Circle K Arizona Lottery Lawsuit, A Manager Clocked Out to Claim $12.8M. Now a Judge Has 10 Weeks to Decide Who Keeps It.

Circle K Stores filed a declaratory judgment complaint in Maricopa County Superior Court asking a judge to decide who legally owns a $12.8 million winning lottery ticket — one of the largest prizes in Arizona Lottery history. A customer ordered 85 tickets for The Pick drawing but paid for only 60, leaving 25 tickets behind at the store. That night, one of the abandoned tickets matched all six winning numbers. The next morning, store manager Robert Gawlitza clocked out, removed his uniform, and bought the winning ticket for $10. A Maricopa County judge now has until May 23, 2026 to rule — or the $12.8 million expires and is redirected to state programs forever.

Quick Facts

Field	Detail
Case Name	Circle K Stores Inc. v. Robert Gawlitza et al.
Court	Maricopa County Superior Court, Arizona
Date Filed	February 17, 2026
Plaintiff	Circle K Stores Inc.
Defendants	Robert Gawlitza (store manager); Arizona Lottery
Type of Lawsuit	Declaratory judgment — ownership dispute
Lottery Game	The Pick (Arizona Lottery)
Store Address	5601 E. Bell Road, Scottsdale, Arizona
Winning Numbers	3, 13, 14, 15, 19, 26
Drawing Date	November 24, 2025
Ticket Purchased by Manager	November 25, 2025
Prize Amount	$12,800,000
Historical Significance	Fourth-largest prize in The Pick’s history; largest Arizona jackpot since 2019
Prize Claim Deadline	🔴 May 23, 2026
Settlement	None — active litigation
Claim Form Available	No

The Clock Is Ticking — 71 Days Left

Before anything else — this is the most urgent fact in this entire case.

Whoever gets custody of the ticket has until May 23, 2026 to claim the prize — the customary 180-day period granted to winners. If nobody makes a valid claim by then, a portion of the jackpot goes to the Lottery’s beneficiaries, and the rest goes back into the prize pool.

It has happened before in Arizona — a $14.6 million The Pick jackpot went unclaimed in 2019, and the money was redirected to state programs. That means the court does not have the luxury of a slow-moving schedule. A judge must untangle a question Arizona has never faced before — in under 10 weeks.

Former Arizona Lottery Executive Director Gregg Edgar said: “I have not ever encountered something like this.”

What Actually Happened — The Full Story

On November 24, 2025, a customer visited the Circle K at 5601 E. Bell Road in Scottsdale and asked an employee to replay previously used lottery numbers for that evening’s drawing of The Pick. The clerk printed $85 worth of tickets — 85 tickets at $1 each — but the customer paid for only $60 and left the remaining 25 tickets behind on the counter.

That night, the Arizona Lottery announced the winning numbers. One of the leftover, unclaimed tickets matched all six — making it a jackpot winner worth $12.8 million. Nobody came back for the tickets. Nobody called. The 25 tickets sat at the store overnight.

The next morning, store manager Robert Gawlitza showed up for work and realized his store had sold the winning ticket. He found the winner among the unsold tickets, and then clocked out, removed his uniform, and had another employee ring him up at the counter to buy all the leftover tickets — including the winning one — for $10. He was given a receipt and signed the back of the ticket.

Circle K management learned what had happened and directed that the ticket be held at the company’s corporate offices, where it remains today. On February 17, 2026, Circle K filed a lawsuit naming Gawlitza and the Arizona Lottery as defendants, asking the court to determine who rightfully owns the winning ticket and is entitled to the $12.8 million prize.

The Three People Who Could Claim This Money

This is where it gets complicated. There are actually three parties with a potential legal argument for the ticket — and the court must sort through all of them.

1. Robert Gawlitza — the store manager Gawlitza argues he made a valid purchase. He clocked out, changed out of his uniform, obtained a receipt, and signed the back of the ticket — all the steps a legitimate buyer would take. Under long-standing legal principles, abandoned property may be claimed by someone who takes possession of it. But abandonment requires intent — a person must voluntarily give up ownership with no plan to reclaim it. Gawlitza has not publicly commented on the case.

2. Circle K — the retailer Under the Arizona Administrative Code, if a retailer generates a lottery ticket that is refused by a customer and not resold, the ticket is considered the property of the retailer. Circle K pays the Arizona Lottery for every ticket it prints, whether or not those tickets are sold — giving it a financial stake in every unclaimed ticket on its counter. Importantly, Circle K stopped short of claiming outright ownership. It filed the lawsuit not to claim the money for itself, but to ask the court to determine the rightful owner.

3. The Original Customer The case turns on a basic question of property law — whether the customer abandoned the ticket or merely left it behind. The customer ordered those numbers intentionally, paid for 60 of the 85 tickets printed, and walked away from the remaining 25. Did they intend to abandon those tickets? Or did they simply forget them? If a court found the customer did not intend to abandon the tickets, they could theoretically have a claim — though no public indication exists that the original customer has come forward.

What Laws Apply?

• Arizona Administrative Code § R19-3-213(D)(1) — This provision states: “If a retailer accepts a returned draw game ticket from a player or generates a draw game ticket refused by the player and the retailer does not resell the ticket, the Lottery shall deem the draw game ticket to be owned by the retailer.” In plain English — if a customer refuses or abandons a ticket and the store doesn’t resell it, the ticket legally belongs to the store. This is Circle K’s strongest argument.
  
• Arizona Lottery Employee Rules — “While Working” Prohibition — The Arizona Lottery’s retailer rules explicitly state that retailers can lose their license to sell lottery tickets if an employee “plays any Lottery game while working.” This rule is why Gawlitza clocked out and changed his uniform first. Whether clocking out genuinely made him “not working” — or whether it was a deliberate workaround of a rule he knew applied to him — is the central factual question the judge must resolve.
  
• Arizona Property Law — Abandonment Doctrine — Under Arizona common law, property is legally abandoned only when its owner voluntarily gives it up with the intent never to reclaim it. The court must determine whether the original customer abandoned those 25 tickets with that intent — or simply forgot them. That distinction could change everything.
  
• Declaratory Judgment Act, Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure — Circle K is seeking a declaratory judgment — a court ruling that defines the legal rights of the parties when ownership or responsibility is disputed. A declaratory judgment does not award damages. It allows the court to determine who owns the ticket so the proper party can claim the prize before the May 23 deadline.

What Is Everyone Saying?

Circle K: “Circle K is committed to doing the right thing and maintaining a strong, transparent partnership with the Arizona Lottery. That commitment is precisely why we have asked the court how best to proceed under these unique circumstances. It is not accurate to characterize this as a lawsuit against any specific party. It is a declaratory judgment complaint filed to seek clarity from the court to determine rightful ownership of this lottery ticket.”

The Arizona Lottery: “This is a unique situation and we are not aware of any prior litigation of this sort involving the Arizona Lottery. The Arizona Lottery is a nominal party to the lawsuit — there are no allegations of wrongdoing for the Arizona Lottery. The Arizona Lottery is only party to the lawsuit for the purpose of binding the Arizona Lottery to any court order issued as a result of the suit.”

Robert Gawlitza: New Times was able to contact Gawlitza, who is named as a defendant, but he has not offered any comment on the situation. He has not publicly responded to any media outlet as of March 12, 2026.

Former Arizona Lottery Spokesman John Edgar: Edgar offered his nonbinding opinion that the ticket probably belongs to Circle K. He also noted that having 25 unsold tickets sitting around overnight was unusual, adding that while some retailers pre-print tickets during big jackpot runs, it is in the retailer’s interest to sell every ticket it prints since it pays for them regardless.

Why This Case Could Change Lottery Rules Nationwide

Lottery commissions and retailers across the country are watching this one closely. Whatever the court decides could shape how these disputes are handled going forward — and whether clocking out and buying a winning ticket off the counter is a loophole or a dead end.

At stake is not only a $12.8 million jackpot, but also clarification of state rules governing ownership of unsold or abandoned lottery tickets — rules that affect retailers who are required to pay for every ticket they generate, whether or not it is sold.

Circle K earns a 6.5% commission on lottery sales from its stores. Retailers that sell a jackpot-winning ticket for in-state draw games can also receive a $10,000 bonus for top prizes over $1 million.

If you’re curious how other states handle lottery ticket employee rules, the Texas lottery age and eligibility rules article on AllAboutLawyer.com covers how Texas — like Arizona — prohibits certain people from purchasing tickets in specific circumstances and what happens when someone tries to claim a prize they were not legally eligible to win.

What Happens Next?

• The judge must rule before May 23, 2026. The ticket must be claimed within 180 days of the November 24, 2025 drawing. That hard deadline is May 23, 2026. If no ruling comes in time and no valid claim is made, the money is gone — redirected to Arizona state programs permanently.
• The court will determine if Gawlitza’s purchase was valid. The central legal question is whether clocking out genuinely changed Gawlitza’s status from employee to private citizen — or whether it was a deliberate workaround of lottery rules he knew applied to him. Expert testimony from lottery officials and employment law specialists is likely.
• The abandonment question must be resolved. Before the court can rule on who owns the ticket, it must determine whether the original customer legally abandoned those 25 tickets when they walked away from the counter without paying for them. If abandonment is found, the ticket legally belonged to Circle K before Gawlitza ever touched it.
• Circle K is not necessarily keeping the money. The company has been clear — it is not asking the court to award the $12.8 million to Circle K. It wants a judge to identify the rightful owner so the prize can be properly paid out. Whether that owner is Gawlitza, Circle K, the original customer, or the Arizona Lottery itself remains to be determined.
• This case has no precedent. The Arizona Lottery has confirmed it has never dealt with anything like this before. Whatever the court decides will become the standard for every similar dispute in Arizona — and potentially influence lottery rules across the country.

This page will be updated as the case develops.

Important Case Dates

Milestone	Date
Customer orders 85 tickets, pays for 60	November 24, 2025
Winning drawing held — numbers: 3, 13, 14, 15, 19, 26	November 24, 2025
Gawlitza clocks out, buys remaining tickets for $10	November 25, 2025
Circle K takes possession of winning ticket	November 25, 2025
Circle K files declaratory judgment lawsuit	February 17, 2026
Case reported nationally by AZFamily, KTAR, Newsweek	February 20–23, 2026
Defendant Answer Due	TBD
Court Ruling Expected	Before May 23, 2026
🔴 Prize Claim Hard Deadline	May 23, 2026
Prize Redirected to State (if unclaimed)	May 24, 2026

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the Circle K Arizona lottery lawsuit real?

 Yes. Circle K Stores filed a declaratory judgment complaint in Maricopa County Superior Court on February 17, 2026. The case is publicly documented through Arizona court records and confirmed by the Arizona Lottery. No settlement has been reached. The winning ticket remains held at Circle K’s corporate offices as of March 12, 2026.

Who actually owns the $12.8 million winning ticket? 

That is exactly what the court must decide. Three parties have a potential legal argument — the store manager who purchased it for $10, Circle K as the retailer who paid for the printed tickets, and possibly the original customer who left them behind. The Arizona Administrative Code gives retailers ownership of refused or abandoned tickets, but the judge must also determine whether Gawlitza’s purchase was a valid transaction or a prohibited act under lottery employee rules.

Can Robert Gawlitza legally keep the $12.8 million? 

It depends entirely on what the court decides. Gawlitza clocked out and changed his uniform before buying the ticket — steps that could be interpreted as genuinely ending his work shift or as a deliberate attempt to circumvent Arizona Lottery rules prohibiting employees from playing while on duty. If the court finds his purchase was valid and the ticket was not already owned by Circle K under the Administrative Code, he may be entitled to the prize.

What is a declaratory judgment and why did Circle K file one?

 A declaratory judgment does not award damages. It allows a court to define the legal rights of the parties when ownership or responsibility is disputed. Circle K filed this type of lawsuit because it is holding the ticket and faces competing claims — not because it is suing Gawlitza for damages. The company wants the court to identify the rightful owner so the prize can be legally claimed before the May 23, 2026 deadline.

What happens if the court doesn’t rule by May 23, 2026?

 If nobody makes a valid claim by May 23, 2026, a portion of the jackpot goes to the Arizona Lottery’s beneficiaries and the rest goes back into the prize pool. The money cannot be held indefinitely — Arizona law requires all lottery prizes to be claimed within 180 days of the drawing date. After that, the prize is permanently redirected and cannot be recovered by any of the parties in the lawsuit.

Why did the customer leave 25 tickets behind? 

The court documents do not explain why the customer paid for only 60 of the 85 printed tickets and walked away from the rest. Having 25 unsold tickets sitting around overnight was described as unusual by former Arizona Lottery spokesman John Edgar. Whether the customer intentionally abandoned those tickets or simply forgot them is a key legal question — abandonment under Arizona property law requires intent, and the answer could affect who has the strongest ownership claim.

Does this case affect other lottery players or retailers in Arizona? 

Not directly — this is a one-time ownership dispute, not a class action. However, the outcome could have implications for how lottery retailers across the country handle tickets that are printed but not purchased. If the court rules the ticket belongs to Circle K under the Administrative Code, it will clarify a rule that has existed for years but never been tested in court.

Could the original customer come back and claim the ticket?

Theoretically yes — but only if the court determines they did not legally abandon the tickets. No public record indicates the original customer has come forward, contacted Circle K, or filed any legal claim. As time passes without any such action, the legal argument for abandonment grows stronger. If the customer does not appear before the May 23 deadline, their window to claim the prize closes permanently along with everyone else’s.

Sources & References

• Arizona Administrative Code § R19-3-213 (Official government source — primary law cited in complaint)

Last Updated: March 12, 2026

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Legal claims and outcomes depend on specific facts and applicable law. For advice regarding a particular situation, consult a qualified attorney.