Olibas v. Native Oilfield Servs., LLC

• Decision Date: 08 May 2015
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 3:11–CV–2388–B.
• Citation: 104 F.Supp.3d 791
• Parties: Nicole OLIBAS, Reginald Williams, Donny Hodkinson, Tina McDonald, and Carol Johnson, Plaintiffs, v. NATIVE OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC and John Barclay, Defendants. Reginald Williams, Donny Hodkinson, Tina McDonald, and Carol Johnson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Native Oilfield Services, LLC and John Barclay, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas

104 F.Supp.3d 791

Nicole OLIBAS, Reginald Williams, Donny Hodkinson, Tina McDonald, and Carol Johnson, Plaintiffs,

v.NATIVE OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC and John Barclay, Defendants.

Reginald Williams, Donny Hodkinson, Tina McDonald, and Carol Johnson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,

v.Native Oilfield Services, LLC and John Barclay, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:11–CV–2388–B.

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division.

Signed May 8, 2015.

Allen Ryan Vaught, Baron & Budd PC, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiffs.

Jared T. S. Pace, Anderson Tobin PLLC, Lauren Nicole Beverly, Settlepou, Dallas, TX, Christine M. White, Christopher E. Moore, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., New Orleans, LA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JANE J. BOYLE, District Judge.

Following a jury verdict in favor of Plaintiffs on their Fair Labor Standard Act (“FLSA”) claims for unpaid overtime, the parties filed two post-verdict motions now before the Court: Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment (doc. 281) (“Plaintiffs' Motion”) and Defendants' Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (doc. 283) (“Defendants' Motion”). For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTSPlaintiffs' Motion (doc. 281) and DENIESDefendants' Motion (doc. 283).

I.BACKGROUND

As detailed in the Court's prior orders,¹this is a consolidated action under the FLSA involving a group of dispatchers in one suit, and a group of truck drivers in another, both suing Defendants John Barclay (“Barclay”) and Native Oilfield Services, LLC (“Native”) (together, “Defendants”) for unpaid overtime wages under the FLSA. The parties recently settled the FLSA claims brought by the dispatchers,²leaving only the drivers' claims unresolved.

Plaintiffs' remaining FLSA claims are asserted on behalf of Reginald Williams (“Williams”), Donny Hodkinson (“Hodkinson”), Tina McDonald (“McDonald”), and Carol Johnson (“Johnson”) (collectively, the “Named Plaintiffs”) and 104 similarly situated similarly situated opt-in plaintiffs (as a collective unit, “Plaintiffs” or “Driver Plaintiffs”). SeeDoc. 281, Pl.'s Mot. 1. As a collective unit, Plaintiffs include “current and former employees of Defendants who delivered sand to Defendants' oilfield customers for use in fracking operations.” Doc. 226, Joint Pre–Trial Or. 5.

At trial, Plaintiffs claimed that, between August 22, 2009 to August 5, 2014, they “were not paid overtime compensation for each every overtime hour worked” in violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207. Id.More specifically, they argued that Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiffs overtime compensation for their off-the-clock overtime hours waiting to be assigned a truck or for their trucks to be loaded/unloaded. Id.Defendants countered that Plaintiffs were exempt from the FLSA's overtime pay provisions, and that even if Plaintiffs were not exempt, they “cannot carry their burden of showing that they were not paid overtime.” Id.at 9. Plaintiffs could not carry this burden, Defendants argued, because “the hours for which [Plaintiffs sought] additional [overtime] compensation were not hours actually worked, but rather non-compensable ‘wait time.’ ” Id.

On August 5, 2014, the jury, after hearing all the evidence presented at trial, returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiffs. SeeDoc. 266, Jury Instructions. In doing so, the jury made a number of findings. First, the jury found that Defendants failed to establish “each essential element of the [Motor Carrier Act] Exemption as applied to the [Plaintiffs] as a group [.]” Id.at 17. Second, the jury also concluded that Plaintiffs proved “that Defendants failed to pay” each Named Plaintiff “one and one-half time his or her regular rate of pay for ‘hours worked’ over forty during any 7–day workweek at Native Oilfield[.]” Id.at 12. Third, the jury similarly found that Plaintiffs had also established “that the Defendants failed to pay [Plaintiffs], as a collective unit, overtime pay in accordance with the FLSA [.]” Id.at 14. Fourth, the jury next determined that Plaintiffs proved that they worked the following “number of unpaid overtime hours ... on average during the workweeks in which [they were] employed as [truck drivers]”: Johnson, 11 hours; Hodkinson, 13 hours; Williams, 10 hours; McDonald, 5 hours; and “Plaintiffs as a collective unit,” 18 hours. Id.at 19. Lastly, the jury concluded that Plaintiffs additionally proved “that Defendants' FLSA violation(s) were ‘wilful.’ ” Id.at 21.

Following the trial, the Court ordered the parties to mediate their unresolved disputes regarding the amount of damages owed by Defendants, but no settlement could be reached. SeeDoc. 269, Mediation Or.; Docs. 274 & 280, ADR Resolution Summs. Thus, in accordance with the Court's instructions, the parties timely filed post-trial motions. SeePl.'s Mot.; Doc. 283, Def.'s Post–Verdict Br. (“Def.'s Mot.”). Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(b), asking the Court to enter final judgment in their favor upon resolving certain issues related to their damages. SeePl.'s Mot. 1–3. Defendants' Motion, on the other hand, is filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b), and asserts that the Court should grant judgment in their favor, notwithstanding the jury's verdict. SeeDef.'s Mot. 8–9. In other words, Defendants' Motion is a renewed request for judgment as a matter of law, which the Court previously denied when Defendants moved pursuant to Rule 50(a)at the conclusion of Plaintiffs' case-in-chief. SeeDoc. 299, Trial Tr. Volume IV at 36.

After these post-trial motions were filed, the parties filed timely responses and replies thereto. SeeDoc. 286, Pl.'s Resp.; Doc. 288, Def.'s Resp.; Doc. 290, Def.'s Reply; Doc. 293, Pl.'s Reply. By March 30, 2015, both post-trial motions became ripe for consideration. Before addressing these motions, the Court begins below with a brief review of the law governing claims under the FLSA.

II.LEGAL STANDARD

The FLSA was passed in 1938 in an effort “to ‘protect all covered workers from substandard wages and oppressive working hours.’ ” Meza v. Intelligent Mexican Mktg., Inc.,720 F.3d 577, 581 (5th Cir.2013)(quoting Barrentine v. Ark.-Best Freight Sys., Inc.,450 U.S. 728, 739, 101 S.Ct. 1437, 67 L.Ed.2d 641 (1981)). Given its remedial purposes, courts generally “construe the FLSA liberally in favor of employees.” McGavock v. City of Water Valley, Miss.,452 F.3d 423, 424 (5th Cir.2006)(citing Arnold v. Ben Kanowsky, Inc.,361 U.S. 388, 392, 80 S.Ct. 453, 4 L.Ed.2d 393 (1960)).

Among its protections, the FLSA requires that employers pay employees “at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate” of pay for any hours the employees work in excess of forty during the workweek. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). To enforce this rule, the FLSA “gives employees the right to bring a private cause of action on their own behalf and on behalf of ‘other employees similarly situated.’ ” Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk,–––U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 1523, 1527, 185 L.Ed.2d 636 (2013)(citing 29 U.S.C. § 216(b)). Employees who successfully assert a private cause of action for unpaid overtime wages under the FLSA are entitled to collect damages from their employers “in the amount of ... their unpaid overtime compensation ... and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages.” 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Prevailing plaintiffs may also collect reasonable attorney's fees and costs associated with the prosecution of their FLSA claims. See id. Saizan v. Delta Concrete Products Co.,448 F.3d 795, 799 & n. 7 (5th Cir.2006).

III.ANALYSIS

The parties have each filed post-trial motions in connection with the jury verdict returned in favor of Plaintiffs and their FLSA overtime claims. Defendants' Motion, which is filed pursuant to Rule 50(b),³can be quickly disposed first. As mentioned, Defendants' Motion merely renews assertions that the Court already rejected in denying Defendants' Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law at trial. Moreover, Defendants' Motion explicitly reserves the “right to seek relief [again] under Rule 50(b)following entry of final judgment,” Def.'s Mot. 8 n. 2, obviating the need to fully readdress matters that Defendants will surely resubmit after this Order. Therefore, the Court hereby DENIESDefendants' Motion without any further discussion at this time.

That leaves only Plaintiffs' Motion to consider. As is common in these type of cases,⁴final judgment was not entered immediately after the jury's verdict because certain damages issues remain unresolved. Accordingly, Plaintiffs now move for the Court to resolve these outstanding damages issues, incorporate its rulings in a final judgment, and enter that final judgment pursuant to Rule 58.⁵SeePl.'s Mot. 1–3. In doing so, Plaintiffs set forth four categories of unresolved matters for the Court to decide. First, Plaintiffs request that the Court award them unpaid overtime compensation in accordance with the jury's findings and the Court's determination of the appropriate regular rate of pay and overtime premium multiplier. See id.3–18. Second, Plaintiffs asks that the Court award them liquidated damages in an amount equal to their back-pay award. See id.at 18–20. Third, Plaintiffs also seek recovery of the attorneys' fees and costs that they incurred in prevailing on their FLSA claims. See id.at 20–23. Finally, Plaintiffs ask that the Court additionally include post-judgment interest in the final judgment. See id.at 23–24. The Court addresses these requests in turn below.

A. Unpaid Overtime Back–Pay Award

As mentioned, the jury in this case found Defendants liable for failing to pay Plaintiffs in accordance with the FLSA's overtime pay requirements, seeJury Instructions 14, but they did not determine “the amount of ... unpaid overtime compensation” Plaintiffs are now entitled to collect. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The parties now dispute what role, if any, the Court may undertake in calculating Plaintiffs...