-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

29

30

Clifford P. Bendau, II (030204)

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, Arizona 85018

Telephone: (480) 382-5176

Facsimile: (602) 965-1409

Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Christian Collins,

 Plaintiff, 

vs.

Chalak-MMT PV L.L.C. d/b/a Genghis

Grill and Troy Horning,

 Defendants.

No. __________________________

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW Plaintiff, Christian Collins (“Plaintiff”), individually, by and through 

the undersigned attorney and sues the Defendants, Chalak-MMT PV L.L.C. d/b/a Genghis 

Grill (“Defendant Genghis”) and Troy Horning (collectively, “Defendants”), and he alleges

as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This is an action for unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, 

and interest under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

2. The FLSA was enacted “to protect all covered workers from substandard 

wages and oppressive working hours.” Barrentine v. Ark Best Freight Sys. Inc., 450 U.S. 728, 

Case 2:15-cv-02158-SMM Document 1 Filed 10/27/15 Page 1 of 17
-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

29

30

739 (1981). Under the FLSA, employers must pay all non-exempt employees a minimum 

wage of pay for all time spent working during their regular 40 hour workweeks. See 29 

U.S.C. § 206(a). The FLSA’s definition of the term “wage,” in turn, recognizes that under 

certain circumstances, an employer of tipped employees may credit a portion of its 

employees’ tips against its minimum wage obligation, a practice commonly referred to as 

taking a “tip credit.” See id. § 203(m).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 29 

U.S.C. § 201, et seq. This civil action arises under the Constitution and law of the United 

States.

4. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(ii) because acts 

giving rise to the claims of Plaintiff occurred within the District of Arizona, and Defendant 

regularly conducts business in and has engaged in the wrongful conduct alleged herein – and, 

thus, are subject to personal jurisdiction in – this judicial district.

PARTIES

5. At all material times, Plaintiff is an individual residing in Maricopa County, 

Arizona, and is a former employee of Defendant.

6. At all material times, Defendant Genghis was a limited liability company duly 

licensed to transact business in the State of Arizona. Defendant Genghis does business, has 

offices, and/or maintains agents for the transaction of its customary business in Maricopa 

County, Arizona.

Case 2:15-cv-02158-SMM Document 1 Filed 10/27/15 Page 2 of 17
-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

29

30

7. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant Genghis. At all 

relevant times, Defendant Genghis, acting through its agents, representatives, employees, 

managers, members, and/or other representatives had the authority to hire and fire 

employees, supervised and controlled work schedules or the conditions of employment, 

determined the rate and method of payment, and maintained employment records in 

connection with Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant Genghis. In any event, at all 

relevant times, Defendant Genghis was an employer subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act 

(FLSA) and employed Plaintiff.

8. At all relevant times, Defendant Troy Horning owns, operates as a manager 

of, operates as a member of, and/or possesses a similar interest in Chalak-MMT PV, L.L.C. 

At all relevant times, Defendant Troy Horning had the authority to hire and fire employees, 

supervised and controlled work schedules or the conditions of employment, determined the 

rate and method of payment, and maintained employment records in connection with 

Plaintiff’s employment with Chalak-MMT PV, L.L.C. In any event, at all relevant times, 

Defendant Troy Horning was an employer subject to the FLSA and employed Plaintiff.

9. Upon information and belief, Defendants Chalak-MMT PV, L.L.C. and Troy 

Horning were and continue to be residents of Maricopa County, Arizona.

10. Jane Doe Horning is the fictitious name for Defendant Troy Horning’s

spouse. When Jane Doe Horning’s true name has been ascertained, this Complaint shall be 

amended accordingly. Troy Horning and Jane Doe Horning have caused events to take place 

giving rise to this Complaint to which their marital community is fully liable.

Case 2:15-cv-02158-SMM Document 1 Filed 10/27/15 Page 3 of 17
-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

29

30

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

the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.

12. The provisions set forth in the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., apply to 

Defendants.

13. At all relevant times, Defendants were and continue to be “employers” as 

defined by FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.

14. Defendants individually and/or through an enterprise or agent, directed and 

exercised control over Plaintiff’s work and wages at all relevant times.

15. Plaintiff, in his work for Defendants, was employed by an enterprise engaged 

in commerce that had annual gross sales of at least $500,000.

NATURE OF THE CLAIM

16. Defendants own and/or operate as Chalak-MMT PV L.L.C. d/b/a Genghis 

Grill, an enterprise located in Maricopa County, Arizona.

17. Plaintiff was hired by Defendants as a tipped employee, as defined by the 

FLSA at 29 U.S.C. § 203(m), and Plaintiff worked for Defendants between approximately 

March 1, 2012 and December 31, 2014, when Plaintiff left his employment with Defendants.

18. Rather than pay their tipped employees the applicable state minimum wage, 

for the time Plaintiff was paid an hourly wage, Defendants imposed a tip credit upon 

Plaintiff at below the applicable minimum wage.

19. As a result of Defendants’ imposition of a tip credit, Plaintiff was forced to 

perform minimum wage work at an hourly rate that was less than minimum wage.

Case 2:15-cv-02158-SMM Document 1 Filed 10/27/15 Page 4 of 17
-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

29

30

20. Defendants required Plaintiff to participate in an tip-pooling arrangement 

wherein Plaintiff was required to contribute to a tip pool that included employees who do 

not customarily and regularly receive tips, despite the scope of the definition of “tipped 

employee” contained within 29 U.S.C. § 203(m), and in willful violation of the FLSA, 29 

U.S.C. § 206(a).

21. As a result of Defendants’ violation of 29 U.S.C. § 206(a), Defendants are

disallowed entirely from taking a tip credit from its tipped employees’ hourly wages.

22. Therefore, Defendants regularly and consistently paid Plaintiff less than the 

overall minimum wage for the work Plaintiff performed during each of his regular 

workweeks for the entire duration of his employment, such that Plaintiff’s pay, when 

averaged across his total time worked, was less than the minimum wage.

23. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to the difference between the full minimum 

hourly wage rate and the wage rate paid for all hours Plaintiff worked and, additionally, the 

amount of all tips contributed to the illegal tip pool.

24. Defendants also regularly and consistently required Plaintiff to clock out yet 

continue to perform non-tip-earning duties and/or remain on premises in order to avoid 

incurring excessive and/or overtime labor costs, in willful violation of the FLSA.

25. As a result, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff minimum wage for all 

hours worked, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 206(a).

26. From approximately June 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013, Plaintiff was 

regularly and consistently required to perform work approximately two hours or more per 

shift while off the clock in a given work week.

Case 2:15-cv-02158-SMM Document 1 Filed 10/27/15 Page 5 of 17
-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

29

30

27. For example, during the week of November 4, 2013, Plaintiff was required to 

perform approximately two hours of work per shift while off the clock.

28. Defendants engaged in the regular practice of willfully failing to pay Plaintiff 

the applicable minimum wage or higher for all time that Defendants suffered or permitted 

Plaintiff to work for all hours worked while off the clock.

29. Defendants engaged in the regular practice of failing to accurately, if at all, 

record the time during which Defendants suffered or permitted Plaintiff to work. As such, 

Plaintiff’s time records, if in existence, understate the duration of time each workweek that 

Defendants suffered or permitted Plaintiff to work.

30. Defendants knew that – or acted with reckless disregard as to whether – their

failure to pay to Plaintiff the applicable minimum wage for all time the Defendants suffered 

or permitted Plaintiff to work, would violate federal and state law, and Defendants were

aware of the FLSA minimum wage requirements during Plaintiff’s employment. As such, 

Defendants’ conduct constitutes a willful violation of the FLSA. 

31. Defendants engaged in the regular practice of requiring Plaintiff to perform a 

substantial amount of non-tipped labor related to his tipped occupation in excess of 20% of 

her regular workweek and non-tipped labor unrelated to his tipped occupation over the 

course of his regular workweeks.

32. Examples of non-tipped labor related to Plaintiff’s tipped occupation that 

exceeded 20% of Plaintiff’s regular workweek, include, but are not limited to: preparatory 

and workplace maintenance tasks such as brewing tea, brewing coffee, rolling silverware, 

cleaning soft drink dispensers, wiping down tables, setting tables, busing tables, cutting and 

Case 2:15-cv-02158-SMM Document 1 Filed 10/27/15 Page 6 of 17
-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

29

30

stocking fruit, stocking ice, taking out trash, scrubbing walls, sweeping floors, restocking togo supplies, cleaning booths, cleaning ramekins, sweeping, mopping, restocking all stations,

washing dishes, and breaking down and cleaning the expo line.

33. Examples of non-tipped labor unrelated to Plaintiff’s tipped occupation that 

Plaintiff performed during her regular workweeks, include, but are not limited to: 

preparatory and workplace maintenance tasks such as taking out trash, scrubbing walls, 

sweeping floors, cleaning booths, sweeping, mopping, washing dishes, breaking down and 

cleaning the expo line, and restocking restrooms.

34. As a result of Defendants’ willful requirement that Plaintiff perform a 

substantial amount of non-tipped labor related to his tipped occupation in excess of 20% of 

his regular workweeks and non-tipped labor unrelated to his tipped occupation over the 

course of his regular workweeks, Defendants paid Plaintiff less than the overall minimum 

wage for such work that Plaintiff performed for Defendants, such that the average of 

Plaintiff’s hourly wages was less than the applicable minimum wage. 

35. In both policy and practice, Defendants regularly and consistently required 

Plaintiff to perform the above-listed non-tipped labor related to his tipped occupation in 

excess of twenty percent (20%) of Plaintiff’s regular workweek before, during, and after 

scheduled shifts; before the restaurant was open to customers; after the restaurant was 

closed to customers; while Plaintiff had few to no customers to serve; before serving his first 

customer; and after being “cut” from serving customers. 

36. In both policy and practice, Defendants regularly and consistently required 

Plaintiff to perform the above-listed non-tipped labor unrelated to his tipped occupation

Case 2:15-cv-02158-SMM Document 1 Filed 10/27/15 Page 7 of 17
-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

29

30

during the course of Plaintiff’s regular workweek before, during, and after scheduled shifts; 

before the restaurant was open to customers; after the restaurant was closed to customers; 

while Plaintiff had few to no customers to serve; before serving his first customer; and after 

being “cut” from serving customers. 

37. As a result of Defendants’ requirement that Plaintiff perform such non-tipped 

labor related to his tipped occupation, and in excess of twenty percent (20%) of his regular 

workweek, while earning the reduced tip credit rate, Plaintiff was engaged in a non-tipped 

occupation, as defined by the “dual jobs” regulation 29 C.F.R. §§ 531.56(e) and (a) and the 

Department of Labor Field Operations Handbook §30d00(e), for such work performed 

during that time. Such work performed by Plaintiff included, but was not limited to, 

spending more than part of his time cleaning and setting tables and making coffee, and more 

than occasionally washing dishes or glasses. As a result, Defendants were prohibited from 

taking the tip credit for the hours Plaintiff spent working in a non-tipped occupation. 

Plaintiff is, therefore, entitled, under 29 C.F.R. § 531.56(a) and 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), to the 

overall minimum wage for all time spent performing such non-tipped, dual occupation labor. 

As such, Defendants paid Plaintiff less than the overall minimum wage for the work Plaintiff 

performed during his regular workweek, in willful violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 206(a).

38. As a result of Defendants’ requirement that Plaintiff perform such non-tipped 

labor unrelated to his tipped occupation, while earning the reduced tip credit rate, Plaintiff 

was engaged in a non-tipped occupation, as defined by the “dual jobs” regulation 29 C.F.R. 

§§ 531.56(e) and (a) and the Department of Labor Field Operations Handbook §30d00(e), 

for such work performed during that time. Such work performed by Plaintiff included, but 

Case 2:15-cv-02158-SMM Document 1 Filed 10/27/15 Page 8 of 17
-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

29

30

was not limited to, spending more than part of his time cleaning and setting tables and 

making coffee, and more than occasionally washing dishes or glasses. As a result, Defendants 

were prohibited from taking the tip credit for the hours Plaintiff spent working in his nontipped occupation. Plaintiff is, therefore, entitled, under 29 C.F.R. § 531.56(a), to the overall 

minimum wage for all time spent performing such non-tipped, dual occupation labor. As 

such, Defendants paid Plaintiff less than the overall minimum wage for the work Plaintiff 

performed during his regular workweek, in willful violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 206(a).

39. As a result of Defendants’ willful failure to compensate Plaintiff the applicable 

minimum wage for such hours worked, Defendants have violated 29 U.S.C. § 206(a).

40. Defendants knew that – or acted with reckless disregard as to whether – its

failure to pay to Plaintiff the full applicable minimum wage, without applying the tip credit,

for time spent performing labor in such a non-tipped occupation, would violate federal and 

state law, and Defendants were aware of the FLSA minimum wage requirements during 

Plaintiff’s employment. As such, Defendants’ conduct constitutes a willful violation of the 

FLSA. 

41. Defendants have and continue to willfully violate the FLSA by not paying 

Plaintiff the full applicable minimum wage for time spent performing non-tipped labor 

related to his tipped occupation in excess of 20% of her regular workweeks, and non-tipped 

labor unrelated to his tipped occupation over the course of his regular workweeks.

42. In a given workweek, and during each and every workweek for which Plaintiff 

worked for Defendants as a tipped employee, Defendants required Plaintiff to perform a 

substantial amount of non-tipped labor related to his tipped occupation in excess of 20% of 

Case 2:15-cv-02158-SMM Document 1 Filed 10/27/15 Page 9 of 17
-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

29

30

his regular workweek and non-tipped labor unrelated to his tipped occupation over the 

course of his regular workweek. Defendants paid Plaintiff less than the overall minimum 

wage for such work that Plaintiff performed for Defendants, such that the average of 

Plaintiff’s hourly wages was less than the applicable minimum wage, in willful violation of 29 

U.S.C. § 206(a). Defendants required Plaintiff to perform non-tipped labor related to his

tipped occupation in excess of 20% of his regular workweeks and non-tipped labor unrelated 

to his tipped occupation each and every workweek during which he worked for Defendants.

43. For example, during workweek of November 4, 2013, Defendants required 

Plaintiff to perform, and Plaintiff did perform, non-tipped labor related to his tipped 

occupation in excess of 20 percent of his regular workweek, despite being compensated less 

than the full applicable minimum wage for such time. Such conduct by Defendants violated 

29 U.S.C. § 206(a).

44. For example, during workweek of November 4, 2013, Defendants required 

Plaintiff to perform, and Plaintiff did perform, non-tipped labor unrelated to his tipped 

occupation during his regular workweek, despite being compensated less than the full 

applicable minimum wage for such time. Such conduct by Defendants violated 29 U.S.C. § 

206(a).

45. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendants owe him similar wages 

for each and every workweek during which he worked for Defendants for the entire 

duration of his employment. Furthermore, when an employer fails to keep complete and 

accurate time records, employees may establish the hours worked by their testimony, and the 

burden of overcoming such testimony shifts to the employer.

Case 2:15-cv-02158-SMM Document 1 Filed 10/27/15 Page 10 of 17
-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

29

30

46. Defendants engaged in the regular practice of failing to accurately, if at all, 

record the time during which Defendants suffered or permitted Plaintiff to work. As such, 

Defendants’ records of Plaintiff’s time worked, if in existence, understate the duration of 

time each workweek that Defendants suffered or permitted Plaintiff to work.

47. Defendants, individually and/or through an enterprise or agent, directed and 

exercised control over Plaintiff’s work and wages at all relevant times.

48. Plaintiff is a covered employee within the meaning of the Fair Labor 

Standards Act (“FLSA”).

49. Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee.

50. Defendants have and continue to willfully violate the FLSA by not paying 

Plaintiff wages owed for all times Plaintiff worked while off the clock. 

51. Defendants individually and/or through an enterprise or agent, directed and 

exercised control over Plaintiff’s work and wages at all relevant times.

52. Due to Defendants’ illegal wage practices, Plaintiff is entitled to recover from 

Defendant compensation for unpaid wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated 

damages, interest, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of this action under 29 U.S.C. § 

216(b).

COUNT ONE: FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT: ILLEGAL TIP 

POOLING ARRANGEMENT

53. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding 

paragraphs.

54. Defendants required Plaintiff to participate in a tip-pooling arrangement 

wherein Plaintiff was required to contribute to a tip pool that included employees who do 

Case 2:15-cv-02158-SMM Document 1 Filed 10/27/15 Page 11 of 17
-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

29

30

not customarily and regularly receive tips, despite the scope of the definition of “tipped 

employee” contained within 29 U.S.C. § 203(m), and in willful violation of the FLSA, 29 

U.S.C. § 206(a).

55. As a result of Defendants’ requirement that Plaintiff participate in an illegal tip

pooling arrangement, Defendants are disallowed entirely from taking a tip credit from its 

tipped employees’ hourly wages.

56. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to the difference between the full minimum 

hourly wage rate and the wage rate paid for all hours Plaintiff worked and, additionally, the 

amount of all tips Plaintiff contributed to the illegal tip pool.

57. Each and every workweek Plaintiff worked for Defendants, Plaintiff was 

required to distribute a portion of his earned tips to back of the house non-tipped 

employees, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 203(m).

58. Defendants have and continue to willfully violate the FLSA by not paying 

proper wages to Plaintiff.

59. Due to Defendants’ illegal wage practices, Plaintiff is entitled to recover from 

Defendants compensation for the difference between the full minimum hourly wage and the 

tip credit minimum wage for all hours worked for Defendants, the amount of all tips 

contributed to the illegal tip pool, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, interest, 

and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of this action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Christian Collins, individually, requests that this Court 

enter Judgment against Defendants, Chalak-MMT PV L.L.C. d/b/a Genghis Grill and Troy 

Horning, for compensation for the difference between the full minimum hourly wage and 

Case 2:15-cv-02158-SMM Document 1 Filed 10/27/15 Page 12 of 17
-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

29

30

the tip credit minimum wage for all hours worked for Defendants, the amount of all tips 

contributed to the illegal tip pool, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, 

prejudgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and 

disbursements of this action, and any additional relief that this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT TWO: FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT: UNPAID WAGES

60. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding 

paragraphs.

61. Defendants regularly and consistently required Plaintiff clock out yet continue 

to perform non-tip-earning duties and/or remain on the restaurant premises in order to 

avoid incurring excessive and/or overtime labor costs.

62. Defendants intentionally failed and/or refused to pay Plaintiff minimum wage 

according to the provisions of the FLSA for each and every workweek that Plaintiff worked 

for Defendant, for the duration of his employment, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 206(a).

63. As a result of Defendants’ willful failure to compensate Plaintiff the applicable 

minimum wage for all hours worked, Defendants violated the FLSA.

64. As such, full minimum wage is owed for all time spent performing labor off 

the clock.

65. Defendants knew that – or acted with reckless disregard as to whether – their

failure to pay to Plaintiff the full minimum wage for time spent performing non-tipped labor 

and/or requiring Plaintiff to remain on restaurant premises would violate federal and state 

law, and Defendants were aware of the FLSA minimum wage requirements during Plaintiff’s

employment. As such, Defendants’ conduct constitutes a willful violation of the FLSA.

Case 2:15-cv-02158-SMM Document 1 Filed 10/27/15 Page 13 of 17
-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

29

30

66. Defendants have and continue to willfully violate the FLSA by not paying 

Plaintiff a wage equal to or greater than minimum wage for time Defendants required 

Plaintiff to perform non-tipped labor and/or remain on premises while off the clock.

67. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to compensation for the difference between 

wages paid and Arizona’s minimum wage at an hourly rate, to be proven at trial, plus an 

additional equal amount as liquidated damages, together with interest, costs, and reasonable 

attorney fees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Christian Collins, individually, respectfully requests that 

this Court grant relief in Plaintiff’s favor, and against Defendants Chalak-MMT PV L.L.C.

d/b/a Genghis Grill and Troy Horning for compensation for unpaid minimum wages, plus 

an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, 

reasonable attorney fees, costs, and disbursements of this action, and any additional relief 

this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT THREE: FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

NON-TIPPED LABOR RELATED TO TIPPED WORK IN EXCESS OF 20% 

68. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding 

paragraphs.

69. Defendants intentionally failed and/or refused to comply with the FLSA, 29 

U.S.C. § 201, et seq., 29 C.F.R. § 531.56(e), and the Department of Labor Field Operations 

Handbook §30d00(e) by requiring Plaintiff in a given workweek, and during each and every 

workweek Plaintiff was employed by Defendants, to perform non-tipped labor related to her 

tipped occupation in excess of twenty percent (20%) of her regular 40-hour workweek, while 

paying Plaintiff at the tip credit rate.

Case 2:15-cv-02158-SMM Document 1 Filed 10/27/15 Page 14 of 17
-15-

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

29

30

70. Defendants intentionally failed and/or refused to pay Plaintiff the full 

applicable minimum wage according to the provisions of the FLSA for time she spent 

performing non-tipped labor related to her tipped occupation in excess of twenty percent 

(20%) of a given workweek, for each and every workweek that Plaintiff was employed by 

Defendants, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 206(a).

71. As such, full applicable minimum wage for such time Plaintiff performed nontipped labor related to her tipped occupation in excess of twenty percent (20%) of her 

regular workweek is owed to Plaintiff for each and every workweek she was employed by 

Defendants.

72. Defendants knew that – or acted with reckless disregard as to whether – its

failure to pay to Plaintiff the full applicable minimum wage, without applying the tip credit,

for time spent performing labor in such a non-tipped occupation, would violate federal and 

state law, and Defendants were aware of the FLSA minimum wage requirements during 

Plaintiff’s employment. As such, Defendants’ conduct constitutes a willful violation of the 

FLSA. 

73. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to compensation for the full minimum wage at an 

hourly rate, to be proven at trial, plus an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, 

together with interest, reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Christian Collins, individually, respectfully requests that 

this Court grant relief in Plaintiff’s favor, and against Defendant Chalak-MMT PV L.L.C.

d/b/a Genghis Grill and Troy Horning for compensation for unpaid minimum wages, plus 

an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, 

Case 2:15-cv-02158-SMM Document 1 Filed 10/27/15 Page 15 of 17
-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

29

30

reasonable attorney fees, costs, and disbursements of this action, and any additional relief 

this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT FOUR: FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

NON-TIPPED LABOR UNRELATED TO TIPPED WORK 

74. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding 

paragraphs.

75. Defendants intentionally failed and/or refused to comply with the FLSA, 29 

U.S.C. § 201, et seq., 29 C.F.R. § 531.56(e), and the Department of Labor Field Operations 

Handbook §30d00(e) by requiring Plaintiff in a given workweek, and during each and every 

workweek Plaintiff was employed by Defendants, to perform non-tipped labor unrelated to 

her tipped occupation over the course of her regular 40-hour workweek, while paying 

Plaintiff at the tip credit rate.

76. Defendants intentionally failed and/or refused to pay Plaintiff the full 

applicable minimum wage according to the provisions of the FLSA for time she spent 

performing non-tipped labor unrelated to her tipped occupation over the course of a given 

workweek, for each and every workweek that Plaintiff was employed by Defendants, in 

violation of 29 U.S.C. § 206(a).

77. As such, full applicable minimum wage for such time Plaintiff performed nontipped labor unrelated to her tipped occupation over the course of her regular workweek is

owed to Plaintiff for each and every workweek she was employed by Defendants.

78. Defendants knew that – or acted with reckless disregard as to whether – its 

failure to pay to Plaintiff the full applicable minimum wage, without applying the tip credit,

for time spent performing labor in such a non-tipped occupation, would violate federal and 

Case 2:15-cv-02158-SMM Document 1 Filed 10/27/15 Page 16 of 17
-17-

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

29

30

state law, and Defendants were aware of the FLSA minimum wage requirements during 

Plaintiff’s employment. As such, Defendants’ conduct constitutes a willful violation of the 

FLSA. 

79. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to compensation for the full minimum wage at an

hourly rate, to be proven at trial, plus an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, 

together with interest, reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Christian Collins, individually, respectfully requests that 

this Court grant relief in Plaintiff’s favor, and against Defendant Chalak-MMT PV L.L.C. 

d/b/a Genghis Grill and Troy Horning for compensation for unpaid minimum wages, plus 

an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, 

reasonable attorney fees, costs, and disbursements of this action, and any additional relief 

this Court deems just and proper.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 27th Day of October 2015.

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM, PLLC

By: /s/ Clifford P. Bendau, II 

Clifford P. Bendau, II

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 2:15-cv-02158-SMM Document 1 Filed 10/27/15 Page 17 of 17