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 

Samuel R. Randall (024517) 

ROBAINA & KRESIN PLLC

5343 N. 16th Street, Suite 200 

Phoenix, Arizona 85016 

Telephone: (602) 682-6450 

Facsimile: (602) 682-6455 

srr@robainalaw.com 

Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant/Third Party Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

DrapeStyle, Inc., an Arizona corporation,

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

Amy Pearce, a single woman, 

 Defendant. 

_________________________________ Amy Pearce, a single woman, 

 Defendant/Counterclaimant,

v. 

DrapeStyle, Inc. an Arizona corporation, 

 Plaintiff/Counterdefendant. 

_________________________________ Amy Pearce, a single woman, 

 Third Party Plaintiff 

v. 

Ardith A. Andjelich and David N. 

Andjelich, 

 Third Party Defendants. 

No. CV15-2371-DKD 

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S 

COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIM 

AND THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT 

(Demand for Jury Trial)

 Defendant Amy Pearce (“Pearce”), by and through her undersigned counsel, 

states for her Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Complaint” or “Plaintiff’s Complaint”) 

as follows: 

Case 2:15-cv-02371-DKD Document 16 Filed 01/11/16 Page 1 of 19
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 

PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

1. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint. 

2. In responding to the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint, Defendant admits that she is a single woman who resides in California and 

alleges that during all relevant times was a California resident. Defendant further admits 

that she worked for Plaintiff DrapeStyle, Inc. (“DrapeStyle-AZ”) from late November 

2014 through her termination on August 14, 2015. Defendant admits that during some 

of the time she worked for DrapeStyle-AZ she worked out of Plaintiff’s office in 

Phoenix, Arizona. Defendant denies the remainder of the allegations contained in 

paragraph 2 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

3. In responding to the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint, Defendant admits that there is complete diversity but is without sufficient 

information to either admit or deny the allegation that the amount in controversy 

exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs and, therefore, denies the same. 

4. Defendant admits that Plaintiff is subject to personal jurisdiction in this 

District but denies that venue is appropriate in this Court or that conduct giving rise to 

this matter occurred in this District. Plaintiff denies that under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, venue 

is appropriate in this District. Rather the appropriate judicial district is the Central 

District of California as that judicial district is both where the defendant resides and the 

judicial district in which a substantial part of the alleged events giving rise to the claims 

occurred. Besides working for a short period at Plaintiff’s Arizona facility, Defendant 

denies the remainder of the allegations contained in the last sentence of paragraph 4 of 

Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

5. Defendant, upon information and belief, admits the allegations contained 

in paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

6. Defendant, upon information and belief, admits the allegations contained 

Case 2:15-cv-02371-DKD Document 16 Filed 01/11/16 Page 2 of 19
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 

in paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

7. Defendant is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the 

allegations contained in paragraph 7 of Plaintiff’s Complaint and, therefore, denies the 

same. 

8. Defendant is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the 

allegations contained in paragraph 8 of Plaintiff’s Complaint and, therefore, denies the 

same. 

9. Defendant is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the 

allegations contained in paragraph 9 of Plaintiff’s Complaint and, therefore, denies the 

same. 

10. Defendant is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the 

allegations contained in paragraph 10 of Plaintiff’s Complaint and, therefore, denies the 

same. 

11. Defendant is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the 

allegations contained in paragraph 11 of Plaintiff’s Complaint and, therefore, denies the 

same. 

12. Defendant is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the 

allegations contained in paragraph 12 of Plaintiff’s Complaint and, therefore, denies the 

same. 

13. Defendant is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the 

allegations contained in paragraph 13 of Plaintiff’s Complaint and, therefore, denies the 

same. 

14. In responding to the allegations contained in paragraph 14 of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint, Defendant admits that on or about September 12, 2014, she, along with 

Christian and Lisa Sinatra met with the Andjelichs and some other individuals that 

accompanied the Andjelichs to discuss aspects of DrapeStyle, Inc., then a California 

business owned by the Sinatras (“DrapeStyle-CA”). Defendant is without sufficient 

information to either admit or deny the remainder of the allegations contained in 

Case 2:15-cv-02371-DKD Document 16 Filed 01/11/16 Page 3 of 19
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 

paragraph 14 of Plaintiff’s Complaint and therefore, denies the same.

15. Defendant is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the 

allegations contained in paragraph 15 of Plaintiff’s Complaint regarding what the 

Andjelichs observed during their visit to DrapeStyle-CA and, therefore, denies the 

same. Defendant alleges that she worked for DrapeStyle-CA from March 7, 2008 

through November 25, 2014 with approximately the last two years of her work at 

DrapeStyle-CA classified as an independent contractor.

16. Defendant is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the 

allegations contained in paragraph 16 of Plaintiff’s Complaint and, therefore, denies the 

same. 

17. Defendant is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the 

allegations contained in paragraph 17 of Plaintiff’s Complaint regarding the Andjelichs’ 

conclusions and wants and, therefore, denies the same.

18. Defendant is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the 

allegations contained in paragraph 18 of Plaintiff’s Complaint and, therefore, denies the 

same. 

19. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint.

20. Defendant is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the 

allegations contained in paragraph 20 of Plaintiff’s Complaint and, therefore, denies the 

same. 

21. Defendant is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the 

allegations contained in paragraph 21 of Plaintiff’s Complaint and, therefore, denies the 

same. 

22. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 22 of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint. Defendant alleges that before the Christmas break began on December 19, 

2014, Defendant had a conversation with Mrs. Andjelich wherein she told Mrs. 

Andjelich that she would be willing to stay on temporarily with DrapeStyle-AZ through 

Case 2:15-cv-02371-DKD Document 16 Filed 01/11/16 Page 4 of 19
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 

June 2015, that she would rent a temporary apartment in Arizona, that her residence 

would remain in California, that she had obligations in California, and that she would be 

traveling frequently home. Mrs. Andjelich and Defendant agreed that Defendant, while 

she was in California, would work remotely; that they would see how the next few 

months went and would discuss further employment options at a later date.

23. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 23 of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint. Defendant alleges that she never moved to Arizona, rather she stayed here 

temporarily to assist with DrapeStyle’s transition to Arizona. Defendant stayed at the 

Andjelichs’ residence from December 7, 2014 through December 19, 2014. Defendant 

further alleges that she communicated very clearly to the Andjelichs that she had no 

intention of relocating to Arizona. 

24. In responding to the allegations contained in paragraph 24 of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint, Defendant admits that she leased a short-term apartment for a six-month 

period beginning in January 2015 to stay at for the times she would be in Arizona 

assisting with the transition. Defendant denies the remainder of the allegations 

contained in paragraph 24 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

25. In responding to the allegations contained in paragraph 25 of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint, Defendant admits that she was absent from Arizona for various blocks of 

time in February and March 2015. Defendant alleges that during these approved 

absences she assisted the DrapeStyle-AZ team remotely, answering phones, attending to 

emails, attending meetings through FaceTime and providing quotes and order assistance 

to customers, etc. Defendant even left her personal iPad at DrapeStyle-AZ’s office for 

the purpose of allowing DrapeStyle-AZ employees to easily contact her for assistance 

with any issues. Defendant denies the remainder of the allegations contained in 

paragraph 25 of the Plaintiff’s Complaint.

26. In responding to the allegations contained in paragraph 26 of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint, Defendant admits that, on several occasions, she brought issues to the 

Andjelichs’ attention in the hope of improving the working environment to better 

Case 2:15-cv-02371-DKD Document 16 Filed 01/11/16 Page 5 of 19
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 

communicate with DrapeStyle customers. With approximately 80% of DrapeStyle-AZ’s 

business conducted via telephone it was difficult to effectively communicate with 

customers given the office’s loud environment. Customers and DrapeStyle-AZ’s 

workers experienced difficulty hearing each other over various background noises not 

common to an office environment such as constant noise from blind repair (hammers, 

metal pounding, etc.), shade risers (shade raising and lowering equipment), washer and 

dryer, mechanical wood saws used for cutting cornice boards and other window 

treatments and repair entrance doorbell. Defendant alleges that the inability to have a 

clear conversation with the customer directly contributed to DrapeStyle-AZ’s decreased 

sales because of the additional challenges to build rapport and instill confidence with a 

customer or potential customer when there was a lack of consistent hearing or effective 

communications. Though Mr. Andjelich did take some measures to reduce the noise 

issues, they were ineffective at blocking much of the noise. In addition to Defendant’s 

raising noise issues, she did complain about exhaust fumes and strong cleaning 

chemicals that negatively affected her asthma. Defendant denies the remainder of the 

allegations contained in paragraph 26 of the Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

27. In responding to the allegations contained in paragraph 27 of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint, Defendant is without sufficient information to either admit or deny how 

things may have appeared to the Andjelichs or what constituted their beliefs about 

Defendant and therefore denies the allegations contained in paragraph 27 of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint.

28. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 28 of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint. Defendant alleges that consistent with her expressed plans to only stay in 

Arizona to assist in the transition of the business, on March 3, 2015, Defendant 

presented the Andjelichs with a Proposal for Finalizing Employment that included 

Defendant no longer working physically in Arizona starting in early April and working 

remotely from California through May 1, 2015 and that towards the end of May 

Defendant would make herself available as an independent contractor to provide sales 

Case 2:15-cv-02371-DKD Document 16 Filed 01/11/16 Page 6 of 19
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 

support remotely or for in-home sales in the Orange County, California area. Defendant 

had a meeting with Mr. Andjelich and it was agreed that Defendant would be returning 

to California and working full-time remotely. On May 18, 2015, Mr. Andjelich and 

Defendant agreed that Defendant would continue as an employee for the remainder of 

2015 working remotely from California.

29. In responding to the allegations contained in paragraph 29 of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint, Defendant denies any implication that she was unavailable to the Andjelichs 

after she began working exclusively remotely from California on April 6, 2015. 

Defendant alleges that Plaintiff hired employee Kim Susmark in mid-March, prior to 

Defendant working exclusively remotely from California. From the time of Ms. 

Susmark’s hire in mid-March until Defendant’s termination on August 14, 2014, 

Defendant trained Ms. Susmark on the day to day operations including but not limited 

to daily procedures, website, order management, and quoting. Defendant alleges that 

since the acquisition of DrapeStyle-AZ, Mrs. Andjelich and DrapeStyle-AZ employee 

Rick Gunter made numerous changes to the phone system. These changes resulted in 

calls going directly to voicemail or ringing indefinitely without being directed to an 

extension. Defendant, Ms. Susmark, and another DrapeStyle-AZ employee Deann 

Gunter all encountered these negative experiences with their phones and voicemail. 

Defendant frequently emailed the Andjelichs and Mr. Gunter about these issues. 

Unfortunately, things were no different when Defendant began working exclusively 

remotely from California. There were times when Defendant’s phone would not ring at 

all. This was very strange to Defendant because when she was working for DrapeStyleCA the phone rang constantly. On a couple of occasions, Mrs. Andjelich directed the 

phone to be switched to Ms. Gunter and Ms. Susmark and not to direct calls to 

Defendant as Mrs. Andjelich, at times, had Defendant work on special projects such as 

new fabrics, credit card procedures, fee schedules, etc. Defendant denies the remainder 

of the allegations contained in paragraph 29 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

30. In responding to the allegations contained in paragraph 30 of Plaintiff’s 

Case 2:15-cv-02371-DKD Document 16 Filed 01/11/16 Page 7 of 19
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 

Complaint, Defendant admits the allegation that while working remotely from 

California she attended weekly employee meetings via FaceTime. Defendant alleges 

that these weekly FaceTime meetings consisted of an agenda created by Mr. Andjelich 

and that most of these items were unnecessary changes to the existing website. 

Defendant would provide her opinion based on her prior experience. Defendant denies 

the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 30 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

31. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 31 of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint. 

32. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 32 of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint. Defendant alleges that on May 26, 2015, Ms. Susmark received a call from a 

customer who was unable to login to her DrapeStyle.com account. Ms. Susmark 

emailed Defendant to see if Defendant knew a way to access the information for the 

customer. Defendant responded that in the past Chris Sinatra would access MIVA and 

get the information. Defendant emailed Mr. Gunter to ask if he could take care of the 

issue. Based on her previous understanding of the sensitivity of issues surrounding 

MIVA, Defendant did not request access to MIVA. Rather, following several emails on 

the issue, Defendant inquired about whether there was a way for this information to be 

exported from MIVA into an Excel spreadsheet to enable herself and Ms. Susmark more 

timely access to the information. However, this information never was exported to an 

Excel spreadsheet for Defendant to access nor did she ever access such information. 

33. In responding to the allegations contained in paragraph 33 of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the 

allegations regarding conversations between the Andjelich’s and Mr. Sinatra regarding 

limiting access to MIVA or the Andjelichs’ concerns or beliefs and, therefore, denies 

the same. Furthermore, Defendant denies the allegation that she was provided access to 

MIVA. Defendant alleges that on May 28, 2014, after discussing this issue with the 

MIVA expert, it was determined that the best way to access the information was via 

MIVA. Defendant was then emailed a temporary password and login to access MIVA. 

Case 2:15-cv-02371-DKD Document 16 Filed 01/11/16 Page 8 of 19
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 

Defendant responded by asking where she was to login. Defendant received no response 

to her inquiry and, subsequently, never logged into MIVA. 

34. Defendant is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the 

allegations contained in paragraph 34 of Plaintiff’s Complaint and, therefore, denies the 

same. 

35. Defendant is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the 

allegations contained in paragraph 35 of Plaintiff’s Complaint and, therefore, denies the 

same. Defendant alleges that since June 2015 Mrs. Andjelich had taken Defendant away 

from primarily answering phones and procuring sales and gave Defendant special 

projects to complete such as sourcing new fabrics, putting together procedures, pricing 

calculators, etc. besides lending support when Ms. Susmark needed it. 

36. Defendant is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the 

allegations contained in paragraph 36 of Plaintiff’s Complaint and, therefore, denies the 

same. 

37. Defendant is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the 

allegations contained in paragraph 37 of Plaintiff’s Complaint and, therefore, denies the 

same. 

38. Defendant is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the 

allegations contained in paragraph 38 of Plaintiff’s Complaint regarding Plaintiff’s 

investigation and, therefore, denies the same. To the extent that paragraph 38 of 

Plaintiff’s Complaint purports to state a claim or contains allegations of wrongdoing, 

Defendant denies the same. 

39. Defendant is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the 

allegations contained in paragraph 39 of Plaintiff’s Complaint and, therefore, denies the 

same. 

40. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 40 of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint. 

41. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 41 of Plaintiff’s 

Case 2:15-cv-02371-DKD Document 16 Filed 01/11/16 Page 9 of 19
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 

Complaint. 

COUNT ONE 

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY 

42. Defendant incorporates by reference all previous responses as though set 

forth herein. 

41. Second paragraph 411

 of Plaintiff’s Complaint contains a legal conclusion 

to which no response is required. To the extent that second paragraph 41 purports to 

state a claim or contains allegations of wrongdoing, Defendant denies the same.

42. Defendant denies the allegations contained in second paragraph 42 of 

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

43. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 43 of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint.

44. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 44 of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint.

45. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 45 of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint.

46. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 46 of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint.

COUNT TWO 

VIOLATION OF THE ARIZONA’S UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT 

47. Defendant incorporates by reference all previous responses as though set 

forth herein.

48. Defendant admits that certain of DrapeStyle-AZ’s client information was 

password protected and on MIVA. Defendant is without sufficient information to either 

 

1

 This paragraph was erroneously labeled as paragraph 41 when it is in fact the 43rd 

paragraph of Plaintiff’s Complaint. So that the paragraph numbers of the Answer 

correspond with the paragraph numbers of the Plaintiff’s Complaint, the erroneous 

numbers will be repeatedly herein but designated as “second paragraph 41” and “second 

paragraph 42”. 

Case 2:15-cv-02371-DKD Document 16 Filed 01/11/16 Page 10 of 19
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 

admit or deny the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 48 of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint and therefore denies the same.

49. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 49 of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint.

50. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 50 of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint.

51. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 51 of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint.

52. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 52 of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint.

53. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 53 of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint.

54. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 54 of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint.

55. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 55 of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint.

56. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 56 of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint.

COUNT THREE 

TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS 

 AND PROSPECTIVE BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 

57. Defendant incorporates by reference all previous responses as though set 

forth herein.

58. Defendant is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the 

allegations contained in paragraph 58 of Plaintiff’s Complaint and therefore denies the 

same.

59. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 59 of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint.

Case 2:15-cv-02371-DKD Document 16 Filed 01/11/16 Page 11 of 19
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 

60. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 60 of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint.

61. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 61 of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint.

62. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 62 of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint.

63. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 63 of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint.

64. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 64 of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint.

65. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 65 of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint.

GENERAL DENIAL 

Unless otherwise expressly admitted herein, Defendant denies the truth of each 

and every allegation set for in Plaintiff’s Complaint.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

1. With respect to some or all of Plaintiff’s allegations, Plaintiff’s Complaint 

fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

2. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state facts sufficient 

to justify an award of punitive damages. 

3. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff has suffered no damages as a result of any 

claim contained in the Complaint. 

4. Defendant alleges that any and all actions taken by Defendant were just, 

fair, privileged, with good cause, in good faith, and without malice. 

5. Defendant is entitled to setoff based on Plaintiff’s failure to reimburse her 

for business expenses she incurred on behalf of Plaintiff. 

6. Defendant is entitled to setoff based on Plaintiff’s failure to compensate 

her through the end of 2015. 

Case 2:15-cv-02371-DKD Document 16 Filed 01/11/16 Page 12 of 19
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 

7. Defendant is entitled to setoff based on Plaintiff’s failure to properly 

compensate her for work performed. 

8. Defendant reserves the right to assert any additional affirmative defenses 

that may become relevant or apparent through the course of discovery or otherwise 

during the course of this litigation. 

 WHEREFORE, Defendant Amy Pearce respectfully requests that this Court 

grant judgment in her favor and against Plaintiff DrapeStyle, Inc. as follows: 

1. Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice; 

2. Grant Defendant reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to A.R.S. 

§§ 12-341, 12-341.01; and 44-401 et seq.; 

3. Award Defendant any other relief that this Court deems appropriate. 

COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD PARTY CLAIMS 

 For her counterclaims, Counterclaimant and Third Party Plaintiff Amy Pearce 

(“Pearce”) alleges as follows: 

PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

1. Pearce is a California resident and was a California resident at all relevant 

times. 

2. Counterdefendant DrapeStyle, Inc. is an Arizona Corporation with its 

principal place of business in Maricopa County, Arizona. 

3. Third Party Defendants Ardith A. Andjelich and David N. Andjelich are, 

upon information and belief, the owners of DrapeStyle, Inc. 

4. The Andjelichs are Arizona residents. 

5. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (hereinafter 

FLSA) 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. 

6. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the 

state law claims raised herein. 

7. Venue is in this Court is proper under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 

Case 2:15-cv-02371-DKD Document 16 Filed 01/11/16 Page 13 of 19
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 

26 

27 

28 

1391. 

8. At all relevant times, Pearce was an “employee” of DrapeStyle, Inc. as 

defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(1). 

9. The provisions set forth in 29 U.S.C. § 206 and § 207, respectively, of the 

FLSA apply to DrapeStyle, Inc. 

10. At all relevant times, DrapeStyle, Inc., was and continues to be an 

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

11. On information and belief, Third Party Defendants the Andjelichs 

(collectively referred to herein along with Counterdefendant as “Defendants”) are each 

deemed an “employer” for purposes of the FLSA, including, without limitation, 29 

U.S.C. § 216, and is co-equally liable with Counterdefendant DrapeStyle, Inc., for all 

matters related to the FLSA. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

12. Pearce began working as an employee for DrapeStyle, Inc., then a 

California business, on March 7, 2008. 

13. Pearce continued working as an employee of DrapeStyle, Inc. in 

California until sometime in 2012 when her status was changed to that of an 

independent contractor until November 25, 2014. 

14. On approximately November 25, 2014, DrapeStyle, Inc. was sold by its 

California owners to the Andjelichs who subsequently moved the company to Arizona 

in late November and early December 2014. Are claims brought herein are against 

DrapeStyle, Inc., the Arizona corporation, not the California business or its prior 

owners. 

15. In late November 2014, the Andjelichs hired Pearce as an employee of the 

new Arizona based company still called DrapeStyle, Inc. to assist with the transition of 

the business from California to the new owners in Arizona. 

16. Early on in her employment, Pearce informed the Andjelichs that she 

would be willing to stay on in Arizona only temporarily, that she would not be moving 

Case 2:15-cv-02371-DKD Document 16 Filed 01/11/16 Page 14 of 19
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 

26 

27 

28 

to Arizona, that she would rent a temporary apartment in Arizona, that her residence 

would remain in California, and that she would be traveling frequently home to 

California during this transition period. 

17. The Andjelichs and Pearce agreed that Pearce, while she was in 

California, would work remotely; that they would see how the first few months went 

and would discuss further employment options at a later date. 

18. Consistent with her expressed plans to only stay in Arizona to assist in the 

transition of the business, on March 3, 2015, Pearce presented the Andjelichs with a 

Proposal for Finalizing Employment that included her no longer working physically in 

Arizona starting in early April and working remotely from California through May 1, 

2015 and that towards the end of May she would make herself available as an 

independent contractor to provide sales support remotely or for in-home sales in the 

Orange County, California area. 

19. Pearce had a meeting with Mr. Andjelich wherein they agreed that 

beginning April 6, 2015, Pearce would begin working exclusively remotely from 

California. 

20. On May 18, 2015, Mr. Andjelich and Pearce agreed that she would 

continue as an employee for the remainder of 2015 working remotely from California. 

21. On May 18, 2015, Mr. Andjelich and Pearce further agreed that at the end 

of 2015, future employment would be based on their mutual needs and desires. 

22. Pearce had numerous conversations with Mrs. Andjelich regarding her 

expectations in relation to Pearce and Pearce’s job performance. 

23. In these conversations, Mrs. Andjelich always expressed to Pearce that 

she was doing a great job and that Mrs. Andjelich wanted her to continue working with 

DrapeStyle, Inc. 

24. While working at DrapeStyle, Inc. Pearce’s principle duties included 

answering phones, procuring sales, operations, customer service and working with the 

production team. Pearce was also, at times, given special assignments by Mrs. Andjelich 

Case 2:15-cv-02371-DKD Document 16 Filed 01/11/16 Page 15 of 19
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 

26 

27 

28 

such as sourcing new fabrics, putting together procedures and creating pricing 

calculators. 

25. While working at DrapeStyle, Inc., Pearce was misclassified as a nonexempt, salaried employee. 

26. In an average week, Pearce worked 50 hours or more as an employee of 

for DrapeStyle, Inc. 

27. While working at DrapeStyle, Inc., Pearce did not primarily manage the 

business, or a customarily recognized department or subdivision. 

28. Pearce did not regularly exercise discretion and independent judgment. 

29. Pearce did not regularly direct the work of two or more employees. 

30. Pearce lacked the authority to hire/fire and advance/promote employees. 

31. Pearce did not handle employee complaints or discipline. 

32. Pearce did not perform exempt duties at least 50% of the time. 

33. Despite being told numerous times by Mrs. Andjelich that she was doing a 

great job for DrapeStyle, Inc. and despite her employment agreement for a specified 

duration of time, i.e. through at least December 31, 2015, Pearce was abruptly 

terminated on August 14, 2015. 

COUNT ONE 

BREACH OF CONTRACT

34. By reference herein, Pearce hereby incorporates by reference each and 

every allegation in the preceding paragraphs. 

35. Pearce and DrapeStyle, Inc. entered into an employment contract that 

specified a length of time that Pearce would remain employed. 

36. Pearce substantially performed her job duties. 

37. DrapeStyle, Inc. breached the employment contract by discharging Pearce 

before the end of the term of the contract. 

38. Pearce was harmed by the discharge in an amount to be determined by the 

jury. 

Case 2:15-cv-02371-DKD Document 16 Filed 01/11/16 Page 16 of 19
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 

26 

27 

28 

COUNT TWO 

VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE § 2802

39. By reference herein, Pearce hereby incorporates by reference each and 

every allegation in the preceding paragraphs. 

40. California Labor Code § 2802 provides that “[a]n employer shall 

indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the 

employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties.” 

41. In order to discharge her duties for DrapeStyle, Inc. and the Andjelichs, 

Pearce has incurred reasonable and necessary expenses in the course of completing her 

job duties. 

42. Such expenses include but are not limited to travel expenses, fuel and 

other vehicle operating costs, rental car expenses, lodging, electricity, internet charges 

and remote networking expenses. 

43. DrapeStyle, Inc. and the Andjelichs have failed to indemnify or in any 

manner reimburse Pearce for these expenditures and losses. 

44. Pearce is entitled to reimbursement for these necessary expenditures, plus 

interest and attorney’s fees and costs, under California Labor Code § 2802. 

COUNT THREE 

VIOLATION OF FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT § 207

45. By reference herein, Pearce hereby incorporates by reference each and 

every allegation in the preceding paragraphs. 

46. While employed by Defendants, Pearce consistently and regularly worked 

overtime. 

47. Defendants have intentionally failed and refused to pay Pearce her 

overtime as required by the provisions of the FLSA. 

48. As a direct result of Defendants’ violations of the FLSA, Pearce has 

suffered damages in not receiving compensation in accordance with § 207 of the FLSA. 

49. Under 29 U.S.C. § 216, Defendants are liable to Pearce for an amount 

Case 2:15-cv-02371-DKD Document 16 Filed 01/11/16 Page 17 of 19
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 

26 

27 

28 

equal to one and one-half (1 1/2) times her regular pay rate for each hour of overtime 

worked per week. 

50. In addition to the amount of unpaid wages owed to Pearce, she is entitled 

to recover an additional equal amount as liquidated damages pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 

216(b). 

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

compensate Pearce as required by the FLSA was willful. 

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

53. Pearce is also entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to U.S.C. § 

216(b). 

WHEREFORE, Pearce respectfully requests that judgment be entered in her 

favor against DrapeStyle, Inc. and Ardith A. Andjelich and David N. Andjelich: 

a. Awarding Pearce damages for breach of her employment contract; 

b. Awarding Pearce damages for all expenditures and losses incurred 

by her in direct consequence of the discharge of her duties for her 

employer; 

c. Awarding Pearce overtime compensation in the amount due to her 

for all of her time worked in excess of forty (40) hours per work 

week at an amount equal to one and one-half (1 1/2) times Pearce’s 

regular rate while at work for Defendants; 

d. Awarding Pearce liquidated damages in an amount equal to the 

overtime award; 

e. Awarding Pearce reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and expenses 

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); 

f. For Pearce’s costs incurred herein; 

g. Awarding Pearce’s pre-judgment interest, at the highest legal rate, 

on all amounts set forth in subsections (a) and (b) above from the 

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

Case 2:15-cv-02371-DKD Document 16 Filed 01/11/16 Page 18 of 19
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 

26 

27 

28 

h. Awarding Pearce’s post-judgment interest, at the highest legal rate, 

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

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

proper. 

 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 11th day of January 2016. 

 ROBAINA & KRESIN PLLC

 By /s/ Samuel R. Randall 

 Samuel R. Randall 

 Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant/ 

 Third Party Plaintiff 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

 Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial in this matter as provided by Rule 38(a) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

ROBAINA & KRESIN PLLC

 By /s/ Samuel R. Randall 

 Samuel R. Randall 

 Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant/ 

 Third Party Plaintiff 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on the 11th day of January 2016, I caused the foregoing 

document to be electronically transmitted to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF 

System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following 

CM/ECF Registrants: 

Tod F. Schleier 

Bradley H. Schleier 

Schleier Law Offices, P.C. 

3101 North Central Ave., Suite 1090 

Phoenix, Arizona 85012 

tod@schleierlaw.com 

brad@schleierlaw.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterdefendant 

By /s/ Gaynell Carpenter 

Case 2:15-cv-02371-DKD Document 16 Filed 01/11/16 Page 19 of 19