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 

Edmundo P. Robaina (No. 018125) 

Samuel R. Randall (No. 024517) 

ROBAINA & KRESIN PLLC 

One East Camelback Road, Suite 710 

Phoenix, Arizona 85012 

Telephone: (602) 682-6450 

Facsimile: (602) 682-6455 

epr@robainalaw.com 

srr@robainalaw.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Raymond Cota 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Raymond Cota, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

BestDrive, LLC, 

 Defendant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. 

COMPLAINT 

(Jury Trial Demanded) 

Plaintiff Raymond Cota (“Cota”) alleges the following against Defendant 

BestDrive, LLC (“BestDrive”): 

1. This is an overtime and Arizona Wage Act case pursuant to the Fair Labor 

Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et. seq. and A.R.S. § 23-350 et. seq.

2. Cota is, and at all relevant times was, a resident of Maricopa County, 

Arizona and worked in Maricopa County, Arizona. 

3. BestDrive is a Delaware limited liability company authorized to do 

business in Arizona. 

4. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties pursuant 

to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 

5. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (2) because the events 

giving rise to this action occurred in Maricopa County, Arizona. 

6. BestDrive is a commercial tire retreader and distributor that specializes in 

servicing semi-truck fleet customers with new tires, retreads, casing management and 

Case 2:15-cv-02033-SRB Document 1 Filed 10/09/15 Page 1 of 5
 - 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 

road-side assistance. 

7. Cota began his employment with BestDrive’s Phoenix location in July of 

2012 as a delivery driver. 

8. On September 1, 2013, Cota was promoted to the position service lead/ 

dispatch, and he held that position until his termination on June 16, 2015. 

9. In his service lead role, Cota installed passenger light tires and commercial 

tires for BestDrive’s customers. 

10. In his service dispatch role, Cota functioned as the interface between the 

service department and the Phoenix location’s many repeat customers. 

11. As service dispatch, Cota took calls on a cell phone provided by BestDrive 

from customers seeking BestDrive’s services, and he dispatched calls to other service 

employees. 

12. Cota performed his service dispatch duties both during regular work hours 

and after hours on nights and weekends. 

13. On typical weeknights, Cota took between 1-2 calls for service from 

customers. 

14. On typical weekends, Cota took 20 to 30 calls per day from customers, 

typically beginning at around 7:00 a.m., and tailing off after approximately 5:00 p.m. 

15. The customer calls typically made it necessary for Cota to make calls for 

service to other BestDrive service employees handling weekend service duties. 

16. On the weekend calls, Cota would typically engage with the service 

workers and customers in multiple calls in order to line up service for the customers. 

17. During relevant times, BestDrive’s Phoenix Operations Manager, Dan 

Tegmeirer, made it clear to Cota that Cota was required to take all calls that came in at 

night and on weekends. 

18. In order to perform his weekend duties, Cota had to be available to take 

the calls at all hours of the day, every weekend of the year. 

19. During relevant times, no other Phoenix employee performed the night or 

Case 2:15-cv-02033-SRB Document 1 Filed 10/09/15 Page 2 of 5
 - 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 

weekend customer service duties. 

20. As a result his weekend duties, Cota had very little ability to engage in 

personal activities on the weekends, especially during the daytime. 

21. Cota could not attend events or participate in activities that would prevent 

him from answering customer phone calls. 

22. Cota could also not entertain guests in his home during weekend days for 

the same reason and because he might have to go to the Phoenix location himself. 

23. Cota’s regular rate of pay with BestDrive was $16 per hour for the hours 

up to 40 hours per week that he worked while on BestDrive’s premises. 

24. Cota received overtime pay at the rate of $24 per hour for any overtime 

hours he worked while on BestDrive’s premises. 

25. Cota spoke with his management numerous times seeking pay for his offpremises work. 

26. Cota’s managers agreed to address the situation. However, they never did. 

27. BestDrive never paid Cota for his off-premises work or for the time he 

was engaged to wait on weekend customer calls. 

Count One 

(FLSA Overtime Claim) 

28. Cota incorporates by reference all previous allegations. 

29. At times relevant to his overtime claim, Cota was a covered employee 

under the FLSA 

30. At all times relevant to his overtime claim, BestDrive was Cota’s 

employer pursuant to the FLSA. 

31. Time waiting for work is compensable under the FMLA if the waiting 

time is spent primarily for the benefit of the employer and his business. 

32. BestDrive failed or refused to pay Cota overtime wages for all of the hours 

over forty hours per week that he worked, including the time that Cota spent on call 

during weeknights and the weekend time that Cota spent either on calls or waiting for 

Case 2:15-cv-02033-SRB Document 1 Filed 10/09/15 Page 3 of 5
 - 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 

calls for BestDrive’s benefit. 

33. As a result, Cota has suffered lost wages in the form of lost overtime 

compensation. 

34. Cota is entitled to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, 

and his attorneys’ fees. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Raymond Cota asks for judgment in his favor and 

against BestDrive LLC, and asks the Court to: 

A. Award Cota overtime pay, pre-judgment and any other appropriate relief 

necessary to make Cota whole and compensate him for the legal violations 

described above; 

B. Award Cota liquidated damages; 

C. Award Cota attorneys’ fees pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216 and related 

expenses; and 

D. Award Cota such other legal and equitable relief as the Court deems just 

and proper. 

Count Two 

(Wage Claim Pursuant to A.R.S. 23-350 et. seq.) 

35. Cota incorporates by reference all previous allegations. 

36. At relevant times, BestDrive had a policy or practice of paying terminated 

employees their unused Paid Time Off (“PTO”) hours. 

37. Prior to his termination Cota accrued approximately 109 PTO hours. 

38. Cota’s PTO hours were wages pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-350. 

39. After the termination of Cota’s employment, BestDrive failed or refused to 

pay Cota for his PTO hours as required by A.R.S. §§ 23-352 and 23-353. 

40. BestDrive had no legitimate basis for withholding Cota’s wages pursuant 

to A.R.S. § 23-352. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Raymond Cota asks the Court for judgment in his favor 

and against BestDrive LLC, and asks the Court to: 

Case 2:15-cv-02033-SRB Document 1 Filed 10/09/15 Page 4 of 5
 - 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 

A. Award Cota his wages pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 23-352 and 23-355; 

B. Award Cota treble damages pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-355; 

C. Award Cota attorneys’ fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01; 

D. Award Cota pre-judgment and post judgment interest; and 

E. Award Cota such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 9th day of October, 2015. 

ROBAINA & KRESIN PLLC 

 

By /s/ Edmundo Robaina 

 Edmundo Robaina 

 Samuel Randall 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Plaintiff Raymond Cota hereby demands a jury trial as provided by Rule 38(a) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 9th day of October, 2015 

ROBAINA & KRESIN PLLC 

 

By /s/ Edmundo Robaina 

 Edmundo Robaina 

 Samuel Randall 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Case 2:15-cv-02033-SRB Document 1 Filed 10/09/15 Page 5 of 5