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 

Roger A. Wright 

SBN 014105 

WRIGHT LAW FIRM, PLC

1013 S. Stapley Drive 

Mesa, Arizona 85204 

Phone: (480) 558-1700 

Email: office@wrightlawaz.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Trevor Barrett and Barrett Financial, LLC 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

 Plaintiffs, Barrett Financial Group, LLC and Trevor Barrett (collectively 

“Barrett”) for their Complaint, hereby allege as follows: 

NATURE OF THIS DISPUTE

1. This is a civil action filed by Plaintiffs, Barrett Financial Group, LLC 

and Trevor Barrett for relief arising from Defendants’ misconduct related to a “Net 

BARRETT FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC, 

an Arizona Limited Liability Company; 

and TREVOR BARRETT, a married 

man, 

 

 Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

BANK OF ENGLAND d/b/a ENG 

LENDING; XYZ ENTITIES, I - X; and 

JOHN AND JANE DOES, I - X; 

 

 Defendants. 

Civil No. 

COMPLAINT 

(TORT/CONTRACT/EQUITY) 

(JURY TRIAL DEMANDED)

– 1 –

Case 2:15-cv-02292-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 1 of 42
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 

Branch” (aka “Affiliate Branch”) established by Defendants to provide mortgage 

loan origination services in Arizona.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because the 

Defendants continue to transact business in Arizona and because at all times 

relevant hereto the Defendants committed acts in Arizona including, without 

limitation, acts proscribed by various Arizona statutes.

3. This Court also has original jurisdiction to hear this Complaint and to 

adjudicate the claims stated herein under the Federal Labor Standards Act, 29 

U.S.C. §201, et. seq., and because the claims herein stated include violations of other 

federal statutes. 

4. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for Arizona 

because the Defendants transacted business in this District, and because a 

substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this District. 

5. A substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in 

Maricopa County. 

PARTIES 

6. Plaintiff Barrett Financial Group, LLC was and is an Arizona limited 

liability company with its principal place of business in Maricopa County, Arizona. 

7. Trevor Barrett is an adult resident of Maricopa County, State of 

Arizona. 

8. Defendant Bank of England is a federally insured banking institution 

headquartered in England, Arkansas. 

– 2 –

Case 2:15-cv-02292-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 2 of 42
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 

9. In the State of Arizona Defendant Bank of England operates a division 

known as ENG Lending (collectively “ENG Lending”). 

10. ENG Lending sells mortgage loans and other financial products. ENG 

Lending engages in the practice of taking on an existing, separate mortgage 

company or broker as a net branch (or affiliate branch) and allowing that separate 

entity to originate insured mortgages under the approved mortgagee’s HUD 

Mortgage Number. 

11. ENG Lending conducts business at numerous branch locations in 

many states including Arizona where ENG Lending maintains at least one office or 

“Net Branch”. 

12. Upon information and belief, ENG Lending’s gross annual sales made 

or business done has been not less than Five Hundred Thousand Dollars 

($500,000.00) per year or greater at all relevant times. 

13. At all relevant times hereto ENG Lending transacted business in 

Arizona.

14. At all relevant times ENG Lending acted through its owners, officers, 

agents, and employees including, without limitation, Senior Vice President, James 

Emery (aka Jim Emery), and Senior Vice President, Michael Cupples. 

15. ENG Lending is, and has been, an “employer” as defined by Arizona 

statutes. 

16. Plaintiffs do not know the true names of Defendants John and Jane 

Does I through X, inclusive. Therefore, Plaintiffs sue them by those fictitious names. 

When their true names and capacities are ascertained Plaintiffs will amend their 

Complaint to insert the true identities.

– 3 –

Case 2:15-cv-02292-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 3 of 42
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 

17. Plaintiffs do not know the true names of Defendants XYZ Entities, I - 

X, and therefore sue them by those fictitious names. When their true names and 

capacities are ascertained Plaintiffs will amend their Complaint to insert the true 

identities.

18. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege that the fictitiously 

designated Defendants were and are the principals, agents, employees, transferees, 

successors, or assigns of the other named Defendants in this action and/or that said 

Defendants claim some right, title or interest in the subjects of this Complaint. 

19. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that 

said fictitiously named Defendants are liable, responsible, and obligated to Plaintiffs 

on account of the transactions, performances, and work herein described. 

20. At all times material hereto, each of the Defendants sued herein was 

the agent and/or employee of each of the remaining Defendants, and at all times 

acted within the purpose and scope of such agency and/or employment. 

21. Further Defendants’ owners, officers, and directors personally acted 

on Defendants’ behalf, and with actual and/or apparent authority, and such acts 

were ratified by the Defendants, or such owners, officers, and directors acted within 

the purpose of scope of their employment, agency, or relationship to ENG Lending 

and the other Defendants. 

22. Further Defendant ENG Lending employed numerous individuals who 

acted as Defendant’s agents as to the events described herein. 

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 

23. Plaintiff Trevor Barrett formed Barrett Financial Group, LLC in 2002 

as an Arizona limited liability company to provide mortgage related services to 

– 4 –

Case 2:15-cv-02292-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 4 of 42
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 

Arizona consumers. 

24. In 2002 the State of Arizona granted Barrett Financial Group a 

mortgage brokers license. 

25. Barrett Financial Group provided mortgage broker services from 

commercial offices that it leased and occupied in Mesa, Arizona, located at 1910 S. 

Stapley Drive, Suite 120 (“Mesa Location”). 

26. Barrett Financial Group leased or owned all of the equipment at the 

Mesa Location including, without limitation, all desks, chairs, computers, printers, 

electronic devices, supplies, and phone systems.

27. On November 8, 2011, Senior Vice President and Affiliate Branch 

Director James Emery solicited Trevor Barrett about becoming a Net Branch of 

ENG Lending. 

28. Emery was interested in Barrett Financial because Barrett Financial 

had a lot of producing Mortgage Loan Originator’s as well as office space and 

equipment. 

29. On November 16th and again on November 17th Emery contacted 

Trevor Barrett to solicit Trevor Barrett and his group of Mortgage Originator’s to 

become a Net Branch of ENG Lending. 

30. In February 2012 ENG Lending and Trevor Barrett discussed 

operating the Mesa Location as a “Net Branch” of ENG Lending. For accounting 

purposes the branch would later become known as Branch 48. 

31. This net branch structure would permit ENG Lending to have a fully 

operating and staffed mortgage office in Arizona with many producing Mortgage 

Loan Originators. By opening a Net Branch, ENG Lending could avoid the expenses 

– 5 –

Case 2:15-cv-02292-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 5 of 42
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 

and risks of opening its own retail office. It would allow ENG Lending to generate 

profits immediately while avoiding large risks, unwelcome delays, burdensome 

expenses, and numerous administrative hurdles.

32. In order to establish a Net Branch in Mesa ENG Lending offered to 

employ Plaintiff Trevor Barrett as the branch manager. 

33. Hiring Trevor Barrett was attractive to ENG Lending because Trevor 

already had an established mortgage practice with a high volume of loans. Trevor 

also has significant industry experience in Arizona and a demonstrated ability to 

generate borrower leads. In addition, ENG Lending could rely on Trevor Barrett to 

direct and manage the daily operations. 

34. On or around March 9, 2012, ENG Lending’s Senior Vice President 

James Emery emailed various documents to Trevor Barrett, including ENG 

Lending’s Branch Manager Employment Agreement, a Loan Officer Agreement, a 

Lending Loan Processor Agreement, and ENG Lending’s broker compensation 

structure. 

35. ENG Lending drafted the Branch Manager Employment Agreement. 

36. ENG Lending also devised the overall operation of the Net Branch. 

37. Pursuant to the plan proposed to him, and the documents that ENG 

Lending later delivered to him, Trevor was to oversee the operation of the Net 

Branch, would provide guidance and training to branch employees, and retain profit 

above and beyond ENG Lending’s permitted and reasonable administrative and 

oversight fees.

38. However, Trevor’s primary duties were to oversee the origination and 

processing of mortgage applications that met ENG Lending’s requirements and 

– 6 –

Case 2:15-cv-02292-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 6 of 42
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 

those of its wholesale lenders.

39. Trevor signed and then returned the Branch Manager Employment 

Agreement. 

40. ENG Lending also offered employment to other individuals as 

Mortgage Loan Officers or Mortgage Loan Originators. 

41. ENG Lending drafted the employment agreements for the Mortgage 

Loan Officers such as Andrew Price which provided that they would be paid an 

hourly rate equal to the greater of the federal or state minimum wage for each hour 

worked up to forty hours per week, that they would be paid 1.5 times their regular 

hourly rate for any hours worked in excess of forty hours per week (both payments 

to be known as the “Draw Guarantee”), and that they would not work more than 

forty hours in a work week without management approval. In addition, Mortgage 

Loan Officers were to be paid commissions on the origination of residential 

mortgage loans. 

42. In addition to the employment agreements, ENG Lending agreed to 

assume the financial responsibility for the Mesa Net Branch location. Barrett 

Financial Group, LLC already occupied the commercial space and was under 

contract for this location. ENG Lending agreed to assume Barrett Financial Group, 

LLC’s existing commercial lease. 

43. ENG Lending’s agreements with Trevor Barrett and Barrett Financial 

Group, LLC included a commitment from ENG Lending to pay the monthly lease, to 

pay monthly utilities, other location related fees, and to reimburse Barrett Financial 

Group for office expenditures including, without limitation, expenses pertaining to 

the office such as for desks, chairs, phones, phone systems, computers, servers, 

– 7 –

Case 2:15-cv-02292-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 7 of 42
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 

copiers, printers, fax machines, office supplies, and miscellaneous expenses. ENG 

Lending agreed to assume Barrett Financial Group, LLC’s existing commercial lease 

consisting of 5,092 rentable square feet. 

44. ENG Lending’s Net Branch in Mesa became operational on March 9, 

2012 and Senior Vice President James Emery drafted a letter to notify interested 

parties that the Mesa Net Branch was a “branch of Bank of England d/b/a ENG 

Lending,” that it operated under ENG Lending’s federal exemption and the FDIC 

Depositor’s license number 13303, and that it did not require separate licensure. 

45. Various state and federal laws and regulations govern the operation of 

net branches, some of which are quite specific and technical. Further, the rules 

governing net branch structures can pose substantial risks if unheeded.

46. Consequently, with regard to compliance with federal and state 

regulations, and with respect to the actual operation of the Net Branch in Mesa, the 

Defendants were in a position of trust and they assumed fiduciary duties in their 

relationship with the Plaintiffs. 

47. The parties understood this. 

48. Barrett understood and reasonably believed, for example, that the 

Defendants would operate the Mesa Net Branch in accordance with all applicable 

jurisdictional laws and regulations governing mortgage lending and professional 

licensing. 

49. Barrett expected that ENG Lending would commit to oversight of the 

Net Branch in order to address any federal or state law or regulation irregularities 

capable of jeopardizing Plaintiffs in any manner. 

50. ENG Lending is a direct endorsement lender approved by the U.S. 

– 8 –

Case 2:15-cv-02292-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 8 of 42
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 

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as a non-supervised lender. 

51. As such, ENG Lending is required to adhere to HUD policies and 

regulatory requirements regarding its operations and employees. 

52. These rules are serious and HUD audits for compliance with them. 

53. Notwithstanding its commitment to Plaintiffs that it would comply 

with all federal and state statutes and regulations in the operation of the Mesa Net 

Branch, ENG Lending intentionally and knowingly disregarded HUD and other 

regulations while operating its Net Branch located in Mesa.

54. Plaintiffs are informed and reasonably believe, for example, that in 

2012 ENG Lending sought approval to open its Net Branch in Mesa. As part of that 

approval process ENG Lending certified that it was in compliance with HUD 

requirements and that it “paid the operating costs of the branch office.” Each year 

thereafter ENG Lending made the same certification. 

55. These certifications were knowingly false. 

56. As a HUD/FHA approved lender ENG Lending was required to pay all 

of its operating expenses, including those of its main branch and expenses created 

through net branch locations.

57. ENG Lending was required to purchase or lease all equipment, 

computers, servers, copiers, phones, phone systems, and furniture at the Mesa 

Location. 

58. Similarly, ENG Lending was required to pay for necessary supplies 

and to pay all employee compensation.

59. In addition, ENG Lending was required to pay lease expenditures, 

overhead, and other similar expenses. 

– 9 –

Case 2:15-cv-02292-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 9 of 42
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 

60. Not only did ENG Lending fail to pay for these items, ENG Lending 

deducted some or many of these items from Trevor Barrett’s commissions and 

intentionally deceived HUD regarding its operations. 

61. In doing so ENG Lending failed to adequately assume financial 

responsibility for the correct operation of the Mesa Net Branch. 

62. ENG Lending’s operational practices of the Mesa Net Branch 

maximized its profits but put Plaintiffs at risk. ENG Lending engaged in deceptive 

patterns and practices as it maximized its profits at the expense and risk of the 

Plaintiffs. 

63. One of the prohibited practices knowingly implemented by ENG 

Lending was the establishment of a “Reserve Account.” 

64. Although Federal regulations required ENG Lending to pay all branch 

office expenses, and prohibited 

65. passing those expenses along to either the branch or to the branch 

manager 

66. ENG Lending did so anyway. 

67. ENG Lending’s admitted purpose in creating the Reserve Account for 

the Mesa Branch was to provide a working capital reserve from which to fund 

branch office expenses. 

68. Under the terms of the Branch Management Agreement the amount 

of the Reserve Account was limited to “the greater of $10,000.00 or two (2) times the 

estimated monthly Branch Office operating expenses.” However, in a meeting on 

March 13, 2012, Senior Vice President James Emery unilaterally changed those 

terms. He told Trevor Barrett that ENG Lending would need One Hundred 

– 10 –

Case 2:15-cv-02292-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 10 of 42
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 

Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) in the Reserve Account. Emery said that if Trevor 

couldn’t fund the Reserve Account immediately then each month ENG Lending 

would take Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) of Trevor’s earnings, and that ENG 

Lending would apply the money toward the Reserve Account.

69. For the period commencing March 2012 and ending June 2013 ENG 

Lending withheld Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00). 

70. ENG Lending withheld an additional Ten Thousand Dollars 

($10,000.00) during the months of April 2014 and May 2014. 

71. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the total amount withheld by 

ENG Lending was at least Eighty-Five Thousand Dollars ($85,000.00). 

72. During this same period, the amount of the actual monthly Net 

Branch operating expenses was significantly less than the amount wrongfully 

withheld from Trevor Barrett by ENG Lending. 

73. ENG Lending’s Reserve Account illegally deprived Trevor Barrett of 

his lawful compensation (wages) and effectively transferred Mesa Net Branch 

operational expenses directly to Trevor Barrett, in violation of federal regulations.

74. Moreover, ENG Lending intentionally and knowingly miscalculated 

the Management Fee by including numerous expenses that ENG Lending was 

required to pay directly, again in violation of statutes and regulations. 

75. ENG Lending has refused and/or failed to refund the Reserve Account 

fund to Trevor Barrett.

76. ENG Lending intentionally withheld these funds from Trevor Barrett 

even though it knew that Federal regulations required ENG Lending to pay all of 

the Mesa Branch’s office expenses, that passing those expenses along to either the 

– 11 –

Case 2:15-cv-02292-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 11 of 42
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 

branch or to the branch manager is strictly prohibited by law, and that HUD/FHA 

rules prohibit requiring an employee to use personal funds to cover operational 

expenses.

77. ENG Lending knew that HUD/FHA approved mortgagees must pay all 

expenses incurred in the operation of their home, branch, and direct lending offices, 

and may not engage in “net branching” arrangements in which a party, other than 

the approved mortgagee, pays some or all of the branch office expenses. 

78. Notwithstanding the above, ENG Lending instructed Trevor Barrett 

to cover operational expenses from his personal funds, as evidenced in emails 

between Trevor Barrett, Brad Canada (Sr. Vice President), Senior Vice President 

James Emery (Sr. Vice President) and Jack Allen (Corporate Counsel). 

79. This practice is reflected in emails between top executives and officers 

of ENG Lending. 

80. In one email regarding the Mesa Branch purchasing Lending Tree 

Leads for the branch, Corporate Counsel Jack Allen wrote the following to Brad 

Canada, “...I assume Trevor orders and then submits for reimbursement anyway...”

81. The Mesa Branch closed and funded many Lending Tree leads from 

which ENG Lending profited. 

82. Each month Trevor Barrett submitted a reimbursement form to the 

corporate office in Arkansas. However, ENG Lending did not reimburse Trevor for 

purchasing leads with his personal funds. 

83. In fact, there is over One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($105,064.38) of 

Trevor Barrett’s personal funds that were used to cover operational expenses 

including but not limited to: BN Touch Inc., FedEx, Lending Tree, Leads360, 

– 12 –

Case 2:15-cv-02292-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 12 of 42
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 

RingCentral, Staples, USPS, and airline tickets for Mesa Location employees to 

attend training and conferences held by ENG Lending.

84. ENG Lending engaged in other HUD violations as well. 

85. ENG Lending also engaged in practices contrary to policy statements 

on its own website. For example, ENG Lending’s website promised that “ENG will 

pay or reimburse business expenses related to direct operation of the branch and/or 

origination of loans. Invoices or expense reports may be submitted to our accounting 

department and will be paid within 10 working days of receipt – usually within 5. 

Due to IRS regulations, expenses for entertainment, car leases and capital 

expenditures (furniture, computers, etc.) will not be reimbursed. All normal 

operating expenses of the branch are paid directly by ENG as required by HUD.” 

86. ENG Lending wrongfully required Trevor Barrett as Branch Manager 

to execute a non-compete clause. 

87. ENG Lending wrongfully required Trevor Barrett to indemnify 

branch-related losses. 

88. ENG Lending failed or refused to pay the lease agreement in full at 

the Net Branch location, exited the sub-lease prematurely, and thereby breached the 

sublease agreement with Barrett Financial Group. 

89. The Sub-Lease Agreement provided for termination “Upon thirty (30) 

days written notice to all parties.” However ENG Lending did not notify Trevor 

Barrett or Barrett Financial that it had elected to terminate the Sub-Lease. 

90. As a result of ENG Lending’s unilateral breach of the Sub-Lease 

Barrett Financial began paying the obligation, commencing July 2014 in the amount 

of $8,788.75 per month. 

– 13 –

Case 2:15-cv-02292-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 13 of 42
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 

91. ENG Lending failed or refused to pay monthly operational costs at the 

Mesa location. 

92. ENG Lending failed and or refused to compensate Barrett Financial 

and Trevor Barrett for the use of existing office furniture, electronic equipment, and 

supplies. 

93. ENG Lending failed or refused to execute equipment lease agreements 

at the Net Branch location in its own name. 

94. ENG Lending failed to reimburse Trevor Barrett and/or Barrett 

Financial Group for charges they incurred on credit cards for the operation of the 

Mesa Net Branch. 

95. ENG Lending assessed impermissible fees to the Net Branch. On May 

14, 2014, Senior Vice President James Emery sent an email to Trevor stating that 

Trevor was responsible for paying $2,619.58 (Dollars) for a borrower (M. Hakim) 

who paid off her loan early. 

96. On December 4, 2012, Senior Vice President James Emery sent out an 

email to various branch managers to advise them that ENG Lending’s corporate 

office would be deducting branch profits from the branch profit and loss to match 

branch employee 401K participation. This was a surprise Trevor Barrett and to 

other branch managers nationwide as well. 

97. ENG Lending’s business practices resulted in the Mesa Branch 

operating without the close supervisory control and oversight HUD requires lenders 

to maintain over their branch offices. 

98. The quality of the compliance assistance provided by ENG Lending 

was of critical importance to Plaintiffs because poor performance would affect the 

– 14 –

Case 2:15-cv-02292-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 14 of 42
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 

Mesa Branch’s business reputation. Moreover, violations of state and federal law 

potentially subject violators to monetary sanctions, cease and desist orders, denial of 

license applications, permanent exclusion from the finance industry, and/or potential 

misdemeanor or felony criminal prosecution.

99. The practices described above, and others, reduced Plaintiffs income, 

compromised the success of the Mesa Branch, and subjected the Plaintiffs to 

unnecessary costs and risks.

100. In addition to the HUD violations described above, ENG Lending 

actively and knowingly engaged in conduct constituting violations of various 

consumer protection laws. 

101. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is an independent 

agency of the United States government that is responsible for consumer protection 

in the financial sector. 

102. The CFPB’s jurisdiction includes banks, credit unions, securities 

firms, payday lenders, mortgage-servicing operations, foreclosure relief services, 

debt collectors, other financial companies operating in the United States, and virtual 

currencies. 

103. The CFPB was created by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 

Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, 

and Congress charged it with regulating and enforcing various consumer protection 

laws. Because of the CFPB and its recent enforcement activities, financial services 

entities today face significantly more exposure to government investigations, 

customer complaints, and litigation than they did a few years ago. 

104. CFPB violations include a wide variety of consumer protection laws, 

– 15 –

Case 2:15-cv-02292-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 15 of 42
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 

including the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Truth in Lending Act 

(TILA), and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (RESPA). The 

enforcement of these and other laws was previously dispersed among numerous 

other agencies, including the Office of Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal 

Deposit Insurance Company (FDIC), the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, and the Federal Trade Commission. 

105. CFPB violations include a broad range of unlawful conduct, including 

pressuring students to incur “predatory” student loans, racial discrimination and 

allegations that a bank charged higher prices on mortgage loans to AfricanAmerican and Hispanic borrowers compared to white borrowers with similar credit 

scores, discrimination in auto loan interest rates, misrepresentations regarding loan 

modifications, and charging unlawful upfront fees for debt-relief services.

106. On April 19, 2012, Senior Vice President James Emery visited 

Arizona. While driving to lunch with Trevor Barrett, Senior Vice President James 

Emery informed Trevor Barrett that ENG Lending had recently been audited by the 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). 

107. Emery was unhappy with the results of the audit. 

108. Emery mentioned that the bank had been written up for not making 

loan exceptions to minorities, specifically African Americans. He then said, “It is a 

proven fact that black people don’t make their mortgage payments.” 

109. Trevor Barrett was disappointed and appalled by Emery’s remarks. 

When he returned to the office he informed several Mesa Branch employees of 

Emery’s comments. 

110. Sadly, Trevor Barrett discovered that Emery’s comments reflected the 

– 16 –

Case 2:15-cv-02292-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 16 of 42
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 

corporate culture that was encouraged at ENG Lending. 

111. Throughout his employment with ENG Lending, Plaintiff Trevor 

Barrett observed ENG Lending’s discriminatory attitude toward minorities. 

112. On March 15, 2014, for example, at the corporate meeting (conference) 

in Las Vegas at The Wynn, Sterling Barrett was in a restroom stall when he 

overheard a conversation between “Tommy” Owens (Senior Vice President ENG 

Lending) and Robert Neighbors (Secondary Marketing Manager for ENG Lending). 

Sterling heard Roberts say, "Did you see the look on that Nigger's face". Tommy 

Owens laughed with him and continued with their conversation.

113. Barrett learned that several minority borrowers felt like their loan 

files were being improperly scrutinized. Some borrowers expressed their feelings to 

Plaintiffs that they were being discriminated against or treated unfairly from the 

ENG underwriters.

114. ENG Lending’s policies and practices were intentional, willful, or 

implemented with reckless disregard for the rights of African-American and 

Hispanic borrowers. ENG Lending based its intentional discrimination on the 

knowledge of a customer’s race and national origin through the Home Mortgage 

Disclosure Act data collected by its Mortgage Loan Originators.

115. Such discriminatory practices is represented in an email from Senior 

Vice President Tommy Owen dated June 4, 2012, which was he delivered to a 

couple of corporate employees. However Owen forgot to take Kristina Cascia (Mesa 

Branch loan processor) off the email chain. In the email, Owen wrote, "This lady 

(Kristina Cascia) doesn't know when to quit. I keep telling myself the borrower is 

suffering from Wendy's (corporate underwriter) incompetence but Kristina is such 

– 17 –

Case 2:15-cv-02292-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 17 of 42
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 

an ass I don't wanna budge! Thoughts” Owen’s email reflected ENG Lending’s 

culture that it would rather the borrower (Reece) not receive the loan than fund a 

loan to an African American.

116. In addition to encouraging racial discrimination in its culture and 

lending practices, ENG Lending violated numerous other consumer protection 

statutes and regulations. One of those violations involved ENG Lending’s 

encouragement to Mortgage Loan Originators to grant price concessions to 

borrowers without approval of the branch manager. 

117. As Branch Manager Trevor set branch margins in order to be 

profitable. Those margins were set at 280 basis points for conventional loans and/or 

300 basis points for FHA/VA/USDA loans, plus $600.00 (Dollars) per loan. 

118. Trevor Barrett set those margins to ensure the financial success of the 

Branch. 

119. Correspondingly, Trevor Barrett derived his income based on the gross 

profit of the Mesa Net Branch. 

120. On March 12, 2012, at The Peabody Little Rock in the hotel lounge, 

Senior Vice President Michael Cupples informed Trevor Barret about “compensation 

buckets” in connection with adjusting a Mortgage Loan Originator’s compensation. 

121. Cupples instructed Trevor Barrett to create buckets for accounting 

purposes and to allow the Mortgage Loan Originators in Mesa to grant price 

concessions to borrowers to be able to be more competitive when needed.

122. This instruction violated ENG Lending’s written policy, (dated April 

1, 2011). and exemplifies a common pattern at ENG Lending when an accepted 

practice varies from written policy documents. ENG Lending encouraged the actual 

– 18 –

Case 2:15-cv-02292-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 18 of 42
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 

practice of encouraging a Mortgage Loan Originator to give pricing concessions to 

borrowers. Total price concessions and losses to the Mesa Location from March 2012 

through June 13, 2014 totaled $313,949.99 (Dollars). 

123. The majority of the loans that ENG Lending closed at the Mesa 

Location accompanied price concessions to borrowers which were initiated by the 

Mortgage Loan Originator following approval by the Closing Department and/or the 

Lock Desk at the corporate office–but without branch approval. 

124. As Branch Manager Trevor Barrett was rarely made aware that the 

corporate office had approved–or even that the Mortgage Loan Originator in Mesa 

had requested–a pricing concessions on behalf of a borrower. At some point Trevor 

Barrett might receive a reconciliation report from accounting that reflected the 

pricing concession. 

125. This was alarming because, as stated above, the practice violated 

consumer protection regulations, because ENG Lending’s written policy differed 

from its actual practice, and because ENG Lending’s practice of encouraging loan 

concessions also reduced the Net Branch profitability (and, correspondingly, the 

compensation earned by Trevor Barrett). 

126. During the final months before the Mesa Branch was closed Mortgage 

Loan Originators were encouraged by Senior Vice President James Emery and 

Tempe Branch Manager Steve Smith to give pricing concessions to the borrowers in 

order to close out the pipeline in the Mesa Branch thus reducing the profit the Mesa 

Branch was entitled too. Total price concessions Mesa branch Mortgage Loan 

Originators gave to borrower from mid-April 2014 to the last closed and funded loan 

total $26,787.60. 

– 19 –

Case 2:15-cv-02292-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 19 of 42
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 

127. By way of examples, mortgage loan originator Anthony Sistak on June 

27, 2014 closed the Van Harper loan (loan number 481403089453) giving a pricing 

concession to the borrower from the branch profits with the Mesa Branch taking a 

loss of $6,788.79. On June 12, 2014 mortgage loan originator Christopher Greiner 

closed the David Everman loan (loan number 481404091014) giving a pricing 

concession to the borrower from the branch profits, with the Mesa Branch taking a 

loss of $3,191.65.

128. In addition to the above, Plaintiffs discovered that ENG Lending 

knowingly and actively concealed from borrowers affiliated business arrangements. 

129. This practice also violated consumer protection statutes and 

regulations. 

130. On March 13, 2012, at the corporate office during one of the various 

meetings, Plaintiff Trevor Barrett met with Dan McLaughlin at Bankers Title. 

131. McLaughlin informed Trevor Barrett that the Canada family was one 

of the owners of Banker’s Title Company, that ENG Lending’s Net Branch in Mesa 

would need to use Bankers Title. There was never an "Affiliated Business 

Arrangement Disclosure Statement Notice" disclosed to any of the ENG Lending’s 

borrowers. At all times pertinent hereto, Gary Canada served as President of the 

Bank of England and his son, Brad Canada, served as Vice President of Bank of 

England’s mortgage division, also known as ENG Lending.

132. This practice of non-disclosure constitutes serious violations of 

federal law, including without limitation the violation of rules which prevent 

mortgage originators from making more money by getting the consumer to buy 

certain services from the lender, broker, or one of its affiliates. 

– 20 –

Case 2:15-cv-02292-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 20 of 42
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 

133. In addition to the above, ENG Lending adopted other prohibited 

practices in violation of state and federal law. For example, ENG Lending instituted 

a practice of temporarily terminating some employees to avoid reporting them as 

employees to the Department of Labor. After running the payroll reports for the 

Department of Labor, ENG Lending would reactivate the employee on its payroll 

software. 

134. On April 4, 2014 two Mesa Location Mortgage Loan Originators (Don 

Lee & Larry Keen) attempted to log their hours into ENG Lending’s payroll system 

(“Paycom”). Both showed terminated on Paycom and were unable to log their hours 

worked. 

135. When Sterling Barrett emailed Rebecca Price (ENG Lending’s Payroll 

Coordinator) asking “why does Paycom show Don Lee & Larry Keen as terminated?” 

Rebecca Price responded, “Probably because neither have been paid in a while and 

the bank terminated them before doing an employee numbers report. They can be 

reactivated.” 

136. Immediately after receiving Rebecca Price’s email Sterling followed up 

with a phone call. During the phone call Rebecca Price informed Sterling that ENG 

Lending had needed to run a report for the Department of Labor and it couldn’t 

show any employees not getting paid, so ENG Lending simply terminated them from 

the payroll system. ENG Lending then generated a false and misleading report for 

the government before reactivating the employee on Paycom. 

137. In violation of its obligations to act in good faith, ENG Lending’s 

officers and senior executives played favoritism with certain employees and with net 

branch managers by offering uneven terms. For example, on March and April 2014 

– 21 –

Case 2:15-cv-02292-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 21 of 42
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 

Trevor began to recruit Mortgage Loan Originator’s in the Scottsdale area. Senior 

Vice President James Emery called Trevor on April 8, 2014 at 1:54 PM Arizona time 

to discuss this issue and informed him that Steve Smith had a net branch already in 

Scottsdale. This Scottsdale branch was not on the records, had not been approved by 

any financial regulator, and was not even on the company’s website at the time.

138. On April 16, 2014 Senior Vice President James Emery called Trevor 

Barrett. During that phone conversation Trevor Barrett brought to James Emery’s 

attention that he had not received compensation for working. James Emery told 

Trevor to find other employment. He gave Trevor 60 days. Within a week Steve 

Smith of the Tempe Branch requested that Barrett’s Mortgage Loan Originator be 

transferred to his branch. 

139. Senior Vice President James Emery wrongfully terminated Trevor 

Barrett and failed to follow specific disciplinary and termination policies that ENG 

Lending had in place. Trevor received no written warning for misconduct or for 

poor performance before Senior Vice President James Emery terminated him.

140. The net branches of Tempe and Mesa were roughly 11 miles apart.

The interest rates offered to borrowers and fee disparity charged to borrowers with 

the same credit characteristics and loan products were statistically significant 

between both branches.

141. The Tempe net branch charged higher interest rates and higher fees 

to borrowers with the same credit characteristics and loan products than the Mesa 

net branch. 

142. Senior Vice President James Emery enforced a policy that it required 

Mortgage Loan Originators to steer loans in-house, charging the borrower higher 

– 22 –

Case 2:15-cv-02292-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 22 of 42
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 

interest rates and fees rather than having the option to broker a loan to a wholesale 

lender thus giving the borrower the lowest interest rate and fees. Borrowers trust 

that their mortgage loan originator will give them the best option possible. 

143. The practice of the Mesa net branch was to close and fund a loan that 

was in the best interest of the borrower whether it was closed and funded in-house 

or brokered to a wholesale lender. 

144. The practice of the Tempe net branch was to close and fund the overall 

majority of loans in-house regardless of the borrower getting the best rate and fees 

thus maximizing the profits of ENG Lending. 

145. Senior Vice President James Emery encouraged the Mortgage Loan 

Originators at the Mesa Branch to transfer to the Tempe Branch by offering that 

their draws against commission owed to the Mesa Branch would be forgiven. This 

violated ENG Lending’s duty of good faith and fair dealing. It also directly affected 

the profitability of the Mesa branch. 

146. Upon information and belief, Mortgage Loan Originators at the Tempe 

net branch receive marketing incentives if they “up-charge” borrowers on their 

mortgage rates on in-house loans. The Mortgage Loan Originators use the higher 

profits for their personal marketing use as a form of compensation based on the 

borrower getting a higher than normal interest rate. 

147. On June 12, 2014 3:02 PM Trevor Barrett received an email from 

Lynn Davis (Director of Human Resources) stating “separation of employment with 

Bank of England / ENG Lending will be documented as a Lay-Off.”

CAUSES OF ACTION 

COUNT I 

– 23 –

Case 2:15-cv-02292-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 23 of 42
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 

(For Failure to Pay Wages Including Violations of A.R.S. §23-353(A) et. seq.)

148. Plaintiffs reassert and incorporate all of the allegations contained in 

the foregoing paragraphs as though more fully set forth herein.

149. In 2014 Plaintiff Trevor Barrett (together with employee Andrew 

Price) were discharged from their employment at ENG Lending. 

150. Notwithstanding the compensation policies, and the agreements 

between the parties, ENG Lending did not compensate Trevor Barrett for work 

performed. 

151. As noted in the preceding paragraphs, ENG Lending established a 

Reserve Account. In order to fund the Account ENG Lending wrongfully withheld 

commissions earned by Trevor Barrett. 

152. The Branch Manager Employment Agreement limited the Reserve 

Account to Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00). However the Reserve Account was to 

accumulate from the branch’s net profits, not from Trevor Barrett’s lawfully 

entitled earnings. 

153. Further, in order to provide a working capital reserve sufficient to 

fund Branch Office expenses, the Branch Manager Employment Agreement 

expressly stated that the Reserve Account funds would “accumulate from available 

Branch Office net profits.” 

154. Even then, the Reserve Account would be limited to “the greater of 

$10,000.00 or two (2) times the estimated monthly Branch Office operating 

expenses.” 

155. ENG Lending never intended on abiding by the terms of the 

Employment Agreement regarding the operation of the Reserve Account. ENG 

– 24 –

Case 2:15-cv-02292-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 24 of 42
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 

Lending never attempted to estimate or calculate the monthly Branch operating 

expenses, and never advised Trevor Barrett regarding these operating expenses. 

156. Instead, on March 13, 2012, and contrary to the terms of the written 

Employment Agreement, Senior Vice President James Emery unilaterally notified 

Trevor Barrett that ENG Lending intended on establishing a Reserve Account of 

One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00). Each month thereafter ENG 

Lending would take Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) of Trevor’s pay and apply it 

to the Reserve Account. 

157. The Employment Agreement allowed ENG Lending to adjust the 

Reserve Account “at any time based on actual expenses of the Branch Office” but 

required that ENG Lending would first notify Trevor Barrett “in writing if and 

when the Reserve Account balance has been adjusted.” This never happened. 

158. Further, the actual practice by ENG Lending with respect to the 

Reserve Account violated federal statutes and/or regulations and constituted bad 

faith by ENG Lending. 

159. ENG Lending’s deception with respect to the Reserve Account was 

intended to defraud Trevor Barrett of his income. 

160. As a result of this practice by ENG Lending, there were many months 

when Trevor Barrett would not receive a pay check. 

161. Out of 55 pay periods Trevor received compensation for just 18 of 

them. (See Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference). 

For two of those pay periods Trevor Barrett received $40.00 (Dollars) and $300.00 

(Dollars) respectively. 

162. Pay periods were usually every 2 or 3 weeks. No minimum wage was 

– 25 –

Case 2:15-cv-02292-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 25 of 42
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 

paid and ENG Lending never paid Trevor Barrett overtime pay. 

163. In all, ENG Lending withheld not less than Eighty-Five Thousand 

Dollars ($85,000.00) that should have been paid to Trevor Barrett as employment 

income. 

164. During the final two months of Trevor’s employment ENG Lending 

attempted to conceal its failure to pay wages by offering to pay Trevor Barrett One 

Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) per pay period. 

165. Further, the Branch Manager Employment Agreement provides that: 

“[i]n the event of the termination of this Agreement for any reason other than 

Branch Manager’s fraudulent conduct (as supported by third party audit) and after 

a 120 day settlement period, the aggregate remaining balance of the Reserve 

Account shall be paid to the Branch Manager or his estate in final settlement.” 

166. Following ENG Lending’s termination of Trevor Barrett’s 

employment, ENG Lending withheld the aggregate remaining balance of the 

Reserve Account, and failed to otherwise provide an accounting thereof. 

167. Improperly compensating Mesa Branch employees was not limited to 

Plaintiff Trevor Barrett. ENG Lending similarly engaged in a practice to not 

compensate Andrew Price for work performed during 12 separate pay periods. 

168. On August 28, 2014, Andrew notified ENG Lending that he had gone 

without pay for the full time hours of 40 hours per week for 8 pay periods, but that 

he had actually worked the following hours during pay periods for which he had not 

received compensation: 08/30/2013 (80 hours), 09/13/2013 (80 hours), 09/30/2013 (80 

hours), 10/15/2013 (80 hours), 11/29/2013 (120 hours), 12/13/2013 (80 hours), 

01/15/2014 (80 hours), and 01/13/2014 (120 hours), as reflected below: 

– 26 –

Case 2:15-cv-02292-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 26 of 42
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 

169. During these time periods Andrew did not receive a draw or any 

income of any kind. Nor did Andrew have the option to log his hours using ENG 

Lending’s software. 

170. ENG Lending’s corporate policy was to remove the Branch Manager 

and Sales Managers from logging hours into Paycom. 

171. In addition to the above, there were four pay periods where Andrew 

earned commissions but was not paid: 02/14/2014 (80 hours), 02/28/2014 (80 hours), 

and 03/31/2014 (80 hours). 

172. On September 11, 2014 ENG Lending’s corporate attorney, Jack Allen, 

responded that “Bank of England is ceasing all communications with you. As I 

stated when we spoke a number of weeks ago, the Bank does not believe any 

wrongdoing has occurred. We will not be settling this matter at this time.” 

173. Pursuant to A.R.S. §23-353(A), Plaintiff Trevor Barrett (and Andrew 

Price) should have been paid within three working days of their terminations. 

174. Despite demand, Defendant ENG Lending has refused to pay Trevor 

Barrett or Andrew Price their wages earned. 

175. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant ENG Lending’s failure 

to pay Plaintiff, Trevor Barrett is entitled to treble the amount of unpaid wages 

pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-355(A). 

176. This claim arises out of contract, entitling Plaintiff to an award of 

attorney’s fees pursuant to A.R.S. §12-341.01 or the written terms of any 

agreements between the parties.

COUNT II 

(For Overtime Violations) 

– 27 –

Case 2:15-cv-02292-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 27 of 42
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 

177. Plaintiffs reassert and incorporate all of the allegations contained in 

the foregoing paragraphs as though more fully set forth herein.

178. The FLSA requires covered employers, such as Defendant ENG 

Lending, to compensate all non-exempt employees at a rate of not less than one and 

one-half times the regular rate of pay for work performed in excess of forty (40) 

hours per workweek. When calculated, the regular rate of pay must include all non 

discretionary compensation. 

179. In practice, Defendant ENG Lending treated Plaintiff Trevor Barrett 

(and Andrew Price) as exempt from overtime premium compensation under the 

FLSA. 

180. Upon information and belief, Defendant ENG Lending paid Plaintiff 

Trevor Barrett and Andrew Price under a compensation agreement that would: 

a. allegedly pay these employees at an hourly rate equal to the 

greater of the federal or state minimum wage for each hour 

worked in a workweek and would pay 1.5 times this hourly rate 

for hours worked in excess of forty per workweek (referred to 

herein as a “draw”); 

b. pay these employees non-discretionary compensation based on 

originated residential mortgage loans; and 

c. deduct the employees draw amount from commission 

compensation. 

181. Under its compensation agreement with Plaintiff, Defendant ENG 

Lending failed to pay an overtime premium for hours worked in excess of forty per 

week in violation of the FLSA. Defendant ENG Lending’s compensation agreement 

– 28 –

Case 2:15-cv-02292-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 28 of 42
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 

violated the FLSA in that it failed to include commission income in determining the 

overtime rate of pay. In addition, Defendant ENG Lending’s compensation 

agreement violated the FLSA in that any purported overtime paid under this scheme 

was later deducted from commission pay, therefore, no overtime premium of any 

time was even paid on the minimum wage. 

182. Under Defendant ENG Lending’s compensation agreement with 

Plaintiff, employees would earn the same amount of compensation regardless of 

hours reported or worked. Therefore, no overtime premium was ever provided to 

these employees under Defendant’s compensation agreement. In turn, Defendant 

ENG Lending discouraged employees from reporting actual hours worked since it 

had no impact on total compensation paid under Defendant ENG Lending’s illegal 

compensation agreement. 

183. Defendant ENG Lending was aware, or should have been aware, that 

Plaintiff performed work that required payment of overtime compensation and that 

its non-discretionary commission income must be included when calculating the 

overtime rate of pay. 

184. Defendant ENG Lending’s conduct was willful and in bad faith. 

185. Defendant ENG Lending routinely suffered and permitted Plaintiff to 

work more than forty (40) hours per week and did not pay the overtime 

compensation that was due. 

186. Defendant ENG Lending required Plaintiff to work long hours to 

complete all of job responsibilities. 

187. Upon information and belief, Defendant ENG Lending did not keep 

accurate records of these hours worked by Plaintiff as required by law. 

– 29 –

Case 2:15-cv-02292-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 29 of 42
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 

188. Defendant ENG Lending was aware of the hours and overtime hours 

that Plaintiff worked. 

189. Moreover, it is common knowledge within the financial industry that 

courts and the United States Department of Labor have found Mortgage Loan 

Originators to be non-exempt and entitled to overtime compensation, and that 

commission income should be included in calculating their overtime rate of pay. 

190. Defendant ENG Lending operates under a scheme to deprive certain 

employeesof overtime compensation by treating them as exempt in practice; failing 

to accurately compensate at the correct overtime rate of pay; and by failing to make, 

keep, and preserve records of their hours worked. 

191. Plaintiff Trevor Barrett was deprived of overtime pay that he was 

guaranteed by law. 

192. Plaintiff Trevor Barrett is a victim of Defendant’s widespread, 

repeated, systemic and consistent illegal policies that have resulted in violations of 

his rights under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and that have caused damage to 

Plaintiff. 

193. Defendant ENG Lending willfully engaged in a pattern of violating 

the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., as described herein including, without limitation, 

failing to pay Trevor Barrett overtime compensation. 

194. Defendant ENG Lending’s conduct constitutes willful violations of the 

FLSA within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §255. 

195. Defendant ENG Lending’s actions, policies, and/or practices as 

described violate the FLSA’s overtime requirement by regularly and repeatedly 

failing to compensate Plaintiff Trevor Barrett at the required overtime rate. 

– 30 –

Case 2:15-cv-02292-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 30 of 42
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 

196. Defendant ENG Lending knew, or show reckless disregard for the fact, 

that it failed to pay Plaintiff overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. 

197. Defendant ENG Lending is liable under the FLSA for failing to 

properly compensate Plaintiff Trevor Barrett. 

198. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant ENG Lending’s 

unlawful conduct, Plaintiff Trevor Barrett has suffered a loss of income and other 

damages. Plaintiff Trevor Barrett is entitled to liquidated damages and attorney’s 

fees and costs incurred in connection with this claim. 

COUNT III 

(For Breach of Contract) 

199. Plaintiffs reassert and incorporate all of the allegations contained in 

the foregoing paragraphs as though more fully set forth herein.

200. Defendant ENG Lending breached obligations under both oral 

promises and written agreements between the parties as described herein. 

201. For example, and without limitation, on April 11, 2012, ENG Lending 

formally entered into a month-to-month Sub–Lease Agreement for the Mesa 

commercial space occupied by Barrett Financial Group. However the Mesa Net 

Branch became operational in March 2012. ENG Lending failed or refused to 

commence sub-lease payments, or to reimburse Barrett Financial Group, for the 

March and April 2012 sub-lease payment. 

202. Although contrary to the agreements of the parties, Senior Vice 

President James Emery informed Trevor Barrett that he would be responsible for 

making the lease payments for the first few months (March & April 2012). 

203. ENG Lending formally assumed the sub-lease in March 2012. 

– 31 –

Case 2:15-cv-02292-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 31 of 42
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 

Pursuant to HUD/FHA rules, ENG Lending should have formally assumed financial 

responsibility to pay the lease payments when the Mesa Branch became operational 

in March 2012. Instead, ENG Lending did not make the first payment on the SubLease until May 2012. 

204. When the lease ended at the Mesa Location on February 28, 2013, 

ENG Lending notified Plaintiff that renewing the Lease would put ENG Lending at 

risk, and that ENG Lending did not want to assume that liability, stating that “it 

was too much risk.” On behalf of ENG Lending, Senior Vice President James Emery

instructed Trevor Barrett to sign the renewal lease, though this instruction was 

contrary to the terms of their existing agreements, and contrary to HUD/FHA 

regulations as well. 

205. In the spring of 2014 ENG Lending abandoned its financial obligation 

to pay the sub-lease.

206. ENG Lending also failed and/or refused to pay the operational location 

costs, or otherwise failed and/or refused to reimburse Trevor Barrett and Barrett 

Financial Group for costs and expenses it incurred for the Mesa Net Branch 

location.

207. In addition, and without limitation, Defendant ENG Lending failed to 

pay appropriate wages to Trevor Barrett according to the terms of his employment. 

208. Defendant ENG Lending otherwise violated the terms of the 

employment agreements with Plaintiff. 

209. Defendant failed to remedy their breaches upon reasonable 

notification by Plaintiff. 

210. The actions and/or inactions by Defendants, their officers, directors, 

– 32 –

Case 2:15-cv-02292-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 32 of 42
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 

agents, and/or employees, as described herein, constituted material breaches of the 

contracts and the agreements between the parties. 

211. As a result of Defendants’ breaches Plaintiffs suffered damages in an 

amount to be proven at trial. 

212. Plaintiffs are entitled to their full damages as a result of the 

Defendant’s breach of contract, together with pre-interest thereon in an amount to 

be proven at trial. 

213. This claim arises out of contract, entitling Plaintiffs to an award of 

attorneys’ fees pursuant to A.R.S. §12-341.01 or the written terms of any 

agreements between the parties. 

COUNT IV 

(For Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing) 

214. Plaintiffs reassert and incorporate all of the allegations contained in 

the foregoing paragraphs as though more fully set forth herein.

215. In Arizona every contract contains an implied covenant of good faith 

and fair dealing.

216. The contracts and the agreements between Plaintiffs and Defendants 

contained covenants of good faith and fair dealing including, without limitation, an 

obligation by the parties to deal honestly and fairly, and covenants by the parties not 

to deprive the other parties of the anticipated benefits of the agreements by failing 

to perform their obligations. 

217. The Defendants owed Plaintiffs duties to act in good faith and fair 

dealing.

218. The Defendants, by their actions established in the preceding 

– 33 –

Case 2:15-cv-02292-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 33 of 42
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 

paragraphs, violated and breached their duties of good faith and fair dealing to 

Plaintiffs.

219. The actions or omission by the Defendants have been the direct 

proximate and cause of damages to Plaintiffs in amounts that shall be proven at 

trial.

220. This claim arises out of contract, entitling Plaintiffs to an award of 

attorneys fees pursuant to A.R.S. §12-341.01 or the written terms of any agreements 

between the parties. 

COUNT V 

(For Breach of Joint Venture Agreements) 

221. Plaintiffs reassert and incorporate all of the allegations contained in 

the foregoing paragraphs as though more fully set forth herein.

222. As described herein, the parties hereto entered into one or more joint 

venture agreements including, without limitation, the venture designed to establish 

the Mesa Net Branch, and to provide mortgage related services in Maricopa County, 

State of Arizona. 

223. Without limitation, Defendants accomplished its designs in part by 

inducing Plaintiffs to extend their credit, their reputation, and their facilities, and to 

participate in establish and help operate the Mesa Net Branch which assets and 

efforts were used jointly and severally by the venturers. 

224. Upon information and belief Defendants would eventually generate 

many thousands of dollars by providing these services in order to complete the 

parties’ joint ventures. 

225. Defendants were also subject to common duties as shall be proved at 

– 34 –

Case 2:15-cv-02292-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 34 of 42
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 

trial. 

226. The conduct of the Defendants, their officers, directors, agents, and 

employees identified herein as John and Jane Does, constituted a joint venture that 

included a common purpose, community of interest, and equal right of control. 

227. Each of the joint venturers acted as agents of the others and each 

likewise acted as a principal such that the act of one was the act of all. 

228. As a result of Defendants’ actions Plaintiffs have been damaged in an 

amount to be proved at trial for which the Defendants, and each of them, are jointly 

and severally liable.

229. This claim arises out of contract, entitling Plaintiffs to an award of 

attorneys fees pursuant to A.R.S. §12-341.01 or the written terms of any agreements 

between the parties. 

COUNT VI 

(For Vicarious Liability Arising From Joint Venture Agreement) 

230. Plaintiffs reassert and incorporate all of the allegations contained in 

the foregoing paragraphs as though more fully set forth herein.

231. As described herein, the venturers provided mortgage related services 

in Maricopa County, State of Arizona. 

232. Upon information and belief Defendants would eventually generate 

many thousands of dollars in profits by providing these services. 

233. Defendants were also subject to common duties as shall be proved at 

trial. 

234. The conduct of the Defendants, their officers, directors, agents, and 

employees identified herein as John and Jane Does, constituted a joint venture that 

– 35 –

Case 2:15-cv-02292-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 35 of 42
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 

included a common purpose, community of interest, and equal right of control. 

235. Defendants entered into a joint venture with Plaintiffs designed to 

provide and sell mortgage services (as described herein). 

236. Without limitation, Defendants accomplished its designs in part by 

inducing Plaintiffs to extend its credit, its reputation, and its facilities, and to 

participate in establish and help operate the Mesa Net Branch which assets and 

efforts were used jointly and severally by the venturers.

237. Each of the joint venturers acted as agents of the others and each 

likewise acted as a principal such that the act of one was the act of all. 

238. As a result of Defendants’ actions Plaintiffs have been damaged in an 

amount to be proved at trial for which the Defendants, and each of them, are jointly 

and severally liable. 

239. This claim arises out of contract, entitling Plaintiffs to an award of 

attorneys fees pursuant to A.R.S. §12-341.01 or the written terms of any agreements 

between the parties.

COUNT VII

(For Negligence) 

240. Plaintiffs reassert and incorporate all of the allegations contained in 

the foregoing paragraphs as though more fully set forth herein.

241. Defendant had numerous duties to Plaintiffs as described herein 

including, without limitation, the duty to act fairly and truthfully with the 

Plaintiffs, the duty to act competently in adopting and executing the policies and the 

operations of the Mesa Net Branch, the duty to pay wages, the duty to train and 

properly supervise its directors, officers, agents, and employees. 

– 36 –

Case 2:15-cv-02292-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 36 of 42
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 

242. Defendant breached its duties of care as described herein. 

243. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff 

has suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 

244. This claim arises out of contract, entitling Plaintiffs to an award of 

attorney’s fees pursuant to A.R.S. §12-341.01 or the written terms of any 

agreements between the parties. 

COUNT VIII

(For Breach of Fiduciary Duty) 

245. Plaintiffs reassert and incorporate all of the allegations contained in 

the foregoing paragraphs as though more fully set forth herein.

246. Defendant breached its duties of care as described herein.

247. As a result of Defendant’s negligence, acts, and omissions, Plaintiffs 

have suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 

248. This claim arises out of contract, entitling Plaintiffs to an award of 

attorneys’ fees pursuant to A.R.S. §12-340.01 or the written terms of any 

agreements between the parties. 

COUNT IX 

(For Fraud) 

249. Plaintiffs reassert and incorporate all of the allegations contained in 

the foregoing paragraphs as though more fully set forth herein.

250. The acts by Defendants described herein were intentional. 

251. Specifically, Defendant ENG Lending, through its officers, directors, 

agents, and employees, made intentional false representations regarding the wages 

and remuneration that it would pay to Plaintiffs, the funds that it would pay to 

– 37 –

Case 2:15-cv-02292-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 37 of 42
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 

Plaintiff Trevor Barrett, the operation of the net branch, and those other 

representations described above, including the Defendant’s representation that it 

operated in compliance with all state and federal laws. 

252. Defendant also knowingly withheld material knowledge regarding the 

matters described herein including, without limitation, the Defendant’s operations 

and the Defendant’s commitment to abide by the contracts and agreements made 

between Defendant and Plaintiffs. 

253. Defendants made these statements, and knowingly withheld material 

information, intending that Plaintiffs would rely thereon, and further that Plaintiffs 

would act based on the information provided to them. 

254. Plaintiffs believed the information provided to them was true and 

further believed that Defendant and its officers, directors, agents, and employees 

had disclosed all material information. 

255. Plaintiffs did justifiable rely on these and other statements made by 

the Defendant, through its officers, directors, agents, and/or employees to the 

Plaintiffs detriment. 

256. Plaintiffs have been damaged thereby. 

257. This claim arises out of contract, entitling Plaintiffs to an award of 

attorney’s fees pursuant to A.R.S. §12-341.01 or the written terms of any 

agreements between the parties. 

COUNT X 

(For Misrepresentation) 

258. Plaintiffs reassert and incorporate all of the allegations contained in 

the foregoing paragraphs as though more fully set forth herein.

– 38 –

Case 2:15-cv-02292-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 38 of 42
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 

259. Upon information and belief, and pleading in the alternative, if the 

actions of the Defendant and/or its officers, directors, agents, or employees did not 

constitute fraud, they constituted negligent misrepresentation. 

260. Defendant ENG Lending, its officers, directors, agent, or employees, 

had a duty not to misrepresent facts to the Plaintiffs, and Defendant ENG Lending 

breached its duty resulting in serious damage to the Plaintiffs in an amount to be 

proved at trial. 

261. The information that Defendant ENG Lending disclosed by and 

through its officers, directors, agents, or employees was false, or Defendant failed to 

disclose all material information as described in the preceding paragraphs. 

262. Defendant ENG Lending and its officers, directors, agents, or 

employees provided (or withheld) this information with the intent that the Plaintiffs

would rely thereon. 

263. Defendant ENG Lending and its officers, directors, agents, or 

employees failed to exercise reasonable care in communicating relevant information 

to the Plaintiffs. 

264. Plaintiffs justifiably relied to their detriment on the information 

provided to him by the Defendant ENG Lending, its officers, directors, agents, or 

employees. 

265. Plaintiffs were damaged in an amount to be proved at trial. 

266. This claim arises out of contract, entitling Plaintiffs to an award of 

attorney’s fees pursuant to A.R.S. §12-341.01 or the written terms of any 

agreements between the parties.

COUNT XI 

– 39 –

Case 2:15-cv-02292-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 39 of 42
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 

(For Quantum Merit or Quantum Valebant) 

267. Plaintiffs reassert and incorporate all of the allegations contained in 

the foregoing paragraphs as though more fully set forth herein.

268. Plaintiffs are entitled to exercise their rights and privileges granted in 

the agreements between the parties. 

269. Plaintiffs are further entitled to a judicial determination of their 

rights arising from the agreements of the parties, including a determination of the 

obligations of the parties thereto. 

270. Without limitation to the other acts or omissions described herein, 

Defendant ENG Lending wrongfully deprived the Plaintiffs of their income and/or 

other property. 

271. Plaintiffs have been impoverished and have suffered financially as a 

result of Defendant ENG Lending’s failure to remit to Plaintiffs. 

272. Plaintiffs’ impoverishments are a direct result of the Defendant ENG 

Lending’s acts and omissions.

273. By Defendant ENG Lending’s failure to remit the wages to Plaintiffs, 

to return funds wrongfully withheld, to reimburse Plaintiff Barrett Financial Group 

for operational expenses and lease payments, or to deliver such other benefits owed 

to the Plaintiffs Defendants have been unjustly enriched. 

274. There is no legal or equitable justification for either the enrichment of 

the Defendants or for the corresponding impoverishment of the Plaintiffs. 

275. In the alternative to any legal claims otherwise set forth in this 

Complaint, Plaintiffs have no remedy at law for the Defendants’ actions.

276. Defendants have been unjustly enriched thereby. 

– 40 –

Case 2:15-cv-02292-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 40 of 42
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 

277. These claims arise out of contract, entitling Plaintiffs to an award of 

attorneys’ fees pursuant to ARS §12-341.01 or the written terms of any agreements 

between the parties. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully demand judgment against Defendants, 

jointly and severally, as follows: 

A. For an award of general damages in the amount of $3,000,000.00 

(Dollars), together with accrued interest through the date of the filing this 

Complaint, and continuing to accrue on the principal balance owed at the rate of 

12.5% per annum, until paid, after deducting all payment and just credits; and 

B. For judgment against Defendant ENG Lending finding that it 

misclassified Plaintiff Trevor Barrett and other employees as exempt; and 

C. For judgment against Defendant ENG Lending for Plaintiff Trevor 

Barrett for unpaid back wages, and for back wages at the applicable overtime rates, 

together with an amount equal to their damages as liquidated damages; and 

D. For a finding that Defendant ENG Lending’s violations of state and 

federal wage and employment laws were willful; and 

E. For treble damages pursuant to A.R.S. §23-355(A); and 

F. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Plaintiffs, 

pursuant to the express terms of the Agreement, ARS §§12-340 and 12-341.01(A), 

and any other applicable law, with interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per 

annum from the date of the judgment, until paid, plus attorneys’ fees of not less 

than $12,500.00 pursuant to Rule 55(b)(1) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure in 

the event of a judgment by default; and 

– 41 –

Case 2:15-cv-02292-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 41 of 42
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 

G. For taxable costs incurred by Plaintiffs, as defined by statute; and 

H. For an award of prejudgment interest (to the extent liquidated 

damages are not awarded); and 

I. For leave to amend to add additional state and federal law claims; and 

J. For post-judgment interest on any monetary award at the statutory 

rate; and

K. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and 

appropriate.

Date: November 12, 2015. Respectfully Submitted,

 /s/ Roger A. Wright 

 ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

 Roger A. Wright (SBN 014105) 

 WRIGHT LAW FIRM, PLC 

 1013 S Stapley Drive 

 Mesa, Arizona 85204 

 Telephone: (480) 558-1700 

 Email: office@wrightlawaz.com

 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

 Barrett Financial Group, LLC and 

 Trevor Barrett

– 42 –

Case 2:15-cv-02292-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 42 of 42