., Gilbert, AZ 85296. On 

information, 609 E. Silver Creek Rd., Gilbert, AZ 85296 is a residence owned by George 

and Barbara Steil.

5. Sub Three Inc. is an Arizona corporation that was administratively dissolved in 

2015. During the relevant time period, it was domiciled and transacted business in this 

District. In annual reports filed with the Arizona Corporation Commission, Sub Three Inc. 

lists its address as PO Box 722, Gilbert, AZ 85299. In the same filings, George A. Steil 

lists his address as 609 E. Silver Creek Rd., Gilbert, AZ 85296.

6. At all relevant times, Defendants were, and/or continue to be, engaged in interstate 

commerce as defined by the FLSA.

7. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) as Defendants are domiciled and 

regularly transact or transacted business in Maricopa County, Arizona.

Case 2:17-cv-04737-DGC Document 1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 2 of 14
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

PARTIES

8. Defendant Steil Corporation (“Steil Corp.”) is a corporation organized under the 

laws of Arizona, is in good standing, is authorized to conduct business and is transacting 

business in Arizona. 

9. Defendant G. G. & B., Inc. (“GG&B”) is a corporation organized under the laws of 

Arizona, is in good standing, is authorized to conduct business and is transacting business

in Arizona.

10. Defendant Sub Three, Inc. (“Sub Three”) is a corporation organized under the laws 

of Arizona and was administratively dissolved in 2015. During the relevant time period,

however, Sub Three was authorized to conduct business in Arizona and, in fact, transacted 

business in Arizona.

11. In documents filed with the Arizona Corporation Commission during the relevant 

timeframe, Defendant George Steil is and was listed as the President/CEO, Secretary, and 

only Director of Steil Corp. and GG&B. He is also listed as the President/CEO, Secretary, 

and a Director of Sub Three. He is listed as the only person holding more than 20% of any 

class of shares issued by each corporation, or having more than 20% beneficial interest in 

the corporations.

12. Defendant Barbara Steil is listed in documents filed with the Arizona Corporation 

Commission as the statutory agent for Steil Corp. Upon information, Defendant Barbara 

Steil is also the spouse of George Steil and is joined in this action for the purpose of joining 

the marital community of George Steil (hereinafter, the “George Steil Marital 

Community”). All acts and omissions hereinafter alleged to have been committed by 

Defendant George Steil, are also alleged to have been taken on behalf of the George Steil 

Marital Community.

13. Steil Corp., GG&B, and Sub Three are owned and controlled by Defendant George 

Steil and/or the George Steil Marital Community. During the relevant time period, 

Defendant George Steil and/or the George Steil Marital Community, acting through Steil 

Corp, GG&B, and Sub Three, has owned, operated and controlled three known Subway 

Case 2:17-cv-04737-DGC Document 1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 3 of 14
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

franchise restaurants at separate locations: 2824 N. Power Rd., Mesa, AZ 85215; 450 S. 

Sossaman Rd., Mesa, AZ 85208; and; and 1021 N Ellsworth Rd., Mesa, AZ 85207.

14. Upon information, and at all relevant times, Defendant George Steil possessed and 

exercised direct and/or indirect managerial and operational control as well as oversight and 

direction over Steil Corp., GG&B, and Sub Three, and each of their employees, including 

Plaintiff, by, among other things, having authority to hire and fire employees, controlling

conditions of employment, determining the rate and method of payment of wages and hours 

worked by employees, maintaining or failing to maintain employment records, and 

scheduling and controlling employee work schedules either directly or through 

supervisors/managers.

15. Upon information, Defendant Jennifer Steil is the daughter of George and Barbara 

Steil. Defendant John Doe 1 is named as a Defendant solely for the purpose of Arizona’s 

community property laws and to join the Marital Community, if any, of Jennifer Steil 

(hereinafter, the “Jennifer Steil Marital Community”). All acts and omissions herein 

alleged to have been committed by Defendant Jennifer Steil are also alleged to have been 

taken on behalf of the Jennifer Steil Marital Community.

16. At all times relevant, Defendant Jennifer Steil possessed, exercised, and/or shared

direct and/or indirect managerial and operational control as well as oversight and direction 

over Steil Corp., GG&B, and Sub Three, and each of their employees, including Plaintiff, 

by, among other things, having authority to hire and fire employees, controlling conditions 

of employment, determining the rate and method of payment of wages and hours worked

by employees, maintaining or failing to maintain employment records, and scheduling and 

controlling employee work schedules either directly or through supervisors/managers.

17. Defendants George Steil, Jennifer Steil, Steil Corp., GG&B, and Sub Three, and any 

related business entity which they own, control, or with whom they partner or operate, 

regularly engage in the same or similar activities, share a common business purpose, and 

operate under a unified operation or common control so as to constitute an “enterprise” 

within the meaning of Section 3(r) and (s) of the FLSA. 29 U.S.C. § 203 (r) and (s).

Case 2:17-cv-04737-DGC Document 1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 4 of 14
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

18. Defendants George Steil, Jennifer Steil, Steil Corp., GG&B, and Sub Three are each 

a “person” and during the relevant time period, are or were Plaintiff’s “employer” within 

the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203(a) and (d) and within the meaning of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 

23-350 and 23-362. In the alternative, these Defendants are “joint employers” and/or the 

alter egos of each other.

19. Plaintiff Lisa Volk is a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona. 

20. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from on or about December 26, 2015 to on 

or about April 8, 2017 performing manual labor under the job title “Sandwich Artist” and 

worked at Defendants’ Subway restaurants. During the relevant time period, the primary 

duties of Plaintiff included (but were not limited to) greeting customers, assisting and 

serving customers with food and beverage orders, handling and preparing food and 

beverage items, operating cash registers, cleaning, stocking, receiving, and storing 

products and supplies, and performing other manual tasks as assigned. During her 

employment, Plaintiff spent some or all of her worktime at each of Defendants’ three 

Subway franchise restaurant locations.

21. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees described herein, 

were and are non-exempt “employee[s]” within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(e), 206, 

207 & 213 and “employee[s]” under Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 23-350 and 23-362.

22. At all relevant times during her employment with Defendants, pursuant to 

Defendants’ policy and pattern or practice, Plaintiff regularly worked for Defendants’ 

benefit for periods of time without payment of all compensation due to her under the law. 

For periods of time during her employment, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff and similarly 

situated employees the required minimum wages and did not pay them overtime 

compensation at the statutorily-required rates of pay for all hours worked for Defendants’ 

benefit in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

23. ABC Entities 1-20 and John and Jane Does 2-20 are fictitiously-identified 

Defendants whose true names and legal capacities are presently unknown but who are 

believed to have committed acts and omissions rendering them liable to Plaintiff for the 

Case 2:17-cv-04737-DGC Document 1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 5 of 14
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

remedies sought in this action. Upon discovery of the proper names, leave of court will be

requested to substitute the true names of such Defendants.

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS

24. Plaintiff brings wage claims on behalf of herself and all similarly situated employees 

described herein who work or who have worked for Defendants and who elect to opt into 

the FLSA claims asserted in this action and who fall within the definition of the proposed 

class for purposes of the state law wage claims.

25. Defendants are liable under the FLSA for, inter alia, failing to properly compensate 

Plaintiff and similarly situated employees. Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and similarly 

situated employees the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked and failure to pay

overtime compensation at the required rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty 

(40) hours in a workweek results from Defendants’ standard policy and business practices.

26. Members of the proposed class of these current and former employees of 

Defendants are readily identifiable, and all similarly situated employees who perform or 

have performed similar duties, responsibilities, and activities, were and are harmed by 

Defendants’ unlawful decision refusing and failing to pay the applicable minimum wages 

and overtime compensation at the premium rate of pay. Notice should be sent to the 

proposed class members pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

27. Plaintiff also brings this lawsuit on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated

for violations of Arizona’s wage statutes under the provisions of Rule 23 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and arising from Defendants’ failure to timely pay all wages due 

as required by state law. Judicial economy dictates that the issues raised here be resolved

in a single action.

28. The proposed class (“Class” or “Class Members”) is defined as the following:

All persons currently or formerly employed by Defendants on or after 

December 21, 2014 as Sandwich Artists and all similarly situated employees 

who performed or are performing manual labor relating to the preparation 

and/or service of food or beverage items to Defendants’ Subway restaurant 

customers and who have not been paid the applicable minimum wage for 

Case 2:17-cv-04737-DGC Document 1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 6 of 14
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

each hour worked or overtime wages at the required premium rate of pay for 

all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours during one or more workweeks.

29. Defendants have intentionally, willfully, and repeatedly engaged in a pattern, 

practice, and/or policy of violating the FLSA and Arizona wage statutes, including (but not 

limited to):

a. willfully failing to pay employees, including Plaintiff and Class Members, 

for all hours worked at the required rates of pay, including applicable 

minimum wage for each hour worked and overtime wages at the required 

premium rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours during 

one or more workweeks;

b. willfully failing to keep records of all the time that employees, including 

Plaintiff and Class Members, have worked for the benefit of Defendants; 

c. willfully failing to keep accurate payroll records as required by law; and

d. failing to timely pay Plaintiff and Class Members all wages due within the 

time required by law.

30. The requirements for maintaining this action as a class action under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 23(a)(1) are satisfied in that there are too many Class Members for joinder 

of all of them to be practicable. Upon information, there are more than 20 members of the 

proposed Class.

31. The claims of the Class Members raise common questions of fact and law regarding 

recording of all hours worked and non-payment of all wages legally due, thereby satisfying 

the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2).

32. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class Members and, therefore, 

satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(3). Plaintiff and the Class 

Members work or have worked for Defendants in Defendants’ Subway restaurants under 

common management and control and have not been timely paid the applicable minimum 

wage for all hours worked or overtime compensation at the statutorily required premium 

rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.

Case 2:17-cv-04737-DGC Document 1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 7 of 14
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

33. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the proposed Class and, 

therefore, satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4).

34. Plaintiff has retained counsel who meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 23(g). Plaintiff’s counsel are competent and experienced in complex class action 

lawsuits and, more specifically, in labor, employment, and wage and hour litigation.

35. All the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) are satisfied in that 

the prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class would create a risk 

of inconsistent or varying adjudications establishing incompatible standards of conduct for 

Defendants. Individual actions would also present a risk of adjudications that would, as a 

practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of other members who are not parties.

36. All the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) are satisfied in that 

Defendants’ actions affect or have affected all Class Members in the same manner, making 

final declaratory and injunctive relief appropriate with respect to the Class as a whole.

37. All the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) are satisfied in that 

the questions of law and fact common to class members predominate over any questions 

affecting only individual members and that a class action is superior to other available 

methods for fairly and effectively adjudicating the controversy. 

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

38. Defendants employ or have employed Plaintiff and those current and former 

employees similarly situated under the job title of Sandwich Artist or some other job title 

and jointly control these employees’ work.

39. Plaintiff and similarly situated current and former employees are or were employees 

whose job duties and responsibilities are not exempt from the requirements to pay

minimum wages and overtime at the statutorily applicable rates of pay.

40. The primary duties of Sandwich Artists and all similarly situated employees who 

work under the same or some other job title include (but are not limited to) greeting 

customers, assisting customers with orders, maintaining food safety and sanitation 

standards, preparing and serving food and beverage items to Defendants’ Subway 

Case 2:17-cv-04737-DGC Document 1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 8 of 14
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

restaurant customer specifications, operating cash registers, cleaning and performing other 

manual duties as directed.

41. Plaintiff and similarly situated current and former employees rarely, if ever, exercise 

true discretionary power regarding matters of significance.

42. Plaintiff and similarly situated current and former employees were not and are not 

relatively free from supervision regarding matters of significance.

43. At all times relevant, as a single enterprise, Defendants Steil Corp., GG&B, and Sub

Three are and were subject to the requirement that any employee whose work for any one 

or more than one company totals more than forty (40) hours in a workweek be paid 

minimum wages and overtime wages at the statutorily applicable rates of pay.

44. Defendants also had a common policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff and Class 

Members to work at more than one of Defendants’ Subway franchise restaurant locations, 

instructing them when to leave one location and to arrive at another, and not counting this 

travel time as time worked as required by 29 C.F.R. § 785.38.

45. Plaintiff and similarly situated current and former employees routinely and regularly 

worked for Defendants in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek without being paid 

overtime wages at the statutorily applicable rates of pay.

46. Plaintiff and similarly situated current and former employees routinely and regularly 

worked for Defendants without being paid minimum wages at the required rate of pay for 

all hours worked.

47. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and similarly 

situated current and former employees applicable minimum wage and overtime wages at 

the statutorily required rates of pay was willful and without justification or authorization.

48. Upon information, Defendants have not and do not keep accurate payroll records of 

all hours worked by Plaintiff and members of the Class as required by the FLSA.

///

///

///

Case 2:17-cv-04737-DGC Document 1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 9 of 14
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

COUNT I

FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGE AND OVERTIME IN VIOLATION OF 

THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and All FLSA Class Members)

49. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates all allegations in all preceding paragraphs as if 

fully set forth.

50. Defendants have engaged in a pattern and practice of violating the FLSA, as set 

forth herein.

51. The minimum wage provisions of the FLSA, 29. U.S.C. § 206(a), along with 

applicable federal regulations, 29 C.F.R. Part 513, require that Defendants pay Plaintiff 

and Class Members the applicable minimum rate of pay for each hour worked. 

52. The maximum hours provisions of the FLSA, U.S.C. § 207(a), along with applicable 

federal regulations, 29 C.F.R. Part 778, require that Defendants pay Plaintiff and Class 

Members overtime pay at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for 

each hour worked in excess of forth (40) hours in a work week.

53. The policies and pay practices of Defendants as further set forth herein including, 

but not limited to, failing to count travel time between Defendants’ Subway restaurant 

locations as time worked, violates the FLSA by failing to properly pay Plaintiff and Class 

Members the applicable minimum rate of pay for all hours worked and overtime 

compensation at the statutorily required rate of pay for all hours worked each workweek in 

excess of 40 hours.

54. In the course of employment with Defendants, Plaintiff and Class Members worked 

the number of hours required of them by Defendants, many times in excess of 40 hours per 

week, but were not properly paid for all hours worked or overtime compensation at the 

required rates of pay.

55. The policies and pay practices of Defendants, as set forth, violate the FLSA by 

failing to properly pay Plaintiff and Class Members minimum wage for all hours worked 

and overtime compensation at the required rates of pay for those hours worked each 

Case 2:17-cv-04737-DGC Document 1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 10 of 14
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

workweek in excess of 40 hours.

56. Defendants violations of the FLSA are willful and intentional. Defendants have not 

made a good faith effort to comply with the FLSA with respect to their compensation of 

Plaintiff and Class Members.

57. Because of Defendants’ willful and unlawful acts, a three-year statute of limitations 

applies to the FLSA claims, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 255.

58. Plaintiff and Class Members have been harmed and suffered damages by being 

denied minimum wage and overtime compensation and they were legally entitled to 

receive. 

59. As a result of Defendants’ violations of the FLSA, Plaintiff and Class Members are 

entitled to declaratory and appropriate injunctive relief.

60. As a result of Defendants’ willful violations of the FLSA, Plaintiff and Class 

Members are entitled to recovery of minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages, 

prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

61. By virtue of the forgoing, Class Members are entitled to court supervised 

notification of the pendency of this action and of his or her right to consent to becoming a 

party to this action by opting into this lawsuit in accordance with applicable provisions of 

the FLSA.

62. Plaintiff has consented in writing to be a party to the proposed FLSA collective 

action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and her Consent to Sue form is attached to this 

Complaint as Exhibit A.

COUNT II

VIOLATION OF ARIZONA’S WAGE ACT 

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and All Class Member)

63. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates all allegations in all preceding paragraphs as if 

fully set forth.

64. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff and Class Members were each an

“employee” and Defendants were and are each an “employer” within the meaning of and 

Case 2:17-cv-04737-DGC Document 1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 11 of 14
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

subject to Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 23-350 and 23-362.

65. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-351 provides, in part, that:

A. Each employer in this State shall designate two or more

days in each month, not more than sixteen days apart, as fixed

paydays for payment of wages to the employees . . .

***

C. Each employer shall, on each of the regular paydays, pay

to the employees . . . all wages due the employee up to such date...

66. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-363 requires employers to pay minimum wages at the 

applicable rates of pay set forth in the statute. Beginning in 2009, the applicable minimum 

rate of pay under Arizona state law was: $7.25 per hour for 2009 through 2010; $7.35 per 

hour during 2011; $7.65 per hour during 2012; $7.80 per hour during $2013; $7.90 per 

hour during 2014; $8.05 per hour during 2015; $8.05 per hour during 2016; and $10.00 per 

hour during 2017. 

67. In addition, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-364(H) further provides, in pertinent part, “A civil 

action to enforce this article may be commenced no later than two years after a violation 

last occurs, or three years in the case of a willful violation, and may encompass all 

violations that occurred as part of a continuing course of employer conduct regardless of 

their date.

68. Defendants have failed to pay Plaintiff and members of the Class minimum wages 

at the applicable hourly rates of pay for each hour worked as required by Ariz. Rev. Stat. 

§ 23-363. 

69. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-351(c)(3) provides that: “[o]vertime or exception pay shall be 

paid no later than sixteen days after the end of the most recent pay period.”

70. As set forth above, the FLSA requires that employees such as Plaintiff and Class 

Members be paid overtime wages at the applicable premium rate of pay for all hours

worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week. Defendants violated Ariz. Rev. Stat.

§ 23-351 by failing to pay all wages, including minimum wage and overtime pay due

Plaintiff and members of the Class within the time periods specified in Ariz. Rev. Stat. §

Case 2:17-cv-04737-DGC Document 1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 12 of 14
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

28

23-351.

71. Because of Defendants’ violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-351, Plaintiff and

members of the Class are entitled to an award of their unpaid wages with prejudgment 

interest thereon, treble the amount of such wages, and attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to

Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 23-355, 23-364(G) & 12-341.01.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that judgement be entered against Defendants 

George Steil, the George Steil Marital Community, Jennifer Steil, the Jennifer Steil Marital 

Community (if any), Steil Corporation, G.G. & B, Inc., and Sub Three Inc., jointly and 

severally, and that the Court award the following relief, including but not limited, to:

A. Certification of the proposed Class of described herein for purposes of both 

the FLSA claims (Count I) and the Arizona state wage claims (Count II);

B. Certification of the FLSA claims (Count I) as a collective action under the

FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and a class action of the Arizona state wage claims (Count II) 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for all purposes of liability and relief;

C. Appointment of Plaintiff, Lisa Volk, as Class Representative for the FLSA 

claims (Count I) and the Arizona state wage claims (Counts II) and appointment of 

undersigned counsel as Class Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g);

D. A declaration that Defendants are joint employers and/or an “enterprise” for 

purposes of the FLSA;

E. A declaration that Defendants willfully violated the minimum wage and 

overtime provisions of the FLSA, as alleged herein;

F. A declaration that Defendants willfully failed to timely pay Plaintiff and 

Class Members all wages due in violation of the Arizona state law, as alleged herein;

G. An Order awarding, declaring, or otherwise providing Plaintiff and the Class 

all other such injunctive, equitable, and legal relief to which Plaintiff and the Class are or 

may be entitled whether or not specified herein;

H. Judgment for Plaintiff and the Class against Defendants for all unpaid wages 

Case 2:17-cv-04737-DGC Document 1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 13 of 14
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

28

and overtime payments due them for the hours worked by them for Defendants, together 

with prejudgment interest at the applicable statutory rate;

I. Judgment for Plaintiff and the Class against Defendants for liquidated 

damages as set forth in 29 U.S.C. § 216(b);

J. Judgment for Plaintiff and the Class against Defendants for treble damages 

as set forth in Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 23-355 & 23-364(H);

K. An Order awarding Plaintiff and Class reasonable attorneys’ fees along with 

expenses and costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 23-355 & 12-341.01, 

and/or the common fund theory; and

L. Any and all other legal and equitable relief the Court deems just and proper.

DATED this 21st day of December, 2017

MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C.

By: s/ Daniel L. Bonnett

Daniel L. Bonnett

Susan Martin

Jennifer Kroll

Michael Licata

4647 N. 32nd Street, Suite 185

Phoenix, Arizona 85018

Telephone: (602) 240-6900

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 2:17-cv-04737-DGC Document 1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 14 of 14