Morgan v. Rig Power, Inc.

• Decision Date: 27 October 2015
• Docket Number: CV No. 7:15-CV-73-DAE
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
• Parties: GARLAND MORGAN, RUBEN RAMIREZ, JORGE PINEDO, DAVID DURON, and ALFELIO MARTINEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RIG POWER, INC. and M3P ENERGY, LLC, Defendants.

GARLAND MORGAN, RUBEN RAMIREZ, JORGE PINEDO, DAVID DURON,and ALFELIO MARTINEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RIG POWER, INC. and M3P ENERGY, LLC, Defendants.

CV No. 7:15-CV-73-DAE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION

October 27, 2015

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EQUITABLE TOLLING

Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Rig Power, Inc. ("Rig Power") and M3P Energy, LLC ("M3P") (Dkt. # 12.) Also before the Court is a Motion for Equitable Tolling filed by Plaintiffs Garland Morgan, Ruben Ramirez, Jorge Pinedo, David Duron, and Alfelio Martinez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated (collectively, "Plaintiffs") (Dkt. # 19). Pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(h), the Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing. After careful consideration of the Motions and the supporting and opposing memoranda, the Court, for the reasons that follow, DENIES Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion for Equitable Tolling.

BACKGROUND

Rig Power is a Texas corporation that provides rental equipment and services to companies in the oil and gas industry. ("Compl.," Dkt. # 1 ¶¶ 6, 15.) M3P is Rig Power's parent company. (Id. ¶ 11.) Plaintiffs were employed by Rig Power and M3P (collectively, "Defendants") as field technicians responsible for performing manual labor related to the transportation, operation, and maintenance of oilfield equipment. (Id. ¶ 16.)

Plaintiffs allege that they routinely worked more than 40 hours per week and that Defendants failed to compensate them at the required overtime rate for such work. (Id.) Plaintiffs specifically allege that Rig Power paid a fixed amount for each day an employee worked more than eight hours, regardless of how many hours above eight the employee worked on those days or how many hours above 40 the employee worked in a given week. (Id.) Plaintiffs further allege that Rig Power subsequently stopped paying this "daily bonus" due to the downturn in the oil and gas industry, resulting in Plaintiffs being paid no compensation of any kind for hours worked above 40 in a given week. (Id. ¶ 17.) Plaintiffs further allege that similarly situated field technicians were also not paid overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. (Id. ¶¶ 21-22.)

On May 22, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in this Court on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq ("FLSA"). (Dkt. # 1.) Plaintiffs seek unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. (Id. at 9.)

Defendants filed the Motion to Dismiss currently before the Court on July 23, 2015. (Dkt. # 12.) Plaintiff filed a Response on August 12, 2015. (Dkt. # 14.) On August 28, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Conditional Certification and Notice to Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs. (Dkt. # 16.) On September 14, 2015, the Court granted Defendants' request to allow them to wait to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification until after resolution of their Motion to Dismiss. On October 19, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Equitable Tolling requesting that the Court equitably toll the statute of limitations to protect the rights of potential class members who have yet to receive notice of this action due to the delay in conditionally certifying the class. (Dkt. # 19.)

LEGAL STANDARDS

I. Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), a defendant may move to dismiss a complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. "A case is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case." Home Builders Ass'n of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison, 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998). The plaintiff, as the party asserting jurisdiction, bears the burden of proving that subject matter jurisdiction exists. Choice Inc. of Tex. v. Greenstein, 691 F.3d 710, 714 (5th Cir. 2012).

If the defendant submits no evidentiary materials with its 12(b)(1) motion, the trial court looks to the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint, which are assumed to be true. Paterson v. Weinberger, 644 F.2d 521, 523 (5th Cir. 1981); see also Superior MRI Servs., Inc. v. Alliance Healthcare Servs., Inc., 778 F.3d 502, 504 (5th Cir. 2015) (distinguishing a "facial" attack on a court's subject matter jurisdiction from a "factual" attack made on the basis of affidavits or other evidentiary materials). If the defendant submits affidavits, testimony, or other evidentiary materials, the court may consider and resolve disputes of fact, and the plaintiff must prove the existence of subject matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Superior MRI, 778 F.3d at 504; Greenstein, 691 F.3d at 714.

II. Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) authorizes dismissal of a complaint for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." In analyzing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court "accept[s] 'all well pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.'" United States ex rel. Vavra v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 727 F.3d 343, 346 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007)). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

DISCUSSION

Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Defendants argue that Plaintiffs are exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA under the Motor Carrier Act ("MCA") exemption codified in 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(1), and that the Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims. M3P further argues that it is entitled to dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims because it was not Plaintiffs' employer. In support of their Motion, Defendants have submitted the affidavits of Andy Salinas, Rig Power's Regional Manager, and Virginia Montanez, the Human Resources Manager for both Rig Power and M3P, as well as a FLSA Narrative Report issued by the U.S. Department of Labor.

I. Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Because Defendants seek dismissal on the basis of both a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, the Court must first consider the Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attack. Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001). Defendants argue that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiffs are exempted from the FLSA's overtime requirements under 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(1). Under that provision, the FLSA's overtime requirements do not apply to "any employee with respect to whom the Secretary of Transportation has power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service pursuant to the provisions of section 31502 of title 49." § 213(b)(1). Section 31502 provides that the Department of Transportation ("DOT") "may prescribe requirements for . . . qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and standards of equipment of, a motor private carrier, when needed to promote safety of operation. 49 U.S.C. § 31502(b)(2). The DOT may establish such requirements for employees who

(1) are employed by carriers whose transportation of passengers or property by motor vehicle is subject to his jurisdiction under section 204 of the [MCA] . . . and (2) engage in activities of a character directly affecting the safety of operation of motor vehicles in the transportation on the public highways of passengers or property in interstate or foreign commerce within the meaning of the [MCA].

29 C.F.R. § 782.2(a).

"When Congress does not rank a statutory limitation on coverage as jurisdictional, courts should treat the restriction as nonjurisdictional in character." Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 516 (2006). Nothing in § 213 suggests that district courts are deprived of subject matter jurisdiction to hear claims implicating the exemptions provided for under that provision. Whether Plaintiffs are subject to the MCA exemption is therefore not a jurisdictional question, but rather one that goes to the merits of the case, and may be appropriately addressed at the merits stage. McLeland v. 1845 Oil Field Servs., — F. Supp. 3d —, 2015 WL 1206938, at *3 (W.D. Tex. 2015); Hopkins v. Cornerstone Am., 412 F. Supp. 2d 672, 681 (N.D. Tex. 2007). Because Plaintiffs' claims are brought pursuant to the private right of action provided for under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), they arise under the laws of the United States, and the Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Court therefore DENIES Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

II. Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

Defendants have also moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a district court's review is limited to the complaint, documents incorporated into the complaint by reference that are central to the plaintiff's claims, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice. Funk v. Stryker Corp., 631 F.3d 777, 783 (5th Cir. 2011). The evidence submitted by Defendants is neither incorporated into Plaintiffs' Complaint nor properly subject to judicial notice, and is thus...