Page 1 of 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

Nina Rabin, AZ Bar #025246

Workers’ Rights Clinic

University of Arizona Rogers College of Law

1145 N. Mountain Ave.

Tucson, AZ 85719

Telephone: (520) 621-9206

Fax: (520) 626-5233

rabin@email.arizona.edu

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

ALEJANDRO NOPERI, MARIA NAVARRO

AND ROSA MACHADO VERDUGO 

Plaintiffs,

vs.

MI CASITA LINDA ADULT CARE HOME 

AND ERICKA CARRERA

Defendants

 Case No._____________________

Complaint for Violations of the Fair 

Labor Standards Act and Arizona

Minimum Wage and Wage Payment 

Laws

Case 4:18-cv-00088-JGZ Document 1 Filed 02/19/18 Page 1 of 13
Page 2 of 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

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action by Alejandro Noperi (hereinafter “Mr. Noperi”), Maria Navarro 

(hereinafter “Ms. Navarro”), and Rosa Machado Verdugo (hereinafter “Ms. 

Verdugo”) (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”), against their former 

employers, Ericka Carrera (hereinafter “Ms. Carrera”) and Mi Casita Linda Adult 

Care Home (hereinafter “Mi Casita Linda”) (hereinafter collectively referred to as 

“Defendants”). Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants to provide direct care to 

elderly residents in Defendants’ adult care facility during the months of February, 

March, and April of 2017.

2. Plaintiffs bring this action in order to recover damages arising out of Defendants’ 

willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., 

Arizona’s Minimum Wage Law, A.R.S. § 23-362, et. seq., and Arizona’s wage 

payment law, A.R.S.§ 23-350 et. seq. 

3. As set forth in detail below, Defendants are engaged in the operation of a licensed 

facility for the care of the sick and aged.

4. All Plaintiffs performed work for Defendants, providing direct care to elderly 

residents of the adult care facility, during the year 2017 for periods ranging from a 

few days to several weeks. 

5. During their employment, Plaintiffs worked long hours, including, on several 

occasions, back-to-back twenty-four hour shifts. Defendants failed to pay all three 

Plaintiffs for their work in compliance with federal and state minimum wage laws and 

state wage payment laws. With respect to Ms. Navarro and Ms. Verdugo, Defendants 

Case 4:18-cv-00088-JGZ Document 1 Filed 02/19/18 Page 2 of 13
Page 3 of 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

additionally failed to comply with federal law requiring them to pay Plaintiffs at one 

and one half times their regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 in a week. 

6. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek remedies for non-payment of wages, including liquidated, 

compensatory and punitive damages, prejudgment interests, and costs and attorneys’ 

fees, as provided by law.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. This complaint alleges causes of action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 

§ 201, et seq. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

This complaint also alleges causes of action under Arizona minimum wage and wage 

payment laws, A.R.S. § 23-362, et seq. and A.R.S. § 23-350, et seq., which arise out of 

the same set of operative facts as the federal cause of action. Accordingly, this Court 

has supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (a).

8. Venue is proper in the District of Arizona under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b) and (c), because 

Defendants conduct business in this District and because Defendant failed to pay 

Plaintiffs’ wages for services performed in Arizona. 

9. Defendant Mi Casita Linda, at all relevant times hereto, has been an institution 

primarily engaged in the care of the sick and aged who live on the premises. Mi Casita 

Linda provides nursing care and medical assistance by the Defendants’ employees, 

including, but not limited to around the clock safety monitoring, feeding, bathing,

dressing, laundry and the administration of medication and various activities of daily 

living. Mi Casita Linda employs a registered nurse and trained assistants who provide 

these services. 

10. Based on paragraph 9 above, at all relevant times, Mi Casita Linda has been an 

enterprise engaged in commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203 (s)(1)(B).

Case 4:18-cv-00088-JGZ Document 1 Filed 02/19/18 Page 3 of 13
Page 4 of 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

THE PARTIES

11. Mr. Noperi is an individual who, at all times relevant to the instant action, was and is a 

resident of Pima County in the State of Arizona.

12. Mr. Noperi worked as a caregiver at Mi Casita Linda located at 718 

W. Calle de Casas Lindas, Tucson, Arizona (hereinafter “Defendants’ facility) from 

February 17, 2017, to February 19, 2017, providing direct care to residents of 

Defendants’ facility as described above in paragraph 9.

13. Ms. Navarro is an individual who, at all times relevant to the instant action, was and is 

a resident of Pima County in the State of Arizona. 

14. Ms. Navarro worked as a caregiver at Defendants’ facility from February 22, 2017, to 

March 5, 2017, providing direct care to residents of Defendants’ facility as described 

above in paragraph 9.

15. Ms. Verdugo is an individual who, at all times relevant to the instant action, was and 

is a resident of Pima County in the State of Arizona.

16. Ms. Verdugo worked as a caregiver at Defendants’ facility from March 13, 2017, to 

April 17, 2017, providing direct care to residents of Defendants’ facility as described 

above in paragraph 9.

17. Defendant Mi Casita Linda, is a licensed institution owned by Ms. Ericka Carrera, 

which provides elder care and assisted living and nursing services to elderly residents 

of the Defendants’ facility, as described above in paragraph 9. Through its agent and 

co-Defendant Ms. Carrera, described below in paragraph 18, Mi Casita Linda employs 

and trains caregivers to work onsite, hires them, pays them, supervises their work, sets 

Case 4:18-cv-00088-JGZ Document 1 Filed 02/19/18 Page 4 of 13
Page 5 of 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

their schedules, and has the authority to terminate their employment.

18. Defendant Ericka Carrera is a natural person who resides in Pima County, Arizona. She 

is the owner of Mi Casita Linda, where Plaintiffs were employed. Ms. Carrera directly 

supervised every aspect of the Plaintiffs’ employment. She set Plaintiffs’ payroll, 

directed the tasks they performed and the manner in which they performed them, set 

their daily schedules, hired Plaintiffs, and had the authority to terminate their 

employment. 

19. Based on paragraphs 17 and 18, Defendants were, at all relevant times, Plaintiffs’

employers within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d) and A.R.S. § 23-350(3) 

and A.R.S §23-362 (B), and are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs for violations 

of their rights under the FLSA and Arizona law.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

NOPERI

20. During Mr. Noperi’s employment, described above in paragraph 12, he worked the 

following schedule:

a. February 17: 7 hours

b. February 18 to February 19: 24 hours

21. At the outset of Mr. Noperi’s employment, Defendants agreed to pay Mr. Noperi 

$100 for February 17 and $10 per hour for each day worked after that.

22. Defendant paid Mr. Noperi a total of $90 for the 31 hours Mr. Noperi worked on 

February 17, 18, and 19, 2017, described above in paragraph 20.

Case 4:18-cv-00088-JGZ Document 1 Filed 02/19/18 Page 5 of 13
Page 6 of 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. By their conduct described above in paragraph 22, Defendants failed to comply with 

the Federal and Arizona minimum wage laws, described below in paragraphs 36 and 

46 respectively.

NAVARRO

24. During her employment, described above in paragraph 14, Ms. Navarro worked the 

following schedule between February 22 and February 28, 2017:

a. February 22-February 23: 24 hours

b. February 24-Febrary 25: 24 hours

c. February 25-February 26: 24 hours 

d. February 27-February 28: 24 hours

25. During her employment described above in paragraph 14, Ms. Navarro worked the 

following schedule from March 2 through March 5, 2017:

a. March 2-March 3: 24 hours

b. March 3-March 4: 24 hours

c. March 4-March 5: 24 hours

26. Defendants paid Ms. Navarro a total of $100 for the work she performed from 

February 22 to February 28, 2017, described above in paragraph 24.

27. Defendants paid Ms. Navarro a total of $200 for the work she performed from March 

2 through March 5, 2017, described above in paragraph 25.

28. By their conduct, described above in paragraphs 26 and 27, Defendants failed to

comply with Federal and Arizona minimum wage laws, described below in 

paragraphs 36 and 46 respectively, Federal law regarding overtime payments, 

described below in paragraph 38, and the Arizona wage payment law, described 

below in paragraph 54.

Case 4:18-cv-00088-JGZ Document 1 Filed 02/19/18 Page 6 of 13
Page 7 of 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

VERDUGO

29. During Ms. Verdugo’s employment described above in paragraph 16, she worked the 

hours described below:

a. March 13 through March 17: 32 hours

b. March 20 through March 22: 18 hours

c. March 27 through April 2: 43 hours

d. April 3 through April 9: 31 hours

e. April 10 through April 16: 25 hours

f. April 17: 4 hours

30. During Ms. Verdugo’s employment described above in paragraph 16, Defendants 

only paid her twice as set forth below:

a. March 24, 2017: $400

b. April 21, 2017: $200

31. By their conduct described above in paragraph 30, Defendants failed to comply with 

Federal and Arizona minimum wage law, described below in paragraphs 36 and 46 

respectively, Federal Law regarding overtime payments, described below in 

paragraph 38, and the Arizona wage payment law, described below in paragraph 54. 

ADDITIONAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

32. At all relevant times, Defendants failed to maintain accurate records of Plaintiffs’ 

wages and hours, did not permit Plaintiffs to inspect those records upon request, and 

failed to post notices as required by A.R.S. §364(D), described below in paragraph 

48, and 29 U.S.C. §211(c), described below in paragraph 40.

Case 4:18-cv-00088-JGZ Document 1 Filed 02/19/18 Page 7 of 13
Page 8 of 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

33. Defendants willfully ignored the possibility that Federal and State law required them 

to pay their employees at the minimum wage and at the federally mandated overtime 

wage.

34. By willfully failing to timely pay wages due or to pay the minimum wage, 

Defendants enjoyed ill-gained profits at the expense of the Plaintiffs.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

FAILURE TO PAY THE MINIMUM WAGE AND OVERTIME, AND 

FAILURE TO MAINTAIN RECORDS IN VIOLATION OF THE FLSA, 29 

U.S.C. § 201 et seq.

35. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs as if 

they were fully set forth again herein.

36. Section 206 of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 206(a)(1)(C), establishes the right of 

employees to receive a wage that is not less than $7.25 per hour.

37. During the relevant period, based on the conduct described above in paragraphs 22,

26, 27 and 30, Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs in accordance with the Federal 

minimum wage, described above in paragraph 36.

38. Section 7(a) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207(a), establishes the right of employees to 

receive wage that is one and one half times their regular rate of pay for all hours of 

work in excess of 40 hours in a week. 

39. During the relevant period, based on the conduct described in paragraphs 26, 27 and 

30, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs in accordance with the requirements of Federal 

overtime law described above in paragraph 38. 

40. Section 211 of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 211(c), requires employers to maintain records 

of the hours worked and wages earned by their employees.

Case 4:18-cv-00088-JGZ Document 1 Filed 02/19/18 Page 8 of 13
Page 9 of 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

41. As described above in paragraph 32, Defendants did not maintain accurate records of 

Plaintiffs’ hours worked or wages earned, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 211(c), 

described above in paragraph 40.

42. Defendants acted neither in good faith nor with reasonable grounds to believe that 

their actions and omissions were in compliance with the FLSA.

43. Plaintiffs have been harmed, including financial harm, as a result of Defendants’ 

violations of the FLSA.

44. Based on the foregoing and pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Plaintiffs seek unpaid 

wages at the required legal rate for all of their working hours during the relevant time 

period, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees and litigation costs, 

and all other costs and compensatory and punitive damages allowed by law.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

FAILURE TO PAY THE MINIMUM WAGE, FAILURE TO POST, AND FAILURE 

TO MAINTAIN RECORDS IN VIOLATION OF THE ARIZONA MINIMUM WAGE 

ACT, A.R.S. § 23-362 et seq.

45. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs as if 

they were set forth again herein.

46. As of January 1, 2017, A.R.S. § 23-363(A)(1) requires employers to pay their 

employees a minimum wage of $10 per hour. 

47. As set forth in paragraphs 22, 26, 27 and 30, Defendants paid Plaintiffs an hourly 

wage that was less than the Arizona minimum wage, described above in paragraph 

46.

48. A.R.S. § 23-364(D) requires employers to maintain records of their employees’ wages 

earned and hours worked for four years, and establishes a rebuttable presumption that 

Case 4:18-cv-00088-JGZ Document 1 Filed 02/19/18 Page 9 of 13
Page 10 of 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

the employer did not pay the minimum wage if the employer fails to maintain such 

records. §23-364(D) further requires that the employer permit the employee or her 

representative to “inspect and copy” payroll records upon request. In addition, A.R.S. 

§23-364(D) requires employers to post notices advising employees of theirs rights. 

49. Based on the conduct described above in paragraph 32, Defendants failed to comply 

with A.R.S. §23-364 (D), described above in paragraph 48. 

50. Defendants were willful in that they demonstrated reckless disregard for the 

requirement of the law, described above in paragraphs 46 and 48.

51. Plaintiffs have been harmed as a result of Defendants’ violation of the law, including 

loss of earnings, all of which will be proven at trial. 

52. Based on the foregoing and pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-364 (G), Plaintiffs seek unpaid 

wages at the required legal rate for all of their working hours during the relevant time 

period, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees and litigation costs, 

and all other costs and compensatory and punitive damages allowed by law.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

FAILURE TO MAKE TIMELY WAGE PAYMENTS IN VIOLATION OF 

ARIZONA’S WAGE PAYMENT LAWS, A.R.S. § 23-350 et seq.

53. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs as if 

they were fully set forth again herein.

54. A.R.S. §23-351(A) requires employers to designate two or more days in each month, 

not more than 16 days apart, as fixed pay days for payment of wages to employees. 

With exceptions not applicable here, A.R.S. 23-351 (C) requires the payment of all 

wages owed to employees on the regular paydays. A.R.S. § 23-351(C)(3) requires that 

Case 4:18-cv-00088-JGZ Document 1 Filed 02/19/18 Page 10 of 13
Page 11 of 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

employers pay overtime wages, no later than sixteen days after the most recent pay 

period.

55. Based on the conduct described above in paragraphs 26, 27, and 30, Defendants failed 

to make timely payments to Ms. Navarro and Ms. Verdugo as mandated by the 

Arizona Wage Payment Law, A.R.S. §23-351(A) and (C), described above in 

paragraph 54.

56. Ms. Navarro and Ms. Verdugo have been harmed as a result of the Defendants’ 

violation of A.R.S. § 23-351(A) and (C), including loss of earnings, all of which will 

be proven at trial. 

57. Based on the forgoing and pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-355(A) and A.R.S. § 12-341, Ms. 

Navarro and Ms. Verdugo seek unpaid wages at the required legal rate for work 

performed during the relevant period, plus an additional amount equal to treble the 

underpaid wages, prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, and all other 

costs, penalties and damages allowed by law.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Noperi respectfully requests that this Court:

A. Award Mr. Noperi damages for unpaid minimum wages plus liquidated damages in an equal 

amount, plus compensatory and punitive damages as provided by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 

216(b), and interest, in an amount to be determined at trial;

B. Award Mr. Noperi three times the full amount of wages in violation of Arizona Minimum 

Wage Act, as provided by A.R.S. § 23-364(G) and A.R.S. § 355(A) and interest, in an amount 

to be determined at trial, and assess civil penalties pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-364(F);

Case 4:18-cv-00088-JGZ Document 1 Filed 02/19/18 Page 11 of 13
Page 12 of 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

C. Award attorneys’ fees and costs to Mr. Noperi for legal services provided by the University of 

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

D. Grant such additional and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Navarro respectfully requests that this Court:

A. Award Ms. Navarro damages for unpaid minimum wage and overtime wages plus 

liquidated damages in an equal amount, plus compensatory and punitive damages as provided by 

the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and interest, in an amount to be determined at trial;

B. Award Ms. Navarro three times the full amount of wages in violation of Arizona Minimum 

Wage Act, as provided by A.R.S. § 23-364(G ) and A.R.S. § 23-355(A), and interest, in an amount 

to be determined at trial, and assess civil penalties pursuant to A.R.S. §23-364(F). 

C. Award attorneys’ fees and costs to Ms. Navarro for legal services provided by the 

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

D. Grant such additional and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 

WHEREFORE Plaintiff Verdugo respectfully requests that this Court:

A. Award Ms. Verdugo damages for unpaid minimum wage and overtime wages plus 

liquidated damages in an equal amount, plus compensatory and punitive damages as provided by 

the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and interest, in an amount to be determined at trial;

B. Award Ms. Verdugo three times the full amount of wages in violation of Arizona Minimum 

Wage Act, as provided by A.R.S. § 23-364(G) and A.R.S. § 23-355(A), and interest, in an amount 

to be determined at trial, and assess civil penalties pursuant to A.R.S. §23-364(F);

C. Award attorneys’ fees and costs to Ms. Verdugo for legal services provided by the 

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

Case 4:18-cv-00088-JGZ Document 1 Filed 02/19/18 Page 12 of 13
Page 13 of 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

D. Grant such additional and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial on all causes of action and claims with respect to which they 

have a right to jury trial.

Tucson, AZ

February 19, 2018

Respectfully submitted, 

BY: ________/s/_____________

Nina Rabin

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Case 4:18-cv-00088-JGZ Document 1 Filed 02/19/18 Page 13 of 13