A legal fight over a $12.8 million Arizona Lottery Pick jackpot centers on whether a ticket printed and left unpaid at a Scottsdale Circle K belongs to the retailer, the store manager who bought it, the original customer, or a clerk who handled the sale. The dispute turns on Arizona Administrative Code § R19-3-213(D)(1), the abandonment doctrine in state property law, and a court-extended claim deadline of May 23, 2026.
How the ticket moved from the counter to a courtroom
On November 24, 2025 the Circle K in Scottsdale printed 85 Pick tickets for the drawing; the customer identified in filings as Anna Kim paid for 60 and left 25 unpaid at the counter. One of those 25 matched all six numbers and became a $12.8 million winner. Store manager Robert Gawlitza discovered the leftover tickets the next morning, clocked out, changed out of his uniform—citing Arizona Lottery rules that bar employees from playing while on shift—then paid $10 for the unsold group, signed the back of the winning ticket and took a receipt.
Circle K later confiscated the ticket and sued to have a court declare ownership rather than allow an immediate claim. A Circle K employee, Marline Ybarra, who arranged the sale of the leftover tickets to Gawlitza the next day, has also asserted a claim and is named in the lawsuit. The Arizona Lottery has described itself as a nominal party; the court issued a temporary restraining order and extended the prize-claim deadline by 180 days so the contest can be resolved before the new May 23, 2026 deadline.
The rule the retailer relies on and how it operates in practice
Arizona Administrative Code § R19-3-213(D)(1) says a retailer owns draw-game tickets it generated that a player refused or abandoned and that were not resold. The administrative rule ties ownership to the retailer because, in practice, the retailer has already paid the Lottery for printed tickets even if a customer walks away without paying.
That regulation is central to Circle K’s position: if the court finds the 25 tickets were abandoned under the statute, ownership would presumptively rest with the retailer. But the presumption is not automatic; a competing theory based on property-law abandonment requires proof of the customer’s intent to relinquish the tickets, and the presence of a sale or transfer involving an employee can complicate a straight application of the administrative rule.
What the competing parties must actually prove (and where their cases are weakest)
Anna Kim must show she did not abandon the unpaid tickets—evidence such as contemporaneous payment attempts, communications with staff, or a plausible reason for leaving 25 printed tickets would undercut Circle K’s abandonment claim. Gawlitza leans on his procedure: clocking out, changing uniform, a receipt and affidavits from six current and former Circle K employees saying the company had an informal policy requiring employees to buy accidentally printed tickets over $20; those affidavits address practice but not the legal question of whether the customer abandoned the tickets under state law.
Ybarra’s position depends on proving a valid transfer to her and then to Gawlitza—chain-of-custody, any contemporaneous agreement between Ybarra and Gawlitza, and whether she had authority to sell unsold tickets. The court will weigh those factual proofs against the statutory presumption and the abandonment doctrine; the next checkpoint is the court’s factual finding on whether Kim abandoned the unpaid tickets or the administrative-code ownership rule controls.
| Claimant | Legal basis | Key evidence needed | Main hurdle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Circle K (retailer) | Arizona Admin. Code § R19-3-213(D)(1) | Proof tickets were refused/abandoned and not resold; register logs; CCTV | Showing Kim intended to abandon vs. merely forgot or mispaid |
| Robert Gawlitza (manager) | Bought ticket after clocking out; possession and receipt | Receipt, signed ticket, affidavits, clock-in/clock-out records | Whether employee purchase is valid and whether purchase occurred before abandonment rule applied |
| Marline Ybarra (clerk) | Claim via sale/transfer in the chain of custody | Contemporaneous sale records, testimony on authority to sell | Proving she lawfully conveyed ownership rather than facilitating a later retailer claim |
Practical steps for retailers, employees and players until the court decides
Retailers should document a clear, written policy on accidentally printed tickets, require receipts and time-stamped logs, preserve CCTV, and train staff; the Circle K case shows courts will examine internal practice and documentation closely. Employees who handle unsold or misprinted tickets should avoid informal cash transfers while on the clock, obtain written authorization for any purchase, and secure receipts and witness statements to reduce chain-of-custody disputes.
Players should check that a ticket printed for them is paid for at the register before leaving and keep any sales receipts; if you believe you left a ticket behind, act quickly—this case has a hard claim deadline extended to May 23, 2026, and courts will treat timing and intent as decisive. The realistic starting point for anyone in a similar situation is to secure contemporaneous evidence (receipts, CCTV, timestamps); absence of such proof is a common stop signal for a claim.
Common questions
Does the employee who physically bought the ticket automatically own it? No. Physical possession helps but does not override Arizona’s abandonment rule and property-law tests; the court will examine timing, intent, and whether the ticket was properly resold.
What happens if the court doesn’t decide before May 23, 2026? The judge extended the deadline by 180 days to allow litigation; if no valid claim is resolved by the final statutory deadline, the prize can expire and revert to state programs.
What should a retailer do immediately after a similar incident? Preserve the ticket, secure video and register logs, get written statements from employees, and consult counsel quickly—those steps materially affect who can prove a claim in court.
