Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial Page 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

PH I L L I P S DA Y E S

NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM

A Professional Corporation

3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone: 1-800-JOB-LAWS

docket@phillipsdayeslaw.com

TREY DAYES, No. 020805

SEAN DAVIS, No. 030754

(602) 288-1610 ext. 301

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Laurie Smith; 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

Network Alignment & Brakes, Inc., an

Arizona corporation; Sean Webster and 

Jane Doe Webster 1, husband and wife; 

Scott Webster and Jane Doe Webster 2, 

husband and wife.

Case No.: ________________________

COMPLAINT

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff Laurie Smith, for her Complaint against Defendants, alleges as follows:

NATURE OF THE CASE

1. The Fair Labor Standards Act is designed to eliminate “labor conditions 

detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, 

efficiency and general well-being of workers.” 29 U.S.C. § 202(a). To achieve its goals, 

the FLSA sets minimum wage and overtime pay requirements for covered employers. See 

29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a), 207(a).

2. Employers must compensate employees for all work that employers permit 

Case 2:15-cv-01740-DLR Document 1 Filed 09/01/15 Page 1 of 14
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial Page 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

employees to perform. See 29 C.F.R. § 785.11. In such cases, it is the responsibility of 

employers’ management to ensure that work is not performed if management does not 

desire for such work to be performed. See 29 C.F.R. § 785.13. Employers may not accept 

the benefits of employees performing work without compensating the employees for their 

work. Id.

3. Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants for unlawful failure to pay 

overtime wages in direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et 

seq. (“FLSA”).

4. Defendants had a consistent policy and practice of requiring its employees to 

work well in excess of forty (40) hours per week without paying them time and a half for 

hours worked over forty (40) hours per week.

5. Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and an equal amount 

of liquidated damages, including interest thereon, statutory penalties, attorneys’ fees, and 

costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties hereto 

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

7. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Defendants reside within 

the State in which this District Court is located and because a substantial part of the 

events or omissions giving rise to this matter occurred in this District.

8. The named Defendants, by virtue of their own acts and omissions or by 

virtue of the acts and omissions committed by one or more of their agents, employees or 

Case 2:15-cv-01740-DLR Document 1 Filed 09/01/15 Page 2 of 14
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial Page 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

representatives, as described herein, have conducted business or caused events to occur 

within the District of Arizona and, more particularly, within Maricopa County, Arizona, 

as more particularly described herein so as to give rise to both subject matter and 

personal jurisdiction of this Court.

PARTIES

9. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was a resident of Maricopa County, 

Arizona. 

10. At all times material hereto, Network Alignment & Brakes, Inc. was 

incorporated in the State of Arizona with its principal place of business in Maricopa 

County, Arizona.

11. Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, Defendant Sean 

Webster, was and continues to be a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona.

12. Jane Doe Webster 1 is Sean Webster’s wife. Sean and Jane Doe Webster

1have caused events to take place giving rise to this Complaint as to which their marital 

community is fully liable.

13. Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, Defendant Scott 

Webster, was and continues to be a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona.

14. Jane Doe Webster 2 is Scott Webster’s wife. Scott and Jane Doe Webster 2 

have caused events to take place giving rise to this Complaint as to which their marital 

community is fully liable.

15. Upon information and belief, and consistent with the information available 

from the Arizona Corporation Commission, Defendants Sean Webster and Scott Webster

Case 2:15-cv-01740-DLR Document 1 Filed 09/01/15 Page 3 of 14
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial Page 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

were and are the owner of Network Alignment & Brakes, Inc.

16. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was an “employee” of Defendants, as defined 

by 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(1). 

17. The provisions set forth in 29 U.S.C. § 207 of the FLSA apply to Defendants.

18. At all relevant times, each of the Defendants was and continues to be an 

“employer” as defined in 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).

19. Each of the Defendants should be deemed an “employer” for purposes of the 

FLSA including, without limitation, 29 U.S.C. § 216.

20. Defendant Sean Webster is deemed an “employer” for purposes of the FLSA, 

including, without limitation, 29 U.S.C. §216, and is co-equally liable with Network 

Alignment & Brakes, Inc.

21. Defendant Scott Webster is deemed an “employer” for purposes of the 

FLSA, including, without limitation, 29 U.S.C. §216, and is co-equally liable with 

Network Alignment & Brakes, Inc.

22. All Defendants are co-equally liable for all matters.

23. Defendant Sean Webster made all decisions on the daily activities of his

employees and is therefore individually liable under the FLSA.

24. Defendant Sean Webster makes all decisions regarding pay policies for 

Network Alignment & Brakes, Inc. and is therefore individually liable under the FLSA.

25. Defendant Scott Webster made all decisions on the daily activities of his 

employees and is therefore individually liable under the FLSA.

Case 2:15-cv-01740-DLR Document 1 Filed 09/01/15 Page 4 of 14
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial Page 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. Defendant Scott Webster makes all decisions regarding pay policies for 

Network Alignment & Brakes, Inc. and is therefore individually liable under the FLSA.

27. Defendant Sean Webster exerted financial control over Network Alignment 

& Brakes, Inc. and is therefore individually liable under the FLSA.

28. Defendant Sean Webster exerted operative control over Network Alignment 

& Brakes, Inc. and is therefore individually liable under the FLSA.

29. Defendant Scott Webster exerted financial control over Network Alignment 

& Brakes, Inc. and is therefore individually liable under the FLSA.

30. Defendant Scott Webster exerted operative control over Network Alignment 

& Brakes, Inc. and is therefore individually liable under the FLSA.

31. Defendant Sean Webster has the power to close Network Alignment & 

Brakes, Inc.

32. Defendant Scott Webster has the power to close Network Alignment & 

Brakes, Inc. 

33. Defendant Sean Webster has the power to hire and fire employees. 

34. Defendant Scott Webster has the power to hire and fire employees. 

35. Defendant Sean Webster hired managerial employees. 

36. Defendant Scott Webster hired managerial employees. 

37. On information and belief, Defendant Sean Webster maintained employment 

records. 

38. On information and belief, Defendant Scott Webster maintained employment 

records. 

Case 2:15-cv-01740-DLR Document 1 Filed 09/01/15 Page 5 of 14
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial Page 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

39. On information and belief, Defendant Sean Webster dictated the corporate 

message in pending labor investigations. 

40. On information and belief, Defendant Scott Webster dictated the corporate 

message in pending labor investigations. 

41. Defendant Sean Webster profited from the FLSA violations detailed in this 

complaint. 

42. Defendant Scott Webster profited from the FLSA violations detailed in this 

complaint. 

43. At all times material to this action, each of the Defendants was and continues

to be an “enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce” 

as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1).

44. The vehicles Defendants provided services for were manufactured outside the 

state of Arizona.

45. The vehicles Defendants provided services for were driven in interstate 

commerce.

46. As a customer service advisor, Plaintiff handled supplies, such as brake parts 

and pads that originated out of state.

47. As a customer service advisor, Plaintiff handled supplies, such as radios that 

originated out of state.

48. Plaintiff’s uniform that she was required to wear moved in interstate 

commerce.

Case 2:15-cv-01740-DLR Document 1 Filed 09/01/15 Page 6 of 14
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial Page 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

49. Plaintiff engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce 

and is therefore individually covered under the FLSA pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§206(a), 

207(a)(1), 212(c).

50. On information and belief, at all relevant times, the annual gross revenue of 

Defendants exceeded, and continues to exceed, $500,000.00.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

51. Network Alignment & Brakes, Inc. operates a multiple automotive service 

stores that provide A/C repair and maintenance, alignment, brake repair and maintenance, 

diagnostics, diesel service and repair, emissions, factory scheduled maintenance, full 

automotive service, general repair, lift & lowering kits, oil change, performance and 

general tune-ups, radiator service, transmission fluid exchange, and transmission repair.

52. During Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants and the entire relevant period 

of this lawsuit, Network Alignment & Brakes, Inc. did not sell vehicles.

53. Network Alignment & Brakes, Inc. is not an automotive dealership.

54. Network Alignment & Brakes, Inc. hired Plaintiff in June of 2014 as a 

customer service advisor and cashier. 

55. Plaintiff’s job duties and responsibilities included taking money in the form 

of cash, check, or credit card from patrons in exchange for services. 

56. Plaintiff would scan items, provides change, balance the drawer, and 

processes card transactions.

57. Plaintiff’s responsibilities also included greeting customers when they came 

into the store or if a customer called in. 

Case 2:15-cv-01740-DLR Document 1 Filed 09/01/15 Page 7 of 14
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial Page 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

58. Plaintiff would set up appointments for customers.

59. Plaintiff also would sell any necessary service repairs to the customer.

60. Plaintiff was not a salesman.

61. Plaintiff was not a partsman.

62. Plaintiff was not a mechanic. 

63. Network Alignment & Brakes, Inc. compensated Plaintiff with a weekly 

salary. 

64. Defendants withheld taxes out of Plaintiff’s paycheck pursuant to IRS 

regulations. 

65. Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee. 

66. Plaintiff had no supervision or management responsibilities. 

67. Plaintiff could neither hire nor fire employees.

68. Plaintiff had no authority to exercise significant independent judgment on 

issues that affect the whole company when carrying out her job responsibilities.

69. Defendants managed, supervised, and directed all aspects of Plaintiff’s job 

duties and responsibilities.

70. Plaintiff’s primary duty was not the performance of work directly related to 

the management or general business operations of Network Alignment & Brakes, Inc. or 

its’ customers. 

71. Plaintiff’s primary duty was not the performance of work requiring advanced 

knowledge in a field of science or learning that was acquired by a prolonged course of 

specialized intellectual instruction. 

Case 2:15-cv-01740-DLR Document 1 Filed 09/01/15 Page 8 of 14
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial Page 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

72. Plaintiff did not perform work requiring advanced knowledge. 

73. Plaintiff did not perform work in a field of science or learning. 

74. Plaintiff did not have an advanced degree and was not required to have one to 

perform the work.

75. The knowledge required to perform the work of customer service advisor and 

cashier is not acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual study.

76. Plaintiff’s work did not require consistent exercise of discretion and 

judgment. 

77. Plaintiff’s work did not require her to analyze, interpret, or make deductions 

from varying facts or circumstances.

78. Plaintiff’s duties were carried out in a mechanical and routine manner and 

she had no authority to make independent decisions in performing those duties. 

79. Plaintiff’s work did not require invention, imagination, originality, or talent.

80. Plaintiff’s work did not require creative or original analysis and 

interpretation. 

81. Plaintiff’s regular schedule was five days per week.

82. Plaintiff would have to arrive at 7:30 am every day she was on the schedule 

and was not able to leave work until 6:30 pm. 

83. Each and every week that Plaintiff has worked her regular schedule, she has 

worked over forty hours in a week. 

84. By improperly classifying Plaintiff as an exempt employee, Defendants are 

depriving Plaintiff upwards of twenty hours of overtime pay each and every week. 

Case 2:15-cv-01740-DLR Document 1 Filed 09/01/15 Page 9 of 14
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial Page 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

85. Defendants did not pay Plaintiff overtime. 

86. Plaintiff was not a commissioned employee. 

87. Commissions did not consist of more than half of Plaintiff’s weekly earnings. 

88. Plaintiff has retained the law firm of Phillips Dayes National Employment 

Law Firm to prosecute her claims against Defendants on her behalf and has agreed to pay 

reasonable costs and attorney’s fees in the prosecution of this matter.

COUNT ONE

OVERTIME VIOLATION—29 U.S.C. § 207

89. Plaintiff incorporates and adopts paragraphs 1 through 88 above as if fully set 

forth herein.

90. While employed by Defendants, Plaintiff regularly worked multiple hours of 

overtime per week.

91. Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee.

92. Defendants have intentionally and willfully failed and refused to pay Plaintiff 

overtime according to the provisions of the FLSA.

93. On information and belief, Defendants further engaged in a widespread 

pattern and practice of violating the provisions of the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff in 

accordance with 29 U.S.C. § 207.

94. As the direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations of the FLSA, 

Plaintiff has suffered damages by failing to receive compensation in accordance with 29 

U.S.C. § 207.

Case 2:15-cv-01740-DLR Document 1 Filed 09/01/15 Page 10 of 14
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial Page 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

95. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for an amount 

equal to one and one-half times her regular pay rate for each hour of overtime worked per

week.

96. In addition to the amount of unpaid wages owed to Plaintiff, she is also 

entitled to recover an additional equal amount as liquidated damages pursuant to 29 

U.S.C. § 216(b).

97. On information and belief, Defendants’ conduct in failing to properly 

compensate Plaintiff, in violation of the FLSA, was willful.

98. Defendants have not made a good faith effort to comply with the FLSA.

Plaintiff has been required to bring this action to recover her overtime compensation, and 

her statutory liquidated damages, and as the direct and foreseeable result of Defendants’

conduct, Plaintiff has incurred costs and attorneys’ fees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that judgment be entered in her

favor against Defendants:

a. Awarding Plaintiff overtime compensation in the amount due for all of 

her time worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week at a pay rate 

equal to one and one-half times Plaintiff’s regular rate of pay while at 

work for Defendants, in an amount proved at trial;

b. Awarding Plaintiff liquidated damages in an amount equal to the 

overtime award;

c. Awarding Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses of the 

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

Case 2:15-cv-01740-DLR Document 1 Filed 09/01/15 Page 11 of 14
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial Page 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

d. Awarding Plaintiff pre-judgment interest, at the highest legal rate, on all 

amounts awarded under subsections (a) and (b) above from the date of 

the payment due for that pay period until paid in full;

e. Awarding Plaintiff post-judgment interest, at the highest legal rate, on 

all awards from the date of such award until paid in full; and

f. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

COUNT TWO

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

99. Plaintiff incorporates and adopts paragraphs 1 through 98 above as if fully set 

forth herein.

100. Plaintiff and Defendants have an overtime compensation dispute pending.

101. The Court has jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s request for declaratory relief 

pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–02.

102. Plaintiff is entitled to declarations, and requests that the Court make 

declarations as to the following matters and as to other matters deemed appropriate by the 

Court:

a. Defendants employed Plaintiff.

b. Defendants are engaged in an enterprise covered by the overtime provisions 

of the FLSA.

c. Plaintiff individually is covered by the overtime provisions of the FLSA.

d. Plaintiff was not an exempt employee pursuant to the FLSA.

Case 2:15-cv-01740-DLR Document 1 Filed 09/01/15 Page 12 of 14
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial Page 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

e. Defendants failed and refused to make payments of overtime compensation 

to Plaintiff, in violation of the provisions of the FLSA.

f. Defendants’ failures to pay overtime compensation to Plaintiff were willful.

g. Plaintiff is entitled to damages in the amount of overtime compensation not 

paid by Defendants at the rate of one and one-half times Plaintiff’s regular 

rate of pay.

h. Plaintiff is entitled to an equal amount as liquidated damages.

i. Plaintiff is entitled to recover her costs and a reasonable attorney’s fee 

incurred in prosecuting her claim.

103. It is in the public interest to have these declarations of rights recorded as 

Plaintiff’s declaratory judgment action serves the useful purposes of clarifying and 

settling the legal relations at issue, preventing future harm, and promoting the remedial 

purposes of the FLSA.

104. The declaratory judgment action further terminates and affords relief from 

uncertainty, insecurity, and controversy giving rise to the proceeding.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that judgment be entered in her 

favor against Defendants:

a. Declaring, pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 

2201–02, that the acts and practices complained of herein are in 

violation of the overtime and wage provisions of the FLSA;

b. Awarding Plaintiff her reasonable attorney’s fees and the costs and 

expenses of the litigation pursuant to the FLSA; and

Case 2:15-cv-01740-DLR Document 1 Filed 09/01/15 Page 13 of 14
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial Page 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

c. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees hereby request that, upon trial of this 

action, all issues be submitted to and determined by a jury except those issues expressly 

reserved by law for determination by the Court.

Dated: August 24, 2015

Respectfully submitted,

PHILLIPS DAYES NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW 

FIRM PC

By: /s/ Trey Dayes

Trey Dayes

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 2:15-cv-01740-DLR Document 1 Filed 09/01/15 Page 14 of 14