Complaint 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 Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James Clifton; Alejandro Cruz; Michele 

Cruz; Richard Garza; Michael Reynolds; 

Troy Schwing

 Plaintiffs,

 vs.

Michelangelo Leasing, Inc., an Arizona 

Corporation, doing business as Divine 

Transportation, an Arizona registered 

tradename; Eugene Bronson and Theresa 

Mauro, husband and wife

 Defendant

Case No.: ________________________

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs for their Complaint against Defendant, allege 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).

Case 2:15-cv-01841-DLR Document 1 Filed 09/16/15 Page 1 of 16
Complaint 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

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

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. Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendant for unlawful failure to pay 

minimum wage in direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) 29 U.S.C. § 

201 et seq. and the Arizona Minimum Wage Act, A.R.S. § 23-362, et seq.

4. Arizona law protects employees from employers seeking to pay less than 

minimum wage.

5. Under Arizona law, employers are required to pay minimum wages, currently 

set by the State at a rate of $8.05 per hour.

6. An employer who fails to properly pay minimum wages to an employee is 

liable to the employee in the amount of the wages owed, interest on the unpaid wages, 

and as damages “an additional amount equal to twice the underpaid wages.” A.R.S. § 23-

364(G).

7. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) 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 pay requirements for covered employers. See 29 

U.S.C. §§ 206(a), 207(a).

Case 2:15-cv-01841-DLR Document 1 Filed 09/16/15 Page 2 of 16
Complaint 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

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

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.

9. Defendant had a consistent policy and practice of paying its employees less 

than the minimum wage.

10. Plaintiffs seeks to recover minimum wage, 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

11. This Court have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties hereto 

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

12. The Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

13. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Defendant 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.

14. The named Defendant, 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 

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

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

Case 2:15-cv-01841-DLR Document 1 Filed 09/16/15 Page 3 of 16
Complaint 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

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

personal jurisdiction of this Court.

PARTIES

15. Plaintiffs James Clifton, Michael Reynolds, and Troy Schwing are residents

of Maricopa County, Arizona. 

16. Plaintiffs Alejandro Cruz and Michele Cruz are residents of El Cajon, 

California but worked for Defendants in Arizona.

17. Plaintiff Garza is a resident of Las Vegas, Nevada but worked for 

Defendants in Arizona.

18. At all times material hereto, Michelangelo Leasing, Inc. was incorporated 

in the state of Arizona with its principal place of business in Maricopa County.

19. Divine Transportation is an Arizona Registered Tradename registered with 

the Arizona Secretary of State and wholly owned by Michelangelo Leasing, Inc.

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

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

21. Theresa Mauro is Eugene Bronson’s wife. Eugene Bronson and Theresa 

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

marital community is fully liable.

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

from the Arizona Corporation Commission, Defendants Eugene Bronson and Theresa 

Mauro were and are the owners of Michelangelo Leasing, Inc. 

Case 2:15-cv-01841-DLR Document 1 Filed 09/16/15 Page 4 of 16
Complaint 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

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

by 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(1). 

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

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

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

26. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs was an “employee” of Defendant, as defined 

by A.R.S. §§ 23-350 or 23-362(A) (Version 2). 

27. At all relevant times, Defendant was and continues to be an “employer” as 

defined in A.R.S. §§ 23-350 or 23-362(B) (Version 2).

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

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

29. Defendant Eugene Bronson is deemed an “employer” for purposes of the 

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

30. Defendant Theresa Mauro is deemed an “employer” for purposes of the 

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

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

32. Defendant Eugene Bronson made all decisions on the daily activities of his 

employees.

33. Defendant Eugene Bronson makes all decisions regarding pay policies for 

Michelangelo Leasing, Inc. 

34. Defendant Theresa Mauro made all decisions on the daily activities of his 

employees.

Case 2:15-cv-01841-DLR Document 1 Filed 09/16/15 Page 5 of 16
Complaint 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

35. Defendant Theresa Mauro makes all decisions regarding pay policies for 

Michelangelo Leasing, Inc. 

36. Defendant Eugene Bronson exerted financial control over Michelangelo 

Leasing, Inc. 

37. Defendant Eugene Bronson exerted operative control over Michelangelo 

Leasing, Inc. 

38. Defendant Theresa Mauro exerted financial control over Michelangelo 

Leasing, Inc. 

39. Defendant Theresa Mauro exerted operative control over Michelangelo 

Leasing, Inc. 

40. Defendant Eugene Bronson has the power to close Michelangelo Leasing, 

Inc. 

41. Defendant Theresa Mauro has the power to close Michelangelo Leasing, Inc. 

42. Defendant Eugene Bronson has the power to hire and fire employees. 

43. Defendant Theresa Mauro has the power to hire and fire employees. 

44. Defendant Eugene Bronson hired managerial employees. 

45. Defendant Theresa Mauro hired managerial employees. 

46. On information and belief, Defendant Eugene Bronson maintained 

employment records. 

47. On information and belief, Defendant Theresa Mauro maintained 

employment records. 

Case 2:15-cv-01841-DLR Document 1 Filed 09/16/15 Page 6 of 16
Complaint 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

48. On information and belief, Defendant Eugene Bronson dictated the corporate 

message in pending labor investigations. 

49. On information and belief, Defendant Theresa Mauro dictated the corporate 

message in pending labor investigations. 

50. Defendant Eugene Bronson profited from the FLSA violations detailed in 

this complaint. 

51. Defendant Theresa Mauro profited from the FLSA violations detailed in this 

complaint. 

52. 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).

53. As tour bus drivers, Plaintiffs consistently traveled in interstate commerce.

54. 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).

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

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

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

56. Michelangelo Leasing, Inc. operates Divine Transportation which is a full 

service luxury motor coach charter service which offers clientele the use of buses for 

regional tours in the Southwest. 

57. Divine Transportation also provides shuttle and charter services.

Case 2:15-cv-01841-DLR Document 1 Filed 09/16/15 Page 7 of 16
Complaint 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. All Plaintiffs were hired as bus drivers. 

59. Defendants hired Plaintiff Clifton in March of 2015. 

60. Defendants hired Plaintiff Alejandro Cruz in March of 2015. 

61. Defendants. hired Plaintiff Michele Cruz in March of 2015. 

62. Defendants hired Plaintiff Garza in February of 2015.

63. Defendants hired Plaintiff Reynolds in February of 2014. 

64. Defendants hired Plaintiff Schwing in September of 2010. 

65. Each Plaintiff was paid an hourly rate of $15 per hour if they were driving 

locally.

66. If Plaintiffs were driving on tours that were not local, Plaintiffs would be 

paid a daily salary ranging from $50 to $150 per day.

67. Plaintiffs were non-exempt employees. 

68. Plaintiffs had no supervision or management responsibilities. 

69. Plaintiffs could neither hire nor fire employees.

70. Plaintiffs had no authority to exercise significant independent judgment on 

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

71. Defendant managed, supervised, and directed all aspects of Plaintiffs’ job 

duties and responsibilities.

72. Plaintiffs’ primary duties were not the performance of work directly related 

to the management or general business operations of Michelangelo Leasing, Inc. or its’ 

customers. 

Case 2:15-cv-01841-DLR Document 1 Filed 09/16/15 Page 8 of 16
Complaint 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

73. Plaintiffs’ 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. 

74. Plaintiffs did not perform work requiring advanced knowledge. 

75. Plaintiffs’ primary duties were not managing Defendant’s enterprise or 

managing a department of subdivision of Defendant’s enterprise. 

76. Plaintiffs would average approximately 70-100 hours of work per week. 

77. For example, for the two week period of January 31 through February 13, 

2015, Plaintiff Reynolds was scheduled to drive a regional tour and also perform charter 

services in Prescott. Plaintiff Reynolds worked 140.92 hours during this two week period 

and was only paid $977.50.

78. As further example, for the for the two week period of February 14 through 

February 27, 2015, Plaintiff Reynolds was scheduled to drive regional tours. Plaintiff 

Reynolds worked 194.63 hours during this two week period and was only paid $1,157.50.

79. As further example, for the two week period of November 8 through 

November 21, 2014, Plaintiff Reynolds was scheduled to drive regional tours and also 

perform charter services in Maricopa County. Plaintiff Reynolds worked 269.97 hours 

during this two week period and was only paid $1,138.75.

80. The preceding paragraphs are just examples. Defendants’ policy was to force 

Plaintiffs to work 18-20 hours per day while out on tour and only pay them a daily salary 

which meant that their pay was far below the minimum wage. 

Case 2:15-cv-01841-DLR Document 1 Filed 09/16/15 Page 9 of 16
Complaint 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

81. This occurred to each and every Plaintiff every week in which they were in 

the employ of Defendants and were scheduled to drive on tours. 

82. The wages paid by Defendant failed to meet or exceed the minimum wage 

required by either the FLSA or by Arizona’s Minimum Wage Act, A.R.S. § 23-362, et 

seq.

83. Plaintiffs have retained the law firm of Phillips Dayes National Employment 

Law Firm to prosecute their claims against Defendant on their behalf and have agreed to 

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

COUNT ONE

MINIMUM WAGE VIOLATION—29 U.S.C. § 206

84. Plaintiffs incorporate and adopt the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth 

herein. 

85. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 206, Defendant were required to pay Plaintiffs at 

least the amount of the federal minimum wage, when those wages were due, for each 

hour Plaintiffs worked.

86. Defendant willfully failed and refused to pay Plaintiffs at least the amount of 

the federal minimum wage when those wages were due.

87. Plaintiffs are entitled to collect the difference between the wages they

received and the wages due, over the past three years, in an amount to be proved at trial, 

in addition to liquidated damages in the same amount, together with costs, disbursements, 

and reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

88. Plaintiffs have been required to bring this action to recover their federal 

minimum wages remaining due and unpaid, and their statutory liquidated damages, and 

Case 2:15-cv-01841-DLR Document 1 Filed 09/16/15 Page 10 of 16
Complaint 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

as the direct and foreseeable result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiffs have incurred costs 

and attorneys’ fees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that judgment be entered in their favor 

and against Defendant:

a. Awarding Plaintiffs compensation in the amount due for unpaid 

minimum wages in an amount proved at trial;

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

award;

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

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

d. Awarding Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs 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

MINIMUM WAGE VIOLATION—A.R.S §§ 23-363, -364

89. Plaintiffs incorporate and adopt the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth 

herein. 

Case 2:15-cv-01841-DLR Document 1 Filed 09/16/15 Page 11 of 16
Complaint 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

90. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-363, Defendant were required to pay at least the 

amount of the Arizona minimum wage, when those wages were due, for each hour 

Plaintiffs worked.

91. Defendant willfully failed and refused to pay Plaintiffs at least the amount of 

the Arizona minimum wage when those wages were due.

92. Plaintiffs are entitled to collect the difference between the wages they 

received and the wages due, over the past two years, in an amount to be proved at trial, 

together with an additional amount equal to twice the underpaid wages, plus, without 

limitation, interest, costs, and attorney fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-364(G).

93. Plaintiffs have been required to bring this action to recover their Arizona 

minimum wages remaining due and unpaid, and their statutory damages, and as the direct 

and foreseeable result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiffs have incurred costs and 

attorneys’ fees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that judgment be entered in their favor, 

and against Defendant:

a. Awarding Plaintiffs compensation in the amount due for unpaid minimum 

wages in an amount to be proved at trial;

b. Awarding Plaintiffs an additional amount equal to twice the underpaid wages;

c. Awarding Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses of litigation 

pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-364(G);

Case 2:15-cv-01841-DLR Document 1 Filed 09/16/15 Page 12 of 16
Complaint 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

d. Awarding Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs 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 THREE

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

94. Plaintiffs incorporate and adopt the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth 

herein. 

95. Plaintiffs and Defendant have a minimum wage dispute pending.

96. The Court have jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief 

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

Declaratory Judgments Act, A.R.S. § 12-1831.

97. Plaintiffs are 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. Defendant employed Plaintiffs.

b. Defendant is engaged in an enterprise covered by the wage provisions of 

A.R.S. § 23-355.

c. Plaintiffs, individually, are covered by the wage provisions of A.R.S. § 23-

355.

Case 2:15-cv-01841-DLR Document 1 Filed 09/16/15 Page 13 of 16
Complaint 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

d. Plaintiffs earned wages for which they were entitled to payment from 

Defendant.

e. Defendant failed and refused to provide payment to Plaintiffs of the wages 

due at the time those wages became due.

f. Defendant has no good-faith basis for their failures and refusals to make the 

payments of wages to Plaintiffs when those wage payments became due.

g. Plaintiffs are entitled to wages at a rate equal to or exceeding the Arizona 

minimum wage rate pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-363.

h. Defendant’s failure or refusal to pay minimum wages at the required rates 

was willful.

i. Plaintiffs are entitled to an additional amount of damages under the Arizona 

Minimum Wage Act equal to twice the amount of minimum wages not paid 

by Defendant to Plaintiffs.

j. Defendants are engaged in an enterprise covered by the minimum wage 

provisions of the FLSA.

k. Plaintiffs individually are covered by the minimum wage provisions of the 

FLSA.

l. Plaintiffs are entitled to his minimum wage pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 206.

m. Plaintiffs are entitled to wages at a rate equal to or exceeding the federal 

minimum wage rate pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 206.

n. Plaintiffs are entitled to wages at a rate equal to or exceeding the Arizona 

minimum wage rate pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-363.

Case 2:15-cv-01841-DLR Document 1 Filed 09/16/15 Page 14 of 16
Complaint Page 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

o. Defendant’s failure or refusal to pay the minimum wages at the required 

rates was willful.

p. Plaintiffs are entitled to an amount as liquidated damages under the FLSA.

q. Defendants did not rely on any good faith defense in their failure to abide 

by the provisions of the FLSA and the Arizona Minimum Wage Act in their 

failures to pay and minimum wages at the required rates.

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

Plaintiffs’ 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.

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

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

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that judgment be entered in their

favor against Defendant:

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 and the 

Arizona wage laws;

b. Awarding Plaintiffs their reasonable attorney’s fees and the costs and 

expenses of the litigation pursuant to the FLSA and the Arizona wage 

laws; and

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

Case 2:15-cv-01841-DLR Document 1 Filed 09/16/15 Page 15 of 16
Complaint Page 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

Dated: September 16, 2015

Respectfully submitted,

PHILLIPS DAYES NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW 

FIRM PC

By: /s/ Trey Dayes

Trey Dayes

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Case 2:15-cv-01841-DLR Document 1 Filed 09/16/15 Page 16 of 16