-1-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, Arizona 85060

Clifford P. Bendau, II (030204)

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

6350 East Thomas Road, Suite 330

Scottsdale, Arizona 85251

Telephone: (480) 296-7887

Facsimile: (480) 429-3679

Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com

Attorney for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Tamicka Toliver,

 Plaintiff, 

vs.

Stetson Desert Project LLC d/b/a Le Girls 

Cabaret, Cory J. Anderson, and Cary 

Anderson,

 Defendants,

No. __________________________

COMPLAINT

(Demand for Jury Trial)

COMES NOW Plaintiff, Tamicka Toliver (“Plaintiff”), individually, by and through 

the undersigned attorney and sues the Defendants, Stetson Desert Project LLC d/b/a Le 

Girls Cabaret (“Defendant Stetson”), Cory J. Anderson, and Cary Anderson (collectively 

“Defendants”) and she alleges as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

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

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

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

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

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

Case 2:15-cv-02564-SMM Document 1 Filed 12/16/15 Page 1 of 13
-2-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, Arizona 85060

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

U.S.C. § 206(a). Under the FLSA, employers must pay all non-exempt employees one and 

one half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. 

See 29 U.S.C § 207.

3. The Arizona Wage Act, and Arizona Revised Statutes (“ARS”) § 23-363, 

establishes a minimum wage within the State of Arizona. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

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

United States. This Court also has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1367 

because the state law claims asserted herein are so related to claims in this action over which 

this Court has subject matter jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy 

under Article III of the United States Constitution.

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

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

regularly conduct business in and have engaged in the wrongful conduct alleged herein –

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

PARTIES

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

Arizona, and is a former employee of Defendants.

7. At all material times, Defendant Stetson was a limited liability company duly 

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

Case 2:15-cv-02564-SMM Document 1 Filed 12/16/15 Page 2 of 13
-3-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, Arizona 85060

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

Arizona.

8. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant Stetson Desert 

Project LLC. At all relevant times, Defendant Stetson Desert Project LLC, acting through its 

agents, representatives, employees, managers, members, and/or other representatives had 

the authority to hire and fire employees, supervised and controlled work schedules or the 

conditions of employment, determined the rate and method of payment, and maintained 

employment records in connection with Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant Stetson 

Desert Project LLC. In any event, at all relevant times, Defendant Stetson Desert Project

was an employer subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and employed Plaintiff.

9. At all relevant times, Defendant Cory J. Anderson owns, operates as a 

manager of, operates as a member of, and/or possesses a similar interest in Stetson Desert 

Project, LLC. At all relevant times, Defendant Cory J. Anderson had the authority to hire 

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

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

records in connection with Plaintiff’s employment with Stetson Desert Project, LLC. In any 

event, at all relevant times, Defendant Cory J. Anderson was an employer subject to the 

FLSA and employed Plaintiff.

10. Upon information and belief, Defendant Cory J. Anderson was and continues 

to be a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona.

11. Jane Doe Anderson is the fictitious name for Defendant Cory J. Anderson’s

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

Case 2:15-cv-02564-SMM Document 1 Filed 12/16/15 Page 3 of 13
-4-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, Arizona 85060

amended accordingly. Cory J. Anderson and Jane Doe Anderson have caused events to take 

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

12. At all relevant times, Defendant Cary Anderson owns, operates as a manager 

of, operates as a member of, and/or possesses a similar interest in Stetson Desert Project, 

LLC. At all relevant times, Defendant Cary Anderson had the authority to hire and fire 

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

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

connection with Plaintiff’s Employment with Stetson Desert Project, LLC. In any event, at 

all relevant times, Defendant Cary Anderson was an employer subject to the FLSA and 

employed Plaintiff.

13. Upon information and belief, Defendant Cary Anderson was and continues to 

be a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona.

14. Jane Doe Anderson is the fictitious name for Defendant Cary Anderson’s

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

amended accordingly. Cary Anderson and Jane Doe Anderson have caused events to take 

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

15. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was an “employee” of Stetson Desert Project, 

LLC, Cory J. Anderson, and Cary Anderson as defined by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.

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

Desert Project, LLC, Cory J. Anderson, and Cary Anderson.

17. At all relevant times, Stetson Desert Project, LLC, Cory J. Anderson, and Cary 

Anderson were and continue to be “employers” as defined by FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.

Case 2:15-cv-02564-SMM Document 1 Filed 12/16/15 Page 4 of 13
-5-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, Arizona 85060

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

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

19. Plaintiff, in her work for Defendants, was employed by an enterprise engaged 

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

NATURE OF THE CLAIM

20. Defendants own and/or operate as Stetson Desert Project, LLC d/b/a Le 

Girls Cabaret, an enterprise located in Maricopa County, Arizona.

21. Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a dancer, and Plaintiff worked 

for Defendants between approximately August 1, 2013 and October 31, 2014, when Plaintiff 

left her employment with Defendants. 

22. Defendant improperly classified Plaintiff as an independent contractor. 

However, at all times, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants.

23. Plaintiff was compensated exclusively through tips from Defendants’ 

customers.

24. Defendants hired/fired, issued pay, supervised, directed, disciplined, 

scheduled, and performed all other duties generally associated with that of an employer with 

regard to Plaintiff.

25. Defendants instructed Plaintiff about when, where, and how to perform her 

work.

26. The following further demonstrates Plaintiff’s status as an employee

a. Defendants had the sole right to hire and fire;

Case 2:15-cv-02564-SMM Document 1 Filed 12/16/15 Page 5 of 13
-6-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, Arizona 85060

b. Defendants required Plaintiff to complete an employee application and 

participate in an interview as a prerequisite to her employment;

c. Little to no skill was required for the work that Plaintiff performed;

d. Defendants made the decision not to pay any wage or overtime;

e. Defendants provided Plaintiff with musical equipment and a performance 

stage;

f. Defendants supervised Plaintiff and subjected Plaintiff to house rules;

g. Defendants subjected Plaintiff to set house fees that Plaintiff was required to 

pay to Defendants;

h. Defendants set minimum prices for couch, VIP, table, and “curtain” dances;

i. Defendants required that Plaintiff actively participate in the promotion of Le 

Girls;

j. Plaintiff has no financial investment with Defendants’ business;

k. Plaintiff had no opportunity for profit or loss in the business;

l. The services rendered by Plaintiff in her work for Defendants was integral to 

Defendants’ business;

m. Plaintiff was hired as a permanent employee, working for Defendants for 

approximately one year, three months. 

27. Defendants classified Plaintiff as an independent contractor to avoid 

Defendants’ obligation to pay Plaintiff, and as such Defendant paid Plaintiff no wage 

whatsoever for any hours Plaintiff worked for Defendant.

Case 2:15-cv-02564-SMM Document 1 Filed 12/16/15 Page 6 of 13
-7-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, Arizona 85060

28. As a result of Defendants’ failure to pay any wage, Plaintiff was forced to 

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

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

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

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

failure to pay to Plaintiff any wage whatsoever would violate federal and state law, and 

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

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

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

Plaintiff the full applicable minimum wage for all hours worked during her regular 

workweeks.

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

worked for Defendants, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff any wage whatsoever. In doing so, 

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

performed for Defendants, such that the average of Plaintiff’s hourly wages was less than the 

applicable minimum wage, in willful violation of 29 U.S.C. § 206(a). 

33. For example, during workweek of July 28, 2014, Defendants failed to pay 

Plaintiff any wage whatsoever. In doing so, Defendants paid Plaintiff less than the overall 

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

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

29 U.S.C. § 206(a). 

Case 2:15-cv-02564-SMM Document 1 Filed 12/16/15 Page 7 of 13
-8-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, Arizona 85060

34. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendants owe her similar wages 

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

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

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

burden of overcoming such testimony shifts to the employer.

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

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

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

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

36. As such, full minimum wage, as well as any applicable overtime wages, is owed 

to Plaintiff for all hours worked.

37. Defendants also failed to pay Plaintiff one and one half times the applicable 

regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week.

38. For example, during workweek of July 28, 2014, Defendants failed to pay 

Plaintiff one and one half times the applicable regular rate of pay for all hours Plaintiff 

worked in excess of 40. In doing so, Defendants paid Plaintiff less than the required

overtime wage rate for such work that Plaintiff worked for Defendants, in willful violation of 

29 U.S.C. § 207(a). 

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

overtime wage for such hours worked, Defendants have violated 29 U.S.C. § 207.

Case 2:15-cv-02564-SMM Document 1 Filed 12/16/15 Page 8 of 13
-9-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, Arizona 85060

40. Defendants also regularly and consistently charged Plaintiff a “house fee” per 

shift and required that she share her tips with other employees who do not customarily and 

regularly receive tips.

41. As a result of Defendants requirement that Plaintiff pay fees and share her tips 

with other employees who do not customarily and regularly receive tips, Plaintiff’s pay was 

brought below the applicable minimum, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 206(a).

42. In failing to pay Plaintiff any wage whatsoever, Defendants failed to 

compensate Plaintiff at a rate greater than or equal to Arizona’s required minimum wage.

43. As a result of Defendants’ willful failure to compensate Plaintiff at the 

applicable Arizona minimum wage, Defendants have violated the Arizona Minimum Wage 

Act, ARS § 23-363.

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

Standards Act (“FLSA”).

45. Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee.

46. Defendants refused and/or failed to properly disclose to or apprise Plaintiff of

his rights under the FLSA.

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

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

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

Defendants compensation for unpaid wages, an additional amount equal amount as 

liquidated damages, interest, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of this action under 29 

U.S.C. § 216(b).

Case 2:15-cv-02564-SMM Document 1 Filed 12/16/15 Page 9 of 13
-10-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, Arizona 85060

COUNT ONE: FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

COMPLETE FAILURE TO PAY WAGES

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

paragraphs.

50. Defendants’ practice of failing to pay Plaintiff at the required minimum wage 

rate violates the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 206(a). In fact, Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff 

whatsoever for any hours worked.

51. None of the exemptions provided by the FLSA regulating the duty of 

employers to pay employees for all hours worked at the required minimum wage rate are 

applicable to Defendants or Plaintiff.

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

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

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

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Tamicka Toliver, individually, respectfully requests that 

this Court grant relief in Plaintiff’s favor, and against Defendants Stetson Desert Project, 

LLC, Cory J. Anderson, Cary Anderson, the marital community of Cory J. Anderson and 

Jane Doe Anderson, and the marital community of Cary Anderson and Jane Doe Anderson,

for compensation for unpaid minimum wages, plus an additional equal amount as liquidated 

damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorney fees, costs, and 

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

COUNT TWO: FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME

Case 2:15-cv-02564-SMM Document 1 Filed 12/16/15 Page 10 of 13
-11-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, Arizona 85060

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

paragraphs.

54. Defendants’ practice of failing to pay Plaintiff one and one half times the 

applicable hourly rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week violates the 

FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207. In fact, Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff whatsoever for any 

hours worked.

55. None of the exemptions provided by the FLSA regulating the duty of 

employers to pay overtime at a rate not less than one and one half times the applicable 

hourly rate at which employees are employed are applicable to Defendants or Plaintiff.

56. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to compensation at the applicable overtime rate 

for all hours worked in excess of forty per week, to be proven at trial, plus an additional 

equal amount as liquidated damages, together with interest, reasonable attorney’s fees, and 

costs.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Tamicka Toliver, individually, respectfully requests that 

this Court grant relief in Plaintiff’s favor, and against Defendants Stetson Desert Project, 

LLC, Cory J. Anderson, Cary Anderson, the marital community of Cory J. Anderson and 

Jane Doe Anderson, and the marital community of Cary Anderson and Jane Doe Anderson,

for compensation for unpaid overtime wages, plus an additional equal amount as liquidated 

damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorney fees, costs, and 

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

Case 2:15-cv-02564-SMM Document 1 Filed 12/16/15 Page 11 of 13
-12-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, Arizona 85060

COUNT THREE: ARIZONA MINIMUM WAGE ACT

FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGE

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

paragraphs.

58. Defendants’ practice of willfully failing to pay Plaintiff wages at the rate of the 

Arizona Minimum Wage violates the Arizona Minimum Wage Act, ARS § 23-363. In fact, 

Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff whatsoever for any hours she worked.

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

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

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

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Tamicka Toliver, individually, respectfully requests that 

this Court grant relief in Plaintiff’s favor, and against Defendants Stetson Desert Project, 

LLC, Cory J. Anderson, Cary Anderson, the marital community of Cory J. Anderson and 

Jane Doe Anderson, and the marital community of Cary Anderson and Jane Doe Anderson,

for compensation for unpaid minimum wages, plus an additional amount equal to twice the 

unpaid wages as liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable 

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

deems just and proper.

COUNT FOUR: ARIZONA WAGE LAW

FAILURE TO PAY WAGES DUE

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

paragraphs.

Case 2:15-cv-02564-SMM Document 1 Filed 12/16/15 Page 12 of 13
-13-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, Arizona 85060

61. Defendants’ practice of willfully failing to pay Plaintiff wages for labor 

performed violates Arizona Wage Law, ARS § 23-351. In fact, Defendants did not 

compensate Plaintiff any wage whatsoever for any hours worked.

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

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

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

attorney fees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Tamicka Toliver, individually, respectfully requests that 

this Court grant relief in Plaintiff’s favor, and against Defendants Stetson Desert Project, 

LLC, Cory J. Anderson, Cary Anderson, the marital community of Cory J. Anderson and 

Jane Doe Anderson, and the marital community of Cary Anderson and Jane Doe Anderson

for compensation for an amount that is treble the amount of unpaid wages, plus reasonable 

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

deems just and proper.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

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

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 17th day of December, 2015.

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM, PLLC

By: /s/ Clifford P. Bendau, II 

Clifford P. Bendau, II

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 2:15-cv-02564-SMM Document 1 Filed 12/16/15 Page 13 of 13