A legal tussle over a $12.8 million lottery jackpot at a Circle K in Scottsdale, Arizona has grown messier. Now a second store employee is claiming a stake in the windfall, transforming what started as a straightforward dispute between the company and a former manager into a three-way ownership battle.

How the Winning Ticket Landed in Limbo

Back in November, a customer walked into the Circle K and asked the clerk to print $85 worth of tickets for “The Pick,” an Arizona lottery game. Problem was, the customer only had $60 on him. Twenty-five unpaid tickets stayed on the counter overnight. One of them became a $12.8 million winner.

Store manager Robert Gawlitza spotted the opportunity the next morning. He allegedly stripped off his uniform, found another employee, and bought those remaining tickets for just $10. That winning ticket was in the pile.

Circle K caught wind of the move fast. The ticket got held at corporate headquarters. Then came the lawsuit.

The Plot Thickens

Things got complicated when Marline Ybarra, another Circle K employee, stepped forward claiming she deserves a cut. She says Gawlitza asked her to sign the back of the winning ticket. Court filings also suggest she retrieved some tickets that had fallen behind the printer.

Ybarra was added to an amended complaint last week as a defendant. Here’s the kicker: both she and Gawlitza share the same legal representation, though it’s unclear whether they’ve actually agreed to split the prize.

The Legal Stalemate

Circle K’s argument hinges on Arizona Administrative Code, which the company claims gives lottery retailers ownership of unpaid tickets never officially sold to customers. The court will ultimately need to determine three things: was the ticket validly purchased, who owns it legally, and who gets the $12.8 million.

Notably absent from the legal action is Anna Kim, the original customer. She’s not a party to the case, and there’s no indication she plans to join the fight for the money.

What should have been straightforward retailer compliance has morphed into something far messier. This is the kind of situation that makes retailers’ legal teams lose sleep.