Allen v. Coil Tubing Servs., L.L.C.

• Decision Date: 11 January 2012
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. H–08–3370.
• Parties: Donald ALLEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COIL TUBING SERVICES, L.L.C., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas

846 F.Supp.2d 678

Donald ALLEN, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.COIL TUBING SERVICES, L.L.C., Defendant.

Civil Action No. H–08–3370.

United States District Court,

S.D. Texas,

Houston Division.

Jan. 11, 2012.

Clark Woodson, III, Attorney at Law, Angleton, TX, Clyde J. Jackson, III, Randall O. Sorrels, Abraham Watkins et al., Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs.

Jeremy Chad Boyd, pro se.

Eric Koffel, pro se.

Ralph Koffel, pro se.

Michael Moore, pro se.

Joey Ortega, pro se.

Christopher E. Moore, Andrew Phelps Burnside, Christine M. White, Erin R. Wedge, Coats Rose, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

NANCY F. ATLAS, District Judge.

This Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) case is before the Court on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs are current and former employees of Defendant Coil Tubing Services, L.L.C. (“Defendant” or “CTS”), who allege that they regularly worked over 40 hours per week and were wrongfully denied overtime wages. Defendant argues that various exemptions apply to Plaintiffs. To efficiently manage this case, which is not a collective action, the Court ordered the parties to conduct discovery on a “Bellwether group” of Plaintiffs (the “Bellwether Plaintiffs”). There are currently fourteen Bellwether Plaintiffs.¹

The parties each have filed various summary judgment motions. All are ripe for decision.² Having considered the parties' briefing, the applicable legal authorities, and all matters of record, the Court grants the summary judgment motions in part and denies them in part.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND³A. CTS's Business and Job Classifications

Defendant CTS is an oil well service company. As part of its operations, CTS owns certain chemicals, tools, and coil tubing equipment including coil tubing reels, fluid pumps, nitrogen, nitrogen pumps, nitrogen transports, friction reducers, and cranes, which it transports via public highways to its customers at the customers' well sites.

During the period from November 13, 2005 through November 13, 2008 (the “relevant period”), Bellwether Plaintiffs held various positions with CTS: Equipment Operator (“EO”), Service Technician I (“ST–I”), Service Technician II (“ST–II”), Service Supervisor Trainee (“SST”), Service Supervisor (“SS”), Service Coordinator (“SC”), and/or Field Engineer I (“FE–I”). EOs, ST–Is, ST–IIs, SSTs, and SSs, but not FE–Is, or SCs, collectively, are referred to in this Memorandum as “Field Service Employees.” ⁴ Applicability of FLSA exemptions regarding FE–Is and SCs will be analyzed separately as needed.⁵

During the relevant period, CTS divided its business into six districts. Plaintiffs currently in this case worked in four of those districts: Alice, Texas; Angleton, Texas; Bridgeport, Texas; and Broussard, Louisiana. ⁶ At all relevant times, each CTS district offered its well services regardless of the location of the well.

CTS serviced wells located on land (“land projects”) and offshore (“offshore projects”). The general procedure for assigning projects was (and apparently still is) as follows. An SC accepted a project from a customer and prepared a Load Out Ticket ⁷ to initiate the process of filling the project order (often referred to by the parties as the “job order”).⁸ The SC within a district was responsible for determining what equipment and which Field Service Employees to assign to each project. This determination was made primarily on the basis of personnel availability, skill level, and occasionally customer requests.⁹ On occasion, personnel and equipment from one district were used to perform a project accepted by a different district. Districts solicited and accepted projects from locations within and outside the districts' respective geographic boundaries.¹⁰

The SC identified the crew and assigned equipment on the Load Out Ticket. A CTS field service crew (for land and offshore projects) typically consisted of two or more ST–Is, ST–IIs, and/or SSTs and one or more SSs. The SC gave the Load Out Ticket to the SS. The land projects typically lasted several days, while the offshore projects were longer.

CTS, generally using its Field Service Employees, transported its equipment, ¹¹ chemicals,¹² and tools to each project site. For land projects, CTS expected each member of the field service crew to load and secure the necessary equipment, chemicals, and tools on CTS 18–wheel tractor-trailers and other trucks at CTS's shop.¹³ For offshore projects serviced from the Angleton District, CTS Field Service Employees sometimes drove CTS's equipment, chemicals, and tools. For certain Angleton District and all Broussard District offshore projects, third-party trucking companies were hired for the transport.¹⁴ Typically, for each project, the SC or SS completed and signed a document called a “Material Loading and Shipping Instruction” that identified the individuals who loaded the vehicles and the specific vehicles used for the project. As noted, CTS or third-party drivers drove the loaded trucks to the departure dock for loading on vessels to be taken offshore.

Generally, the offshore Field Service Employees traveled in CTS pickup trucks to the shore loading dock. The sizes of these pickup trucks are unclear from the record.

For land projects, SSs often operated larger pickup trucks, such as a Ford F–350 modified with a diesel fuel auxiliary tank affixed to the bed.¹⁵ SSs were expected to ensure that these 90–gallon auxiliary tanks were filled with diesel fuel before leaving the shop so that there was sufficient fuel to operate CTS's equipment in the field. The rest of the Field Service Employees on the project crew (that is, the ST–Is, ST–IIs, and SSTs) generally had to operate (or be available to operate) the 18–wheel tractor trailer they were assigned to drive to and from the well-site. All the Field Service Employees used the equipment, chemicals, and tools brought to the project site to service the customer's wells. At each project's conclusion, Field Service Employees loaded onto the trucks at the project sites any CTS equipment that had been unloaded at the well site (“backloaded”) that needed to be returned to CTS's shops or other facilities. There is a dispute about how much equipment is in fact removed from the trucks.¹⁶

Bellwether Plaintiffs all were CTS Field Service Employees, SCs, or FE–Is during the relevant period. They each had multiple duties on the projects to which they were assigned. According to CTS's written job descriptions for EO, ST–I, ST–II, SST, and SS positions, these employees were required to work in the shop, load equipment to go to and be returned from customer projects, drive or assist in driving to project sites, and service oil wells for CTS customers. Plaintiffs state, however, that they in fact did not do many of these tasks.

Sometimes a Field Engineer was assigned to a service crew. FE–Is were employed to monitor the pressure of coil tubing units, record their observations, input the data collected into a special computer program, and author a field report so the life of the coil tubing could be determined. ¹⁷ To carry out their project duties, FE–Is were expected to travel to the project site in a CTS pickup truck. Each FE–I was expected to bring CTS-issued protective gear as well as well-monitoring tools and equipment.

All Bellwether Plaintiffs were paid fixed salaries. CTS did not pay overtime although Plaintiffs claim they regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Bellwether Plaintiffs' job titles at CTS and dates of CTS employment ¹⁸ are:B. Procedural Background

On November 13, 2008, eleven current or former CTS employees initiated this suit claiming violations of section 207 of the FLSA based on CTS's failure to pay overtime wages. Many additional Plaintiffs have filed consents to join the action and seek overtime benefits. To efficiently manage this case, which is not a collective action, the Court ordered the parties to conduct discovery on CTS's business practices generally, on each district's business, as well as on a “bellwether group” of Plaintiffs. See Hearing Minutes and Order, dated November 24, 2009 [Doc. # 70]. Some individuals initially designated by the parties as Bellwether Plaintiffs have settled their claims or been dismissed from the suit by agreement; other Plaintiffs have been substituted into the Bellwether group. There are currently fourteen Bellwether Plaintiffs.

Defendant argues that various exemptions to the FLSA's overtime requirements apply to one or more of the Bellwether Plaintiffs, and that these exemptions completely bar recovery for overtime wages.¹⁹ The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on whether Defendant's claimed FLSA exemptions apply to the Bellwether Plaintiffs, and on a couple of other issues. Those motions have been fully briefed and are ripe for decision.

II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a sufficient showing of the existence of an element essential to the party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir.1994) (en banc); see also Baton Rouge Oil & Chem. Workers Union v. ExxonMobil Corp., 289 F.3d 373, 375 (5th Cir.2002). “The Court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322–23, 106 S.Ct. 2548;Weaver v. CCA Indus., Inc., 529 F.3d 335, 339 (5th Cir.2008).

For summary judgment, the initial burden falls on the movant to identify areas essential to the non-movant's claim in which there is an “absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co. v. Reyna, 401 F.3d 347,...