Pearson v. Colt Oilfield Services, LLC et al

Western District of Texas, txwd-5:2018-cv-01029

Original ANSWER to {{9}} Amended Complaint with Jury Demand. Attorney Jenna C. Castleman added to party Roy E Aguilar (pty:dft), Attorney Jenna C. Castleman added to party Colt Oilfield Services, LLC(pty:dft) by Roy E Aguilar, Colt Oilfield Services, LLC, Total Tank Systems, LLC.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION DOUGLAS PEARSON, JAMES ADKINS, § and on all others similarly situated, § PLAINTIFFS, § § V. § CIVIL ACTION 5:18-CV-01029 § JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COLT OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC, § TOTAL TANK SYSTEMS, LLC, § AND ROY (EDDIE) AGUILAR, § DEFENDANTS. § ______________________________________________________________________________ ORIGINAL ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS COLT OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC, TOTAL TANK, AND ROY (EDDIE) AGUILAR ______________________________________________________________________________ TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUDGE ORLANDO GARCIA: COME NOW Colt Oilfield Services, LLC, Total Tank Systems, LLC ("Total Tank") (subject to Total Tank's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), filed concurrently with this pleading), and Roy (Eddie) Aguilar, Defendants in the above-styled and numbered cause, and file their Original Answer to Plaintiffs' First Amended Class and Collective Action Complaint and respectfully show the Court the following: I. DEFENDANTS COLT OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC, TOTAL TANK, AND ROY (EDDIE) AGUILAR ADMITTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART 1.1 Defendants acknowledge that Plaintiff asserts that this cause of action is brought to recover overtime wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et. seq. and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act, N.M. Stat. Ann. § 50-4-22(D) ("NMWA"). 1 Defendants' Original Answer Pearson, et al. v. Colt Oilfield Services, LLC, et al. 1.2 As alleged in Paragraph 1.2 of Plaintiffs' First Amended Class and Collective Complaint ("Complaint"), Defendants admit that their business consists of providing customers with the delivery and operation of oilfield equipment at customer well sites in Texas, New Mexico, and other oil-producing regions throughout the United States. 1.3 Defendants admit that Plaintiff Douglas Pearson ("Pearson") was employed by Colt Oilfield Services, LLC ("Colt"). Pearson was not employed by Total Tank, nor was he employed by Roy E. Aguilar ("Eddie Aguilar") in his individual capacity. Defendants admit that Plaintiff James Adkins ("Adkins") was employed by Colt. Adkins was not employed by Total Tank, nor was he employed by Eddie Aguilar in his individual capacity. Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny whether the potential class members were employed by Defendants and whether these potential class members performed a particular type of service for Defendants' customers. 1.4 Defendants admit the allegations listed in Paragraph 1.4 of the Complaint, as they pertain to the named Plaintiffs, Pearson and Adkins. Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations as they pertain to potential class members. 1.5 Defendants deny the allegations listed in Paragraph 1.5 of the Complaint. 1.6 Defendants deny the allegations listed in Paragraph 1.6 of the Complaint. 1.7 Defendants admit the allegations listed in Paragraph 2.4 of the Complaint 1.8 Defendants admit the allegations listed in Paragraph 2.5 of the Complaint. 1.9 Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations listed in Paragraph 2.6 of the Complaint. 1.10 Defendants deny the allegations listed in Paragraph 2.7 of the Complaint. 1.11 Defendants admit the allegations listed in Paragraph 2.8 of the Complaint. 2 Defendants' Original Answer Pearson, et al. v. Colt Oilfield Services, LLC, et al. 1.12 Defendants admit the allegations listed in Paragraph 2.9 of the Complaint. 1.13 Defendants admit the allegations listed in Paragraph 2.10 of the Complaint. 1.14 Defendants admit the allegations listed in Paragraph 3.11 of the Complaint. 1.15 Defendants deny the allegations listed in Paragraph 3.12 of the Complaint. 1.16 Defendants deny the allegations listed in Paragraph 3.13 of the Complaint. 1.17 Defendants admit that Colt and Eddie Aguilar have acted in the interest of an employer with respect to the named Plaintiffs, Pearson and Adkins. Total Tank has not acted in the interest of an employer with respect to the named Plaintiffs. Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny whether any of the Defendants acted as an employer to the potential class members, as alleged in Paragraph 4.14 of the Complaint. 1.18 Defendants deny that Total Tank has been an employer with respect to the named Plaintiffs. Defendants admit the other allegations listed in Paragraph 4.15 of the Complaint. 1.19 Defendants admit the allegations listed in Paragraph 4.16 of the Complaint. 1.20 Defendants admit the allegations listed in Paragraph 4.17 of the Complaint. 1.21 Defendants admit the allegations listed in Paragraph 4.18 of the Complaint, to the extent that the allegations relate to the named Plaintiffs, Pearson and Adkins. Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations as they relate to potential class members. 1.22 Defendants admit the allegations listed in Paragraph 5.20 of the Complaint. 1.23 Defendants admit that Eddie Aguilar was the owner and managing member of Colt and Total Tank. Defendants deny that Eddie Aguilar has joint employer liability. Defendants deny all other allegations listed in Paragraph 5.21 of the Complaint. 1.24 Defendants admit that Colt and Total Tank share a single mailing address and principal place of business. Defendants admit that Eddie Aguilar serves both in a managerial and 3 Defendants' Original Answer Pearson, et al. v. Colt Oilfield Services, LLC, et al. ownership capacity. Defendants admit that Colt and Total Tank are engaged in activities that relate to services for oilfield operations, but Defendants deny that Colt and Total Tank engage in related activities that are performed for a common business purpose in a unified operation, as alleged in Paragraph 5.22 of the Complaint. 1.25 Defendants deny that Plaintiff Pearson was employed by Total Tank, as alleged in Paragraph 5.23 of the Complaint. Defendants admit that Plaintiff Pearson was employed by Colt. 1.26 Defendants deny the Plaintiff Adkins was employed by Total Tank, as alleged in Paragraph 5.24 of the Complaint. Defendants admit that Plaintiff Adkins worked for Colt. Defendants further deny that Adkins worked from approximately April 2017 to May 2018. Rather, Colt's employment records show Adkins' employment began February 27, 2017 and continued to March 21, 2018. 1.27 Defendants admit the allegations listed in Paragraph 5.25 of the Complaint to the extent that the allegations related to the named Plaintiffs, Pearson and Adkins. Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations as they related to potential class members. 1.28 Defendants admit the allegations listed in Paragraph 5.26 of the Complaint to the extent that the allegations related to the named Plaintiffs, Pearson and Adkins. Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations as they related to potential class members. 1.29 Defendants admit the allegations listed in Paragraph 5.27 of the Complaint to the extent that the allegations related to the named Plaintiffs, Pearson and Adkins. Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations as they related to potential class members. 1.30 Defendants admit that named Plaintiffs, Pearson and Adkins, performed manual and technical labor to provide the services that Colt offers to its customers. 1.31 Defendants deny the allegations listed in Paragraph 5.29 of the Complaint. 4 Defendants' Original Answer Pearson, et al. v. Colt Oilfield Services, LLC, et al. 1.32 Defendants deny the allegations listed in Paragraph 5.30 of the Complaint. 1.33 Defendants deny the allegations listed in Paragraph 5.31 of the Complaint. 1.34 Defendants deny the allegations listed in Paragraph 5.32 of the Complaint. 1.35 Defendants admit the allegations listed in Paragraph 5.33 of the Complaint as they related to the named Plaintiffs, Pearson and Adkins. Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations as they relate to potential class members. 1.36 Defendants admit that the named Plaintiffs, Pearson and Adkins, sometimes worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. 1.37 Defendants deny the allegations listed in Paragraph 5.35 of the Complaint. 1.38 Defendants deny the allegations listed in Paragraph 5.36 of the Complaint. 1.39 Defendants admit that Colt and Eddie Aguilar were aware that the named Plaintiffs, Pearson and Adkins, sometimes worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. 1.40 Defendants admit that Plaintiffs Pearson and Adkins were entitled to, and did receive, compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. 1.41 Defendants deny the allegations listed in Paragraph 5.39 of the Complaint. 1.42 Defendants deny the allegations listed in Paragraph 6.40 of the Complaint. 1.43 Defendants deny the allegations listed in Paragraph 6.41 of the Complaint. 1.44 Defendants deny the allegations listed in Paragraph 6.42 of the Complaint. 1.45 Defendants deny the allegations listed in Paragraph 6.43 of the Complaint. 1.46 Defendants deny the allegations listed in Paragraph 6.44 of the Complaint. 1.47 Defendants deny the allegations listed in Paragraph 6.45 of the Complaint. 1.48 Defendants deny the allegations listed in Paragraph 6.46 of the Complaint. 1.49 Defendants deny the allegations listed in Paragraph 6.47 of the Complaint. 5 Defendants' Original Answer Pearson, et al. v. Colt Oilfield Services, LLC, et al. 1.50 Defendants deny the allegations listed in Paragraph 6.48 of the Complaint. 1.51 Defendants deny the allegations listed in Paragraph 6.49 of the Complaint. 1.52 Defendants deny the allegations listed in Paragraph 6.50 of the Complaint. 1.53 Defendants deny the allegations listed in Paragraph 6.51 of the Complaint. 1.54 Defendants deny all allegations listed in Paragraphs 7.52 through 7.54 of the Complaint. 1.55 Defendants deny all allegations listed in Paragraphs 8.55 through 8.60 of the Complaint. II. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendants Colt Oilfield Services, LLC, Total Tank, and Roy (Eddie) Aguilar pray that the Court enter judgment denying all relief requested by Plaintiffs, and that if the judgment of the Court is appropriate, Defendants recover their costs of court, and all other relief to which Defendants may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, GOODE CASSEB JONES RIKLIN CHOATE & WATSON, P.C. 2122 North Main Avenue San Antonio, Texas 78212 Tel: (210) 733-6030 Fax: (210) 733-0330 By: /s/ Kyle C. Watson__________________________ Kyle C. Watson State Bar No. 20971100 Email: watson@goodelaw.com Jenna C. Castleman State Bar No. 24105583 Email: castleman@goodelaw.com 6 Defendants' Original Answer Pearson, et al. v. Colt Oilfield Services, LLC, et al. ATTORNEYS FOR COLT OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC, TOTAL TANK, AND ROY (EDDIE) AGUILAR, DEFENDANTS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on November 28, 2018, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was sent via electronic mail to all counsel listed below and to all parties listed on the Court's ECF filing system. Jack Siegel jack@siegellawgroup.biz Siegel Law Group PLLC 2820 McKinnon, Suite 5009 Dallas, Texas 75201 Tel: (214) 790-4454 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF ___/s/ Jenna C. Castleman_______ Jenna C. Castleman 7 Defendants' Original Answer Pearson, et al. v. Colt Oilfield Services, LLC, et al.