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 

FARHANG 

&

MEDCOFF

FARHANG & MEDCOFF

4801 E. Broadway Boulevard, Suite 311 

Tucson, Arizona 85711 

T: 520.790.5433 

F:520.790.5736 

Robert C. Garcia (#026246) 

rgarcia@fmlaw.law 

Cody D. Vandewerker (#033385) 

cvandewerker@fmlaw.law 

Attorneys for Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Nicholas Delisle, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Downtown Clifton, LLC and Moniqua 

Lane and Monte Workman, husband and 

wife, 

Defendants.

Case No: CV 18-0008-DTF 

ANSWER 

Defendants Downtown Clifton, LLC (“Clifton”), Moniqua Lane (“Lane”), and 

Monte Workman (“Workman”) (Clifton, Lane, and Workman are collectively referred to 

as “Defendants”) for their Answer to Plaintiff Nicholas Delisle’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint 

(Doc No. 1), admit, deny, and affirmatively allege as follows: 

1. Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 1 of the Complaint. 

2. Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 2 of the Complaint. 

Defendants affirmatively allege that (1) the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arizona 

Minimum Wage Act speak for themselves, and (2) Defendants have committed no violation 

of such acts. 

3. Defendants admit that Lane is, and at all relevant times was, an Arizona 

resident, and deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 3. Defendants affirmatively 

allege that (1) Clifton’s sole member is Downtown Hotel Holdings LLC, and (2) Lane is a 

Case 4:18-cv-00008-DTF Document 9 Filed 03/08/18 Page 1 of 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 

FARHANG 

&

MEDCOFF

 

- 2 -

manager of Clifton. 

4. Defendants admit Workman was at all relevant times the husband of Lane but 

deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 4. 

5. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegation contained in Paragraph 5, but believe it may be true, and do 

not dispute it at this time. 

6. With regard to the allegations of Paragraph 6, Defendants deny this Court has 

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1131, but admit this Court has subject matter 

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367. 

7. Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 7. 

8. Defendants admit that Clifton employed Plaintiff from September 23, 2015, 

through November 2017, but deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 8. 

9. Defendants admit that Lane was Plaintiff’s direct supervisor but deny the 

remaining allegations of Paragraph 9. 

10. Defendants admit Lane directed Delisle’s work and dictated the terms of 

Delisle’s employment at the Clifton but deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 10. 

11. Defendants admit Delisle was an employee of Clifton who was trained to 

manage the Clifton but deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 11. 

12. Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 12 but deny the allegation or 

suggestion that the work listed in Paragraph 12 required more than approximately 40 hours 

per week. Defendants affirmatively allege that Delisle had additional duties that he failed 

to perform and that he did not satisfactorily perform his duties. 

13. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 13. 

14. Defendants admit that Plaintiff lived at the Clifton but deny the remaining 

allegations of paragraph 14. Defendants affirmatively allege (1) Plaintiff elected to live at 

Clifton as part of his compensation, and (2) Plaintiff was not expected or required to be 

immediately available for hotel services outside of the hours of Clifton’s operations. 

15. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 15. 

Case 4:18-cv-00008-DTF Document 9 Filed 03/08/18 Page 2 of 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 

FARHANG 

&

MEDCOFF

 

- 3 -

16. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 16. Defendants affirmatively 

allege that (1) the most Plaintiff could work in a given day is 12 hours because the Clifton’s 

hours of operation are 8:00AM to 8:00PM, and (2) Plaintiff was “waiting to be engaged.” 

17. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 17. Defendants affirmatively 

allege that the most Plaintiff could work in a given day is 12 hours because the Clifton’s 

hours of operation are 8:00AM to 8:00PM. 

18. Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 18. 

19. Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 19. 

20. Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 20. 

21. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 21. 

COUNT ONE 

(Minimum Wage Violations Under the Fair Labor Standards Act) 

22. Defendants incorporate by reference each and every preceding admission, 

denial, and affirmative allegation as though fully set forth herein. 

23. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 23. 

24. Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 24. 

25. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 25. 

26. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 26. 

COUNT TWO 

(Minimum Wage Violations Under the Arizona Minimum Wage Act) 

27. Defendants incorporate by reference each and every preceding admission, 

denial, and affirmative allegation as though fully set forth herein. 

28. Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 28. 

29. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 29. 

30. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 30. 

31. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 31. 

GENERAL DENIAL 

 Defendants deny each and every allegation of Plaintiff’s Complaint not specifically 

Case 4:18-cv-00008-DTF Document 9 Filed 03/08/18 Page 3 of 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 

FARHANG 

&

MEDCOFF

 

- 4 -

and explicitly admitted herein. 

JURY DEMAND

 Defendants hereby demand a trial by jury on all triable issues. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

 As affirmative defenses to the allegations in the Complaint, Defendants allege as 

follows: 

1. Failure to State a Claim: The Complaint and each cause of action contained 

therein against Defendants fail to state a claim for relief. Defendants do not waive and 

reserve the right to file an appropriate motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12. 

2. Failure to Mitigate Damages: Plaintiff was capable and failed to mitigate 

his damages. 

3. Payment: Defendants assert the affirmative defense of payment because 

Plaintiff has been paid all wages and other benefits to which he is entitled under the Arizona 

Minimum Wage Act or Fair Labor Standards Act. 

4. Statute of Limitations: Plaintiff’s claims for unpaid minimum wages or 

liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arizona Minimum Wage 

Act are barred pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 255(a) and A.R.S. § 23-364(H). 

5. Exempt Employee: Plaintiff’s claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act are 

barred because Plaintiff was employed as a bona fide executive, administrative, or 

professional capacity pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 213(a) and A.R.S. § 23-362(C). 

6. Good Faith Compliance: Plaintiff’s claims are barred under 29 U.S.C. §§ 

259 or 260 because Defendants’ actions or omissions, taken in connection with Plaintiff’s 

compensation, were done in good faith, in conformity with and reliance upon written 

administrative regulations, orders, rulings, approvals, interpretations, and written and 

unwritten administrative practices of the U.S. Department of Labor and/or its Arizona 

equivalent. 

7. Reservation of Rights: To preserve defenses pending discovery, Defendants 

Case 4:18-cv-00008-DTF Document 9 Filed 03/08/18 Page 4 of 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 

FARHANG 

&

MEDCOFF

 

- 5 -

allege those defenses set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c) and 12(b), and any 

other affirmative defense that may be revealed during discovery. Defendants reserve the 

right to amend this Answer at a later time to assert any matters constituting an avoidance or 

affirmative defense, as discovery shows to be applicable. 

WHEREFORE, Defendants, having fully responded to the Complaint, request that 

the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, that Plaintiff take nothing thereby, that the Court 

award Defendants their costs, attorneys’ fees, and other such relief as the Court deems 

appropriate. 

DATED this 8th day of March 2018. 

FARHANG & MEDCOFF

By /s/Cody D. Vandewerker 

 Robert C. Garcia 

 Cody D. Vandewerker Attorneys for Defendants 

Copy mailed or emailed* this 8th day of 

March 2018 to: 

Thomas Griffin* 

ROBAINA & KRESIN PLLC 

5343 North 16th Street, Suite 200 

Phoenix, Arizona 85016 

ttg@robainalaw.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Case 4:18-cv-00008-DTF Document 9 Filed 03/08/18 Page 5 of 5