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

DAVID DAVIS, No. 030754

(602) 288-1610 ext. 301

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Nawwar Alo, individually; and Haifaa 

Ibrahim, individually, and as husband and 

wife

 Plaintiffs,

 vs.

The Sanctuary of Scottsdale, LLC, an 

Arizona limited liability company; All 

Assisted Living, LLC, an Arizona limited 

liability company; Louis Cohen, 

individually, and Jane Doe Cohen, 

individually, and as husband and wife; 

Michael Debenon, individually, and Jane 

Doe Debenon, individually, and as husband 

and wife; Carmine Freda, individually, and 

Jane Doe Freda,individually and as 

husband and wife; Ciprian Ionutescu, 

individually, and Jane Doe Ionutescu, 

individually and as husband and wife; 

Sherri Lopez, individually, and John Doe 

Lopez, individually and as husband and 

wife; Michael Lu, individually, and Jane 

Doe Lu, individually and as husband and 

wife,

 Defendants

Case No.: ________________________

COMPLAINT

Case 2:16-cv-00300-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 1 of 32
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

Plaintiffs Nawwar Alo and Haifaa Ibrahim, for their Complaint against 

Defendants, 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).

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 Defendants for unlawful failure to pay 

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

seq. (“FLSA”).

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

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

hours worked over forty (40) hours per week.

Case 2:16-cv-00300-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 2 of 32
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

5. Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid overtime compensation and an equal amount 

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

costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

6. Plaintiffs also bring this action against Defendants for unlawful failure to pay 

failure to pay minimum wage in direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) 

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

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

minimum wage.

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

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

9. 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).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case 2:16-cv-00300-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 3 of 32
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

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

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

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

personal jurisdiction of this Court.

PARTIES

13. At all times material hereto, Plaintiffs were residents of Maricopa County, 

Arizona. 

14. At all times material hereto, The Sanctuary of Scottsdale, LLC was 

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

County, Arizona.

15. At all times material hereto, All Assisted Living, LLC was incorporated in 

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

16. Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, Defendants Louis 

and Jane Doe Cohen, were and continue to be residents of Maricopa County, Arizona.

17. Jane Doe Cohen is Louis Cohen’s wife. Louis and Jane Doe Cohen have 

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

community is fully liable.

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

from the Arizona Corporate Commission, Defendants Louis and Jane Doe Cohen were 

the owners of the Sanctuary of Scottsdale, LLC.

19. Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, Defendants 

Michael and Jane Doe Debenon, were and continue to be residents of Maricopa County, 

Case 2:16-cv-00300-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 4 of 32
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

Arizona.

20. Jane Doe Debenon is Michael Debenon’s wife. Michael and Jane Doe 

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

marital community is fully liable.

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

from the Arizona Corporate Commission, Defendants Michael and Jane Doe Debenon 

were the owners of the Sanctuary of Scottsdale, LLC and All Assisted Living, LLC.

22. Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, Defendants 

Carmine and Jane Doe Freda, were and continue to be residents of Maricopa County, 

Arizona.

23. Jane Doe Freda is Carmine Freda’s wife. Carmine and Jane Doe Freda have 

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

community is fully liable.

24. Upon information and belief, and consistent with information available 

from the Arizona Corporate Commission, Defendants Carmine and Jane Doe Freda were 

the owners of All Assisted Living, LLC.

25. Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, Defendants 

Ciprian and Jane Doe Ionutescu, were and continue to be residents of Maricopa County, 

Arizona.

26. Jane Doe Ionutescu is Ciprian Ionutescu’s wife. Ciprian and Jane Doe 

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

marital community is fully liable.

Case 2:16-cv-00300-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 5 of 32
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

27. Upon information and belief, and consistent with information available 

from the Arizona Corporate Commission, Defendants Ciprian and Jane Doe Ionutescu 

were the owners of All Assisted Living, LLC.

28. Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, Defendants Sherri 

and John Doe Lopez, were and continue to be residents of Maricopa County, Arizona.

29. John Doe Lopez is Sherri Lopez’s husband. Sherri and John Doe Lopez 

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

community is fully liable.

30. Upon information and belief, Defendants Sheri and John Doe Lopez were 

the owners of the Sanctuary of Scottsdale, LLC.

31. Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, Defendants 

Michael and Jane Doe Lu, were and continue to be residents of Maricopa County, 

Arizona.

32. Jane Doe Lu is Michael Lu’s wife. Michael and Jane Doe Lu have caused 

events to take place giving rise to this Complaint as to which their marital community is 

fully liable.

33. Upon information and belief, Defendants Michael and Jane Doe Lue were 

the owners of the Sanctuary of Scottsdale, LLC.

34. Defendants the Sanctuary of Scottsdale, LLC, and All Assisted Living, LLC, 

each could hire or fire caregivers.

35. Defendants the Sanctuary of Scottsdale, LLC, and All Assisted Living, LLC, 

each had authority to set the wages of caregivers.

Case 2:16-cv-00300-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 6 of 32
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

36. Defendants the Sanctuary of Scottsdale, LLC, and All Assisted Living, LLC, 

each had the authority to control the manner in which caregivers performed their work, 

including instructing caregivers when and where to report to work.

37. Defendants the Sanctuary of Scottsdale, LLC, and All Assisted Living, LLC, 

each had control over caregiver’s working conditions.

38. Defendants the Sanctuary of Scottsdale, LLC, and All Assisted Living, LLC, 

each suffered and permitted Plaintiffs to work.

39. Defendants the Sanctuary of Scottsdale, LLC, and All Assisted Living, LLC, 

each engaged Plaintiffs to perform the work of a caregiver.

40. Plaintiffs were always under the understanding that they worked for 

Defendants as a whole, not any single entity. Defendants are joint employers of Plaintiffs 

under the FLSA and for purposes of this complaint Sanctuary of Scottsdale, LLC, and All 

Assisted Living, LLC shall be called “Defendants” collectively. 

41. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs were “employees” of Defendants, as defined 

by 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(1). 

42. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs were “employees” of Defendants, as defined 

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

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

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

“employer.”

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

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

Case 2:16-cv-00300-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 7 of 32
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

46. Each Defendant is an “employer” as defined in A.R.S. §§ 23-350 or 23-

362(B) (Version 2).

47. Defendant Louis Cohen is deemed an “employer” for purposes of the FLSA, 

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

48. Defendant Louis Cohen is deemed an “employer” for purposes of the 

Arizona Minimum Wage Laws, including, without limitation, A.R.S. §§ 23-350 or 23-

362(B) (Version 2).

49. Defendant Jane Doe Cohen is deemed an “employer” for purposes of the 

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

50. Defendant Jane Doe Cohen is deemed an “employer” for purposes of the 

Arizona Minimum Wage Laws, including, without limitation, A.R.S. §§ 23-350 or 23-

362(B)(Version 2).

51. Defendant Michael Debenon is deemed an “employer” for purposes of the 

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

52. Defendant Michael Debenon is deemed an “employer” for purposes of the 

Arizona Minimum Wage Laws, including, without limitation, A.R.S §§ 23-350 or 23-

362(B)(Version 2).

53. Defendant Jane Doe Debenon is deemed an “employer” for purposes of the 

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

54. Defendant Jane Doe Debenon is deemed an “employer” for purposes of the 

Arizona Minimum Wage Laws, including, without limitation, A.R.S. §§ 23-350 or 23-

362(B)(Version 2).

Case 2:16-cv-00300-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 8 of 32
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

55. Defendant Carmine Freda is deemed an “employer” for purposes of the 

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

56. Defendant Carmine Freda is deemed an “employer” for purposes of the 

Arizona Minimum Wage Laws, including, without limitation, A.R.S. §§ 23-350 or 23-

362(B)(Version 2).

57. Defendant Jane Doe Freda is deemed an “employer” for purposes of the 

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

58. Defendant Jane Doe Freda is deemed an “employer” for purposes of the 

Arizona Minimum Wage Laws, including, without limitation, A.R.S. §§ 23-350 or 23-

362(B)(Version 2).

59. Defendant Ciprian Ionutescu is deemed an “employer” for purposes of the 

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

60. Defendant Ciprian Ionutescu is deemed an “employer” for purposes of the 

Arizona Minimum Wage Laws, including, without limitation, A.R.S. §§ 23-350 or 23-

362(B)(Version 2).

61. Defendant Jane Doe Ionutescu is deemed an “employer” for purposes of the 

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

62. Defendant Jane Doe Ionutescu is deemed an “employer” for purposes of the 

Arizona Minimum Wage Laws, including, without limitation, A.R.S. §§ 23-350 or 23-

362(B)(Version 2).

63. Defendant Sherri Lopez is deemed an “employer” for purposes of the FLA, 

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

Case 2:16-cv-00300-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 9 of 32
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

64. Defendant Sherri Lopez is deemed an “employer” for purposes of the 

Arizona Minimum Wage Laws, including, without limitation, A.R.S. §§ 23-350 or 23-

362(B)(Version 2).

65. Defendant John Doe Lopez is deemed an “employer” for purposes of the 

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

66. Defendant John Doe Lopez is deemed an “employer” for purposes of the 

Arizona Minimum Wage Laws, including, without limitation, A.R.S. §§ 23-350 or 23-

362(B)(Version 2).

67. Defendant Michael Lu is deemed an employer for purposes of the FLSA, 

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

68. Defendant Michael Lu is deemed an employer for purposes of the Arizona 

Minimum Wage Laws, including, without limitation, A.R.S. §§ 23-350 or 23-

362(B)(Version 2). 

69. Defendant Jane Doe Lu is deemed an “employer” for purposes of the FLSA, 

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

70. Defendant Jane Doe Lue is deemed an “employer” for purposes of the 

Arizona Minimum Wage Laws, including, without limitation, A.R.S. §§ 23-350 or 23-

362(B)(Version 2).

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

72. Defendant Louis Cohen made all decisions on the daily activities of his

employees and is therefore individually liable under the FLSA and the Arizona Minimum 

Wage Laws.

Case 2:16-cv-00300-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 10 of 32
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

73. Defendant Jane Doe Cohen made all decisions on the daily activities of her 

employees and is therefore individually liable under the FLSA and the Arizona Minimum 

Wage Laws.

74. Defendant Michael Debenon made all decisions on the daily activities of his 

employees and is therefore individually liable under the FLSA and the Arizona Minimum 

Wage Laws.

75. Defendant Jane Doe Debenon made all decisions on the daily activities of her

employees and is therefore individually liable under the FLSA and the Arizona Minimum 

Wage Laws.

76. Defendant Carmine Freda made all decisions on the daily activities of his 

employees and is therefore individually liable under the FLSA and the Arizona Minimum 

Wage Laws.

77. Defendant Jane Doe Freda made all decisions on the daily activities of her

employees and is therefore individually liable under the FLSA and the Arizona Minimum 

Wage Laws.

78. Defendant Ciprian Ionutescu made all decisions on the daily activities of his 

employees and is therefore individually liable under the FLSA and the Arizona Minimum 

Wage Laws.

79. Defendant Jane Doe Ionutescu made all decisions on the daily activities of 

her employees and is therefore individually liable under the FLSA and the Arizona 

Minimum Wage Laws.

Case 2:16-cv-00300-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 11 of 32
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

80. Defendant Sherri Lopez made all decisions on the daily activities of her 

employees and is therefore individually liable under the FLSA and the Arizona Minimum 

Wage Laws.

81. Defendant John Doe Lopez made all decisions on the daily activities of his 

employees and is therefore individually liable under the FLSA and the Arizona Minimum 

Wage Laws.

82. Defendant Michael Lu made all decisions on the daily activities of his 

employees and is therefore individually liable under the FLSA and the Arizona Minimum 

Wage Laws.

83. Defendant Jane Doe Lu made all decisions on the daily activities of her 

employees and is therefore individually liable under the FLSA and the Arizona Minimum 

Wage Laws.

84. Defendant Louis Cohen makes all decisions regarding pay policies for the 

Sanctuary of Scottsdale, LLC.

85. Defendant Jane Doe Cohen makes all decisions regarding pay policies for the 

Sanctuary of Scottsdale, LLC.

86. Defendant Michael Debenon makes all decisions regarding pay policies for 

the Sanctuary of Scottsdale, LLC and All Assisted Living, LLC.

87. Defendant Jane Doe Debenon makes all decisions regarding pay policies for 

the Sanctuary of Scottsdale, LLC and All Assisted Living, LLC.

88. Defendant Carmine Freda makes all decisions regarding pay policies for All 

Assisted Living, LLC.

Case 2:16-cv-00300-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 12 of 32
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

89. Defendant Jane Doe Freda makes all decisions regarding pay policies for All 

Assisted Living, LLC.

90. Defendant Ciprian Ionutescu makes all decisions regarding pay policies for 

All Assisted Living, LLC.

91. Defendant Jane Doe Ionutescu makes all decisions regarding pay policies for 

All Assisted Living, LLC.

92. Defendant Sherri Lopez makes all decisions regarding pay policies for All 

Assisted Living, LLC.

93. Defendant John Doe Lopez makes all decisions regarding pay policies for All 

Assisted Living, LLC.

94. Defendant Michael Lu makes all decisions regarding pay policies for All 

Assisted Living, LLC.

95. Defendant Jane Doe Lu makes all decisions regarding pay policies for All 

Assisted Living, LLC.

96. Defendant Louis Cohen exerted financial control over the Sanctuary of 

Scottsdale, LLC.

97. Defendant Jane Doe Cohen exerted financial control over the Sanctuary of 

Scottsdale, LLC.

98. Defendant Michael Debenon exerted financial control over the Sanctuary of 

Scottsdale, LLC and All Assisted Living, LLC.

99. Defendant Jane Doe Debenon exerted financial control over the Sanctuary of 

Scottsdale, LLC, and All Assisted Living, LLC.

Case 2:16-cv-00300-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 13 of 32
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

100. Defendant Carmine Freda exerted financial control over All Assisted Living, 

LLC.

101. Defendant Jane Doe Freda exerted financial control over All Assisted Living, 

LLC.

102. Defendant Ciprian Ionutescu exerted financial control over All Assisted 

Living, LLC.

103. Defendant Jane Doe Ionutescu exerted financial control over All Assisted 

Living, LLC.

104. Defendant Sherri Lopez exerted financial control over All Assisted Living, 

LLC.

105. Defendant John Doe Lopez exerted financial control over All Assisted 

Living, LLC.

106. Defendant Michael Lu exerted financial control over All Assisted Living, 

LLC.

107. Defendant Jane Doe Lu exerted financial control over All Assisted Living, 

LLC.

108. Defendant Louis Cohen exerted operational control over the Sanctuary of 

Scottsdale, LLC.

109. Defendant Jane Doe Cohen exerted operational control over the Sanctuary of 

Scottsdale, LLC.

110. Defendant Michael Debenon exerted operational control over the Sanctuary 

of Scottsdale, LLC and All Assisted Living, LLC.

Case 2:16-cv-00300-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 14 of 32
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

111. Defendant Jane Doe Debenon exerted operational control over the Sanctuary 

of Scottsdale, LLC, and All Assisted Living, LLC.

112. Defendant Carmine Freda exerted operational control over All Assisted 

Living, LLC.

113. Defendant Jane Doe Freda exerted operational control over All Assisted 

Living, LLC.

114. Defendant Ciprian Ionutescu exerted operational control over All Assisted 

Living, LLC.

115. Defendant Jane Doe Ionutescu exerted operational control over All Assisted 

Living, LLC.

116. Defendant Sherri Lopez exerted operational control over All Assisted Living, 

LLC.

117. Defendant John Doe Lopez exerted operational control over All Assisted 

Living, LLC.

118. Defendant Michael Lu exerted operational control over All Assisted Living, 

LLC.

119. Defendant Jane Doe Lu exerted operational control over All Assisted Living, 

LLC.

120. Defendant Louis Cohen has the power to close the Sanctuary of Scottsdale, 

LLC.

121. Defendant Jane Doe Cohen has the power to close the Sanctuary of 

Scottsdale, LLC.

Case 2:16-cv-00300-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 15 of 32
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

122. Defendant Michael Debenon has the power to close the Sanctuary of 

Scottsdale, LLC and All Assisted Living, LLC.

123. Defendant Jane Doe Debenon has the power to close the Sanctuary of 

Scottsdale, LLC, and All Assisted Living, LLC.

124. Defendant Carmine Freda has the power to close All Assisted Living, LLC.

125. Defendant Jane Doe Freda has the power to All Assisted Living, LLC.

126. Defendant Ciprian Ionutescu has the power to close All Assisted Living, 

LLC.

127. Defendant Jane Doe Ionutescu has the power to close All Assisted Living, 

LLC.

128. Defendant Sherri Lopez has the power to close All Assisted Living, LLC.

129. Defendant John Doe Lopez has the power to close All Assisted Living, LLC.

130. Defendant Michael Lu has the power to close All Assisted Living, LLC.

131. Defendant Jane Doe Lu has the power to close All Assisted Living, LLC.

132. Defendant Louis Cohen has the power to hire and fire employees.

133. Defendant Jane Doe Cohen has the power to hire and fire employees.

134. Defendant Michael Debenon has the power to hire and fire employees.

135. Defendant Jane Doe Debenon has the power to hire and fire employees.

136. Defendant Carmine Freda has the power to hire and fire employees.

137. Defendant Jane Doe Freda has the power to hire and fire employees.

138. Defendant Ciprian Ionutescu has the power to hire and fire employees.

139. Defendant Jane Doe Ionutescu has the power to hire and fire employees.

Case 2:16-cv-00300-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 16 of 32
Complaint Page 17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

140. Defendant Sherri Lopez has the power to hire and fire employees.

141. Defendant John Doe Lopez has the power to hire and fire employees.

142. Defendant Michael Lu has the power to hire and fire employees.

143. Defendant Jane Doe Lu has the power to hire and fire employees.

144. Defendant Louis Cohen hired managerial employees.

145. Defendant Jane Doe Cohen hired managerial employees.

146. Defendant Michael Debenon hired managerial employees.

147. Defendant Jane Doe Debenon hired managerial employees.

148. Defendant Carmine Freda hired managerial employees.

149. Defendant Jane Doe Freda hired managerial employees.

150. Defendant Ciprian Ionutescu hired managerial employees.

151. Defendant Jane Doe Ionutescu hired managerial employees.

152. Defendant Sherri Lopez hired managerial employees.

153. Defendant John Doe Lopez hired managerial employees.

154. Defendant Michael Lu hired managerial employees.

155. Defendant Jane Doe Lu hired managerial employees.

156. Upon information and belief, Defendant Louis Cohen maintained 

employment records.

157. Upon information and belief, Defendant Jane Doe Cohen maintained 

employment records.

158. Upon information and belief, Defendant Michael Debenon maintained 

employment records.

Case 2:16-cv-00300-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 17 of 32
Complaint Page 18

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

159. Upon information and belief, Defendant Jane Doe Debenon maintained 

employment records.

160. Upon information and belief, Defendant Carmine Freda maintained 

employment records.

161. Upon information and belief, Defendant Jane Doe Freda maintained 

employment records.

162. Upon information and belief, Defendant Ciprian Ionutescu maintained 

employment records.

163. Upon information and belief, Defendant Jane Doe Ionutescu maintained 

employment records.

164. Upon information and belief, Defendant Sherri Lopez maintained 

employment records.

165. Upon information and belief, Defendant John Doe Lopez maintained 

employment records.

166. Upon information and belief, Defendant Michael Lu maintained employment 

records.

167. Upon information and belief, Defendant Jane Doe Lu dictated the corporate 

message in pending labor investigations.

168. Upon information and belief, Defendant Louis Cohen dictated the corporate 

message in pending labor investigations.

169. Upon information and belief, Defendant Jane Doe Cohen dictated the 

corporate message in pending labor investigations.

Case 2:16-cv-00300-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 18 of 32
Complaint Page 19

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

170. Upon information and belief, Defendant Michael Debenon dictated the 

corporate message in pending labor investigations.

171. Upon information and belief, Defendant Jane Doe Debenon dictated the 

corporate message in pending labor investigations.

172. Upon information and belief, Defendant Carmine Freda dictated the 

corporate message in pending labor investigations.

173. Upon information and belief, Defendant Jane Doe Freda dictated the 

corporate message in pending labor investigations.

174. Upon information and belief, Defendant Ciprian Ionutescu dictated the 

corporate message in pending labor investigations.

175. Upon information and belief, Defendant Jane Doe Ionutescu dictated the 

corporate message in pending labor investigations.

176. Upon information and belief, Defendant Sherri Lopez dictated the corporate 

message in pending labor investigations.

177. Upon information and belief, Defendant John Doe Lopez dictated the 

corporate message in pending labor investigations.

178. Upon information and belief, Defendant Michael Lu dictated the corporate 

message in pending labor investigations.

179. Upon information and belief, Defendant Jane Doe Lu dictated the corporate 

message in pending labor investigations. 

180. Defendant Louis Cohen profited from the FLSA and Arizona Minimum 

Wage violations detailed in this complaint.

Case 2:16-cv-00300-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 19 of 32
Complaint Page 20

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

181. Defendant Jane Doe Cohen profited from the FLSA and Arizona Minimum 

Wage violations detailed in this complaint.

182. Defendant Michael Debenon profited from the FLSA and Arizona Minimum 

Wage violations detailed in this complaint.

183. Defendant Jane Doe Debenon profited from the FLSA and Arizona 

Minimum Wage violations detailed in this complaint.

184. Defendant Carmine Freda profited from the FLSA and Arizona Minimum 

Wage violations detailed in this complaint.

185. Defendant Jane Doe Freda profited from the FLSA and Arizona Minimum 

Wage violations detailed in this complaint.

186. Defendant Ciprian Ionutescu profited from the FLSA and Arizona Minimum 

Wage violations detailed in this complaint.

187. Defendant Jane Doe Ionutescu profited from the FLSA and Arizona 

Minimum Wage violations detailed in this complaint.

188. Defendant Sherri Lopez profited from the FLSA and Arizona Minimum 

Wage violations detailed in this complaint.

189. Defendant John Doe Lopez profited from the FLSA and Arizona Minimum 

Wage violations detailed in this complaint.

190. Defendant Michael Lu profited from the FLSA and Arizona Minimum Wage 

violations detailed in this complaint.

191. Defendant Jane Doe Lu profited from the FLSA and Arizona Minimum 

Wage violations detailed in this complaint.

Case 2:16-cv-00300-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 20 of 32
Complaint Page 21

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

192. 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).

193. Plaintiffs engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce 

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

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

194. Plaintiffs handled supplies, such as medicine, that originated out of state.

195. Plaintiffs were involved in transacting business across state lines via 

interstate telephone calls or the U. S. Mail which included taking new orders from 

customers.

196. Plaintiffs were involved in ordering or receiving goods from out-of-state 

suppliers.

197. Plaintiffs were involved in handling the accounting or bookkeeping for the 

ordering or receiving of goods from out-of-state suppliers.

198. Plaintiffs also handled credit card and check transactions that involved the 

interstate banking and finance systems.

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

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

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

200. Defendants operate an assisted care facilities in Phoenix and Tempe, 

Arizona. 

201. Defendants hired Plaintiff Nawwar Alo on March 15, 2014 as a caregiver.

Case 2:16-cv-00300-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 21 of 32
Complaint Page 22

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

202. Defendants hired Plaintiff Haifaa Ibrahim on March 1, 2014, as a caregiver.

203. As caregivers, Plaintiffs responsibilities included medication administration, 

medication refills, patient care, patient file review, accompanying patients to doctor 

visits, cooking, cleaning, changing, dressing, and bathing of patients, and assisting

patients with personal hygiene.

204. Defendants compensated Plaintiffs on a total monthly salary basis of $6,000

per month.

205. Plaintiffs’ pay did not fluctuate, it was a base salary.

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

regulations. 

207. Plaintiffs were non-exempt employee. 

208. Each Plaintiff had no supervision or management responsibilities. 

209. Each Plaintiff could neither hire nor fire employees.

210. Each Plaintiff had no authority to exercise significant independent judgment 

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

211. Defendants managed, supervised, and directed all aspects of each Plaintiff’s 

job duties and responsibilities.

212. Each Plaintiff’s primary duty was not the performance of work directly 

related to the management or general business operations of the Defendants, or their

customers. 

Case 2:16-cv-00300-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 22 of 32
Complaint Page 23

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

213. Each Plaintiff’s primary duty was not the performance of work requiring 

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

course of specialized intellectual instruction. 

214. Each Plaintiff did not perform work requiring advanced knowledge. 

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

216. Each Plaintiff did not have an advanced degree and was not required to have 

one to perform the work.

217. The knowledge required to perform the each Plaintiff’s job responsibilities is 

not acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual study.

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

judgment. 

219. Each Plaintiff’s work did not require them to analyze, interpret, or make 

deductions from varying facts or circumstances.

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

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

221. Each Plaintiff’s work did not require invention, imagination, originality, or 

talent.

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

interpretation. 

223. Each Plaintiff’s regular schedule was five days per week, 24 hours each day.

224. Plaintiffs were mandated to stay at the facility 24 hours each day so that the 

facility always had two caregivers on site pursuant to Arizona law. 

Case 2:16-cv-00300-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 23 of 32
Complaint Page 24

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

225. Plaintiffs did not have down time during their 24 hour shifts; they were 

mandated to care for every need of the patients. 

226. Plaintiffs did not receive five hours of uninterrupted sleep each night. 

Plaintiffs were awoken at all times of the night by patients to ensure their safety and wellbeing. 

227. Plaintiffs were required to administer medication at all times of the night.

228. Since many of the patients at the facility had Alzheimer’s or dementia, 

Plaintiffs were not able to receive five hours of uninterrupted sleep since these patients 

required around the clock care. 

229. During the five days per week Plaintiffs were working, they were not allowed 

to leave the facility for any reason. 

230. Each and every week that Plaintiffs have worked their regular schedule, they 

have worked over forty hours in a week. 

231. By improperly classifying Plaintiffs as exempt employees, Defendants are

depriving Plaintiffs upwards of sixty to one hundred hours of overtime pay each and 

every week. 

232. Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs overtime. 

233. Plaintiffs were not commissioned employees. 

234. As Plaintiffs worked upwards of approximately 120 hours each week and 

received approximately $750 in pay each week, the wages paid by Defendants failed to 

meet or exceed the minimum wage required by the FLSA.

Case 2:16-cv-00300-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 24 of 32
Complaint Page 25

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

235. As Plaintiffs worked upwards of approximately 120 hours each week and 

received approximately $750 in pay each week, the wages paid by Defendants failed to 

meet or exceed the minimum wage required by the Arizona’s Minimum Wage Act, 

A.R.S. § 23-362, et seq.

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

Law Firm to prosecute their claims against Defendants 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

237. Each of the Plaintiffs incorporates and adopts the preceding paragraphs as if 

fully set forth herein. 

238. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 206, Defendants were required to pay each of the 

Plaintiffs at least the amount of the federal minimum wage, when those wages were due, 

for each hour Plaintiffs worked.

239. Defendants willfully failed and refused to pay each of the Plaintiffs at least 

the amount of the federal minimum wage when those wages were due.

240. Each of the 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).

241. Each of the Plaintiffs have been required to bring this action to recover their 

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

Case 2:16-cv-00300-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 25 of 32
Complaint Page 26

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

damages, and as the direct and foreseeable result of Defendants’ conduct, each of the 

Plaintiffs have incurred costs and attorneys’ fees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that judgment be entered in their 

favor and against Defendants:

a. Awarding each of the Plaintiffs compensation in the amount due for 

unpaid minimum wages in an amount proved at trial;

b. Awarding each of the Plaintiffs liquidated damages in an amount equal 

to the award;

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

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

d. Awarding each of the 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 each of the 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

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

forth herein. 

Case 2:16-cv-00300-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 26 of 32
Complaint Page 27

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

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

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

Plaintiffs worked.

244. Defendants willfully failed and refused to pay Plaintiffs at least the amount 

of the Arizona minimum wage when those wages were due.

245. 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).

246. Plaintiffs have been required to bring this action to recover her Arizona 

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

and foreseeable result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs has incurred costs and attorneys’ 

fees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that judgment be entered in their 

favor, and against Defendants:

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 2:16-cv-00300-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 27 of 32
Complaint Page 28

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

OVERTIME VIOLATION—29 U.S.C. § 207

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

forth herein. 

248. While employed by Defendants, Plaintiffs regularly worked multiple hours of 

overtime per week.

249. Plaintiffs were non-exempt employees.

250. Defendants have intentionally and willfully failed and refused to pay 

Plaintiffs overtime according to the provisions of the FLSA.

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

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

accordance with 29 U.S.C. § 207.

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

Plaintiffs have suffered damages by failing to receive compensation in accordance with 

29 U.S.C. § 207.

Case 2:16-cv-00300-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 28 of 32
Complaint Page 29

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

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

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

per week.

254. In addition to the amount of unpaid wages owed to each Plaintiff, each 

Plaintiff is also entitled to recover an additional equal amount as liquidated damages 

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

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

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

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

Plaintiffs have been required to bring this action to recover their overtime compensation, 

and their statutory liquidated damages, and as the direct and foreseeable result of 

Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs have incurred costs and attorneys’ fees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that judgment be entered in their

favor against Defendants:

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

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

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

at work for Defendants, in an amount proved at trial;

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

overtime award;

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

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

Case 2:16-cv-00300-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 29 of 32
Complaint Page 30

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 each Plaintiff pre-judgment interest, at the highest legal rate, 

on all amounts awarded under subsections (a) and (b) above from the 

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

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

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

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

COUNT FOUR

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

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

forth herein. 

258. Plaintiffs and Defendants have an overtime compensation dispute pending.

259. The Court has jurisdiction to hear each Plaintiff’s request for declaratory 

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

260. Plaintiffs are entitled to declarations, and request that the Court make 

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

Court:

a. Defendants employed each Plaintiff.

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

of the FLSA.

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

FLSA.

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

Case 2:16-cv-00300-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 30 of 32
Complaint Page 31

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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

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

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

willful.

g. Each Plaintiff is entitled to damages in the amount of overtime 

compensation not paid by Defendants at the rate of one and one-half times 

each Plaintiff’s regular rate of pay.

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

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

incurred in prosecuting his claim.

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

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

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

purposes of the FLSA.

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

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

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that judgment be entered int heir

favor against Defendants:

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

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

violation of the overtime and wage provisions of the FLSA;

Case 2:16-cv-00300-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 31 of 32
Complaint Page 32

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

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

expenses of the litigation pursuant to the FLSA; and

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

Dated: February 2, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

PHILLIPS DAYES NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW 

FIRM PC

By: /s/ Trey Dayes

Trey Dayes

Sean Davis

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Case 2:16-cv-00300-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/02/16 Page 32 of 32