Sams v. Nine Energy Service, LLC (New Mexico)

Case 2:16-cv-00533-CG-GBW Document 1 Filed 06/07/16 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO CHAD SAMS, on behalf of himself And others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.

NINE ENERGY SERVICE, LLC Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. ______________

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT SUMMARY, JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND PARTIES 1.

Chad Sams brings this class action lawsuit against Nine Energy Service, LLC (Nine)

to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act (NMMWA), NMSA § 50-4-19 et seq.

2.

Sams and those similarly situated to him were employed by Nine as operators,

received a salary and/or a bonus, worked in excess of 40 hours a workweek in New Mexico, but never received any overtime compensation. This lawsuit seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages for these workers under the NMMWA. 3.

This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2).

In addition, or in the alternative, this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

4.

Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

5.

Sams is a Texas resident who was employed by Nine as an operator and denied

overtime wages in this District.

6.

Defendant is a Delaware limited liability company doing business throughout the

United States, including in New Mexico. Defendant may be served by serving its registered agent, CT Corporation System at 206 S. Coronado Ave., Unit 106B, Espanola, New Mexico, 87532.

Case 2:16-cv-00533-CG-GBW Document 1 Filed 06/07/16 Page 2 of 8

FACTS 7.

Nine is a nationwide oilfield services company with significant completion and land

drilling operations throughout the United States.

8.

Nine employs operators in New Mexico to serve exploration and production

companies. These individuals (including Sams) make up the Class Members.

9.

While exact job titles may differ, these employees are subject to the same or similar

illegal pay practices for similar work.

10.

Specifically, the primary job duties of the Class Members included operating oilfield

machinery, collecting/relaying data, and reporting daily activities to supervisors for analysis.

11.

The Class Members would conduct their day-to-day activities within designated

parameters and in accordance with a predetermined well, workover, completion, and operational plans.

12.

The daily and weekly activities of the Class Members were routine and largely

governed by standardized plans, procedures, and checklists created by Defendant.

13.

Virtually every job function was predetermined by Defendant, including the tools to

use at a job site, the data to compile, and schedule of work and related work duties.

14.

The Class Members were prohibited from varying their job duties outside of the

predetermined parameters.

15.

Moreover, the job functions of the Class Members consisted primarily of manual

labor, were technical in nature, and required little to no official training, much less a college education or other advanced degree.

16.

The Class Members did not have any supervisory or management duties.

17.

Finally, for purposes of an NMMWA overtime claim, the Class Members performed

substantially similar job duties related to servicing oil and gas operations in the field.

2

Case 2:16-cv-00533-CG-GBW Document 1 Filed 06/07/16 Page 3 of 8

18.

The Class Members also worked similar hours and were both denied overtime as a

result of the same illegal pay practice.

19.

The Class Members were generally scheduled to work 84 hours per workweek, but

often worked more.

20.

Instead of paying them overtime, Defendant paid the Class Members a base salary

plus a day rate/bonus.

21.

Defendant denied the Class Members overtime for any and all hours worked in

excess of 40 in a single work week.

22.

As the controlling law makes clear, the manual labor and technical duties which were

performed by the Class Members consists of non-exempt work.

23.

Therefore, Defendant owes back overtime wages to hundreds of their employees all

of whom work long hours each workweek.

24.

For examples, Sams is owed tens of thousands of dollars (an amount in excess of the

jurisdictional limit) in unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and other damages under the NMMWA. Despite knowing the NMMWA’s requirements and that the Class Members regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek, Nine does not pay them overtime.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS 25.

In addition to Sams, Nine employed hundreds of other operators in New Mexico

who worked over forty hours per week with no overtime pay, were paid a salary and/or a bonus, and were classified – improperly – as exempt.

26.

The Class Members performed the job duties described above and they were

subjected to the same unlawful policies.

27.

The Class Members are similarly situated to Sams.

3

Case 2:16-cv-00533-CG-GBW Document 1 Filed 06/07/16 Page 4 of 8

28.

Over one hundred (100) employees have been victimized by this pattern, practice,

and policy which violates the NMMWA. 29.

Based on his experiences and tenure, Plaintiff is aware Defendant imposed its illegal

policy on the Class Members.

30.

The Class Members are victims of Defendant’s unlawful compensation practices and

are similarly situated to Sams in terms of relevant job duties, pay provisions, and employment practices.

31.

Defendant’s failure to pay wages and overtime compensation at the rates required by

state law results from generally applicable, systematic policies and practices which are not dependent on the personal circumstances of the Class Members.

32.

Sams’ experiences are typical of the experiences of the Class Members.

33.

The specific job titles or precise job locations of the various Class Members do not

prevent class treatment.

34.

All of the Class Members, regardless of their precise job requirements or rates of

pay, are entitled to be properly compensated for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week.

35.

Sams has no interests contrary to, or in conflict with, the other Class Members.

36.

Like each member of the proposed class, Sams has an interest in obtaining the

unpaid overtime wages owed under state law.

37.

A class action suit, such as the instant one, is superior to other available means for

fair and efficient adjudication of the lawsuit.

38.

Absent this action, many members of Class Members likely will not obtain redress of

their injuries and Defendant will retain the proceeds of its violations of applicable state labor laws.

4

Case 2:16-cv-00533-CG-GBW Document 1 Filed 06/07/16 Page 5 of 8

39.

Furthermore, even if some of the Class Members could afford individual litigation

against Defendant, it would be unduly burdensome to the judicial system.

40.

Concentrating the litigation in one forum will promote judicial economy and parity

among the claims of individual members of the classes and provide for judicial consistency.

41.

The questions of law and fact common to each of the Class Members predominate

over any questions affecting solely the individual members. Among the common questions of law and fact are: (a)

Whether Defendant employed members of the Class Members within the meaning

of the NMMWA; (b)

Whether the Class Members were improperly classified by Defendant as exempt

from overtime compensation; (c)

Whether Defendant failed to pay the Class Members overtime pay due to them by

virtue of their uniform designation as exempt; and (d)

Whether Defendant kept adequate records of the hours worked by the Class

Members.

42.

Sam’s claim is typical of the claims of Class Members.

43.

Sams, and the other Class Members, have sustained damages arising out of

Defendant’s wrongful and uniform employment policy.

44.

Sams knows of no difficulty that will be encountered in the management of this

litigation that would preclude its maintenance as a class action.

45.

Although the issue of damages may be somewhat individual in character, there is no

detraction from the common nucleus of liability facts.

5

Case 2:16-cv-00533-CG-GBW Document 1 Filed 06/07/16 Page 6 of 8

46.

The Class Members were subjected to the same unlawful policy as Sams and is

properly defined as: All operators who were paid a salary and/or a bonus and worked for Nine in New Mexico over the last 3 years.

CAUSE OF ACTION - VIOLATION OF THE NMMWA 47.

The conduct alleged in this Complaint violates the NMMWA

48.

Nine was and is an “employer” within the meaning of the NMMWA.

49.

At all relevant times, Nine employed Sams, and each of the Class Members, as an

“employee” within the meaning of the NMMWA. 50.

The NMMWA requires an employer like Nine to pay overtime to all non-exempt

employees.

51.

Sams and the other Class Members are non-exempt employees who are entitled to be

paid overtime for all overtime hours worked.

52.

Within the applicable limitations period, Nine had a policy and practice of failing to

pay overtime pay to the Class Members for their hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

53.

As a result of Nine’s failure to pay overtime to Sams and the other Class Members

at a rate not less than 1 and ½ t times the regular rate of pay for work performed in excess of forty hours in a workweek, Nine violated the NMMWA. 54.

Sams and the other Class Members seek the amount of their underpayments based

on Nine’s failure to pay 1 and ½ time their regular rates of pay for work performed in excess of 40 hours in a week, an amount equal to twice these underpayments as liquidated damages, and such other legal and equitable relief resulting from Nine’s violations of the NMMWA as the Court deems just and proper.

55.

Sams and the other Class Members seek recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs of this

action to be paid by Nine, as provided by the NMMWA. 6

Case 2:16-cv-00533-CG-GBW Document 1 Filed 06/07/16 Page 7 of 8

PRAYER Sams prays for relief as follows: A.

An order certifying Sams’ claims under the NMMWA as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 appointing Sams as the class representative, and appointing his counsel as Class Counsel;

B.

Judgment awarding Sams and the New Mexico Class Members all unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees and costs under the NMMWA;

C.

An award of interest on all amounts awarded at the highest rate allowable by law;

D.

An order requiring Nine to reclassify the New Mexico Class Members as nonexempt employees and require Nine to post any such order in its place of business; and

E.

All such other and further relief that Plaintiff and the New Mexico Class Members are justly entitled.

7

Case 2:16-cv-00533-CG-GBW Document 1 Filed 06/07/16 Page 8 of 8

Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Milad K. Farah Milad K. Farah New Mexico Bar No. 140793 GUERRA & FARAH, PLLC 1231 E Missouri Ave., El Paso, Texas 79902 Tel: (915) 533-0880 Fax: (915) 533-1155 mkf@gflawoffices.com - AND Michael A. Josephson Texas Bar No. 24014780 (Pending Pro Hac Vice) Andrew W. Dunlap Texas Bar No. 24078444 (Pending Pro Hac Vice) Lindsay R. Itkin Texas Bar No. 24068647 (Pending Pro Hac Vice) FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet St. Houston, Texas 77005 Tel: (713) 751-0025 Fax: (713) 751-0030 mjosephson@fibichlaw.com litkin@fibichlaw.com adunlap@fibichlaw.com - AND Richard J. (Rex) Burch Texas Bar No. 24001807 (Pending Pro Hac Vice) BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, Texas 77046 713-877-8788 – Telephone 713-877-8065 – Facsimile rburch@brucknerburch.com ATTORNEYS IN CHARGE FOR PLAINTIFF

8